environmental guarantees and worker safety guarantees, how is that going to be enforced in an international environment? pedro: our reporter guests for "newsmakers" this week, kathy kiley of bloomberg politics their washington news director and steven thome, the white house reporter and political editor. to both of you, thanks for being on the show. >> tonight on "q&a" author jessica stern on isis and what we need to understand about them. justessica: there are two aspects that are very important for the president to understand. one is their efforts on social media and the need for us to respond to that, to counter the message that they are spreading

so effectively and so far. the other is there apocalyptic narrative. of course, it is impossible for me to know for sure if they believe the end times are coming or whether they are capitalizing on widespread believe in muslim majority countries that they will witness the end of time. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> the head of the joint enforcement administration was on capitol hill last week to testify about allegations of sexual misconduct by dea agents overseas. this comes from a report that said that agents attended --

this hearing is held by the house oversight committee. it is just over three hours. rep. chaffetz: we are here today to talk about an alarming problem in our country's premier law enforcement agency. the latest report from the department of justice outlines a number of problems that both law enforcement officers and the agency that manages them. the report outlines a number of key problems. law enforcement at home and abroad engaged in sexual

misconduct that jeopardized our national security. secondly, where they worked mishandled the incidence failing to and properly report them leading to insufficient punishment. third, the dea tried to hide this from the inspector general by withholding information and encouraging employees to not cooperate with the inspector general. hiding information from the inspector general is simply unacceptable. the department of justice report highlights a number of findings about federal law enforcement. one of the most shocking incidents, mr. horace details in the report, an incident with prostitutes in columbia, paid by drug cartels. the fact that this happened was

bad enough. none of these agents were even punished by the dea. most of the agents involved were suspended for a few days, and allowed to return to work with their security clearances and full. based on the testimonies we have read by the dea administrator she says that she does not have the power to fire these people. i do not buy it. the american people do not buy it. for the thousands of men and women who serve honorably, put their life on the line, this administration, this administrator has to hold those people accountable and get them out of there. if this is the kind of behavior they will engage in, it is completely unacceptable, they should get a security clearance and get fired. some of these compromise our national security, and essentially got a vacation. punishment was to to 10 days off

-- 2-10 days off of unpaid leave. that sounds to me like vacation, not punishment. again, i want to remind our members, this is a matter of national security. we are talking about people's lives. the dea, as much as anybody puts people overseas in very difficult and tough situations. when we repeatedly do behavior compromising national security they need to lose that national security clearance and be fired. the report highlights repeated abuses of sexual misconduct including underreported cases of officers sleeping with students,

managers sexually harassing employees and asking them to watch pornography. the report also makes clear that when law-enforcement agents engaged in an appropriate and illicit sexual behavior, the agency that they work for oftentimes simply looks the other way. these cases are treated as quote local management issues. in other words, they're basically swept under the rug. adding to the concerns raised in this report is the fact that the dea and the fbi tried to hide these incidents from their own inspector general. the dea, and the fbi when out of the way to hide. they provided heavily redacted documents, and even told the employees to not cooperate. for example, the inspector general asked the dea to run

more than 40 search terms, to search their database and identify relevant relevant information. the three terms, of the 40 that they ran included sex, prosti s, and exposure. not included work harassment, and the list goes on. why exclude the search terms that the inspector general asked for? it is not the dea possibly sponsor though the two week that out. your job is to allow the inspector general to get in there, get their fingernails dirty, and find out the truth. that is not what happened. i want to put up a slide here. when the dea finally did provide information, after significant delay, in some cases, documents were so heavily redacted, the ig

could not even tell what it was about. this is the type of documentation that the ig was given by you at the dea. we want answers as to why that is. the good men and women who work at the inspector general's office do tough difficult work, but they cannot do anything if they get that type of material from the dea. it is not just the dea, it is the fbi, other agencies as well. it is not acceptable. we have a lot of questions for our witnesses here today testifying on behalf of the dea and the fbi. it is incumbent on these agencies to the overwhelming men and women who do their job and a patriotic way. god bless you. we need you, we love you. it is also irresponsible management to not deal with

bad apples. people will make mistakes. this went on and on. multiple reports of sex parties to the point that the landlord was exit complaining back to our government on how to control our own federal employees serving overseas. again, the people who cause these problems, i understand are a small population of the total population that have not then held accountable for their dangerous last-in gutter. i would like to enter two documents into the record. first, from our attorney general, eric holder prohibition on the solicitation of prostitution. how bad is it? one of his last acts as attorney general, eric holder has to go forward and issued a memorandum saying you cannot do this,

again. it is almost embarrassing that he had to do this. i appreciate he does it. it clarifies some misunderstanding that is out there. i also want to enter into the record a document that responds -- from the office of inspector general to the office of nina from michael dixon, the acting chief inspector. saying "dea did a second review of the cases to determine if the office of professional responsibility had appropriately investigate these allegations it was found through the review that the investigations were investigated properly through dea's process."

basically telling the inspector general that yes, we did everything we could, it was properly investigated through dea's disciplinary process. that is a sad day for the dea. with that, i will now yield to the gentleman in maryland, the ranking member, representative cummings. rep. cummings: at the beginning of the inspector general report is a well-known doctrine for law enforcement officers. it's of the says, and i quote given the nature of their work federal law enforcement employees are held to the highest standards of conduct and must be accountable for their actions, both on and off duty. although it should be off obvious, it bears repeating today and every day, the

inspector general's report details conduct that is simply deplorable for anyone, let alone law-enforcement officials serving the united states of america. the report describes allegations that a colombian police officer and i quote arranged sex parties , funded by the local drug cartels for the dea agents in their government leased headquarters. although the inspector general report describes activities between 2005 and 2008, our committee has obtained new documents that some of these allegations were made far earlier. some date back as early as 2001.

in response to the committee's request, the dea has now produced 88 internal reports issued by his office of professional responsibility. one of these in particular, case number -- goes into great detail about these allegations. however, the agency has warned that releasing the entire report could and i quote expose witnesses and victims, so we must summarize its findings today. this new internal report details years of allegations, beginning in 2001, that portray dea agents as completely out of control. they appear to have fraternize with cartel members, accepted lavish gifts, and paid for

prostitutes with no concern whatsoever for the negative repercussions of the security vulnerability they created. this new internal report described not one or two isolated incidents, but literally dozens of parties with prostitutes with dea agents using government funds, and government offices. chairman might staff created a summary of this report and i asked for unanimous consent that it be included in the record. this out documents behavior. i asked how this could continue

for so long for the better part of a decade without being addressed. the head of his agency, michelle leonhart, is here with us today. giving her extended tenure at dea during the same timeframe of these abuses, we will have very direct questions for her. the administrator was nominated by president bush in 2003, served as deputy administer as dea. she began serving as an acting administrator in 2007 and president bush nominated her to serve as administrator in 2008. she was nominated again by president obama and confirmed by the senate in 2010. the inspector general reports, and i quote, says that the dea supervisors treated alleged sexual misconduct and sexual harassment as a local management or performance related issue .

it also finds that when the administrator learned about these allegations, her agency imposed extremely light penalties. for example, when she was informed about wild parties involving prostitutes she, and i quote, council of 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 counseling sessions and suspensions of two weeks or less for misconduct like this, what incentive do women employees have to report sexual harassment by their supervisors? on friday, the attorney general

sent a letter to the committee outlining that steps to -- outlining steps to address the issues. it includes re-examining security clearances of those involved reviewing dea receipts when investigating misconduct, and prohibiting the solicitation of prostitution, regardless of whether it may be legal overseas. these steps are critical, but they are clearly long overdue. if the first instance of this misconduct happened in 2001. finally, these problems transcend politics. on march 27, the chairman and i wrote a bipartisan letter to dea announcing our investigation and we are fully committed to working together to investigate these incidents, how the agency

responded, and whether additional steps are needed to help prevent this conduct from ever happening again, and with that, i yield back. rep. chaffetz: i will hold the record over five which is a day for any member who would like to submit a written statement. we will not recognize our first and only panel of witnesses. please welcome the honorable michelle leonhart, administered of the drug enforcement agency. the honorable michael horowitz , inspector general of the united states department of justice, and mr. kevin perkins, associate deputy director of the fbi, the federal bureau of investigation. we welcome all of you and thank you for being here. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses must be sworn before they testify. please rise and raise your right hand. let the record reflect that all

witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow for questions please limit your testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will be incorporated into the record. michele leonhart: distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the inspector general's report. the dea has a single mission, to enforce our nation's drug laws. our more than 9000 employees including over 4600 special agents are dedicated to the single mission, and each one of us took an oath, the same i took over 30 years ago to serve the citizens of the united states with honor, professionalism and pride.

dea 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 the investigation and arrest of leaders of the most violent and sophisticated drug cartels in the world. unfortunately, poor choices made by a few individuals can tarnish the reputation and overshadowed the outstanding work being done at the dea. 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. to see the integrity of my agency and a federal law enforcement, which i've been a part of for nearly my entire professional life, damaged by these allegations has not been easy. this conduct is a violation of high professional standards of conduct of the men and women of the dea are held to come and

undermines our effectiveness in fulfilling our mission. and as noted in the report this behavior is contrary to the behavior of the overwhelming majority of those of dea. although the oig audit generally found that the were relatively few reported allegations suspected of harassment and such misconduct, the serious allegations oig highlighted are certainly troubling, and describe behaviors that cannot be ignored. in particular, the allegations that agents assigned in bogota engaged in prostitution and accepted gifts from drug traffickers was pursued by our office of professional responsibility. however, the resulting investigation left some questions unanswered. even though the events in question occurred between 2001-2004 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 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 within the dea. this behavior should not be rewarded. as outlined in my written statement, dea concurred with and has begun influencing -- implementing changes responsive to each of the oig recommendations. however, 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 prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. dea has taken specific concrete steps to accomplish this including ensuring that it is clearly understood by all dea employs that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. outlining the steps employees and supervisors must take when incidents occur, increasing training for all employees especially those employees assigned overseas. further clarifying the guidelines for disciplinary offense, and improving internal procedures to appropriate individuals and field management and the office of security programs and in the office of professional responsibility are made probably aware of -- made properly aware of allegations and can take appropriate action in a timely manner. in closing, i want to reiterate that the kind of activity reported by the oig has not and will not be tolerated. oig plays an important role in reviewing our policies and procedures, and i'm committed to

working with the oig to ensure 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, dea well respond to this kind of misconduct that on -- head on and with the decisive resolve you and the public expect the we are open to further recommendations so that we can continuously improve our policies, policies that demand the highest level of personal and professional integrity from our employees. and thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. rep. chaffetz: thank you. we now recognize mr. horowitz for five minutes. michael horowitz: mr. chairman, mr. cummings and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. federal agents are held to the highest standards of conduct both on and off duty. as a former federal prosecutor and as an inspector general it has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of the

department agents meet those high standards and perform the work with great integrity and honor. thereby helping keeping, keep our communities safe and our country safe. nevertheless, we find instances where law enforcement agents in the cage in a series of conduct and even criminal violations affecting the agency's reputation, potentially compromising prosecutions, and possibly affecting the security of the agents and agency operation. 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 oig conducted to wo reviews. one relating to department policies and training involving off to the conduct employees working in foreign countries and one relating to the handling of allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct

by the departments law enforcement components. our off duty conducts report found policies or training requirements pertaining to update conduct with in the united states or in other countries. this was particularly concerning given that we made recommendations back in 1996 in an oig report involving allegations at the time of the department law enforcement agents off duty conduct. despite those earlier recommendations we found little had changed in the intervening two decades. we did find, however, that the fbi made changes including providing comprehensive training for its employees took to make -- to help them make appropriate day-to-day decisions about off duty conduct while working abroad. however, we found the other three department law enforcement components contained little or no information about off duty conduct before sending employees abroad. having only one of four law enforcement components effectively preparing its employees for overseas assignments, demonstrates the need for departmentwide training

and policies. in march 2015, we issued a report on the nature for consumer reporting investigation and adjudication of allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct in the departments four law enforcement components. the report identified significant systemic issues that require prompt corrective action by the department. these issues include a lack of correlation between internal affairs offices and security personnel, failure to meet report misconduct allegation to component headquarters, go to investigate allegations fully, weaknesses in the adjudication process and weaknesses in detecting and preserving sexual explicit text messages and images. together are reviews demonstrate the need to improve discipline and security processes. as well as particularly to communicate doj's, the committee gave doj and components employees the expectation for employee

conduct. strong and unequivocal action from departments and competent leadership at all levels is critical to ensure that department appointed by high standard of conduct that are held fully accountable for any misconduct. as we also describe in a march 2016 report the failure by the dea and fbi to probably provide information we requested significant heeded our review. both agencies raise baseless legal objections and only relented when i elevated the issue to agency leadership. however even then the information we received was still incomplete. we, therefore, cannot be confident that the fbi and dea provide us with all information relevant to this review. in addition after we completed our draft report we learn the dea failed to conduct the entire search of its database we had requested. in order to conduct effective oversight the oig must have timely complete access to documents and materials. this review starkly demonstrates the danger in allowing the department and its components to decide on their own what documents they will share with the oig.

the delays we've experienced in heeded our work, delayed our -- impeded our work, unfortunately this was not an isolated incident. rather we faced repeated instances in which our timely access to records has been impeded. congress recognizes this impairment, pertaining to department from impeding untimely access to records. nevertheless, the fbi continues to proceed exactly as it did before section 218 was adopted. spending a prorated funds to review records to see if they should be withheld. we are approaching the one-year anniversary. if that opinion remains outstanding, and we have been given a timely for its issuance,

although the oig has been told that the opinion is a priority billing of time that has passed suggests otherwise. instead, the status quo continues. the american public deserves and expects an oig that is able to conduct rigorous oversight of the department's activities. unfortunately, our ability is undercut everything is by without resolution on this dispute. i would to thank the committee again for its bipartisan support for our work and i'm pleased to answer any questions you may have. 4rep. chaffetz: we will not recognize mr. perkins. perkins: numbers of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to berg -- appear before you today on issues raised in the inspector general's audit. the fbi policy on sexual

harassment and sexual misconduct is very simple. the fbi does not tolerate sexual harassment or sexual misconduct within the ranks. the fbi has a robust disciplinary process guided by well-established policies, procedures, and practices. they consist of trained special agents in the inspection divisions, internal investigation section who conduct thorough investigations of employee misconduct. when investigations are completed, the team of a sprint lawyers of the fbi's office of rational response ability take over. reviewing investigative materials in determining whether applicable policies, rules, regulations, laws, or other legal standards for 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 fbi prior to any investigation being initiated and all final adjudications at the fbi are

reported on a regular basis to the oig. we are pleased that the office of inspector general found relatively few reported allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the department law enforcement component for fiscal years 2009 two 2012. the oig found of the fbi had the lowest rate of this kind of missed -- misconduct. while we strive to have no cases of sexual harassment or misconduct, we have and we will continue to implement measures to better address these types of allegations. we are also pleased that the oig recognizes the fbi's coronation between our internal investigation section and our security division as a best practice to ensure that misconduct allegations are evaluated for potential security concerns, including continued eligibility to hold a security clearance. notwithstanding these findings there are improvements to be

made. we must always look to improve evolve as an organization. we appreciate the recommendations for making our process better. as a result the fbi concurs with the recommendation in the oig report. the fbi takes very seriously are all caps -- our obligation to conduct effective oversight of over activities. we work closely with the oig staff to ensure they are responsive to their requests and issues are identified and probably result. -- promptly resolved. we have a good-faith disagreement with the oig result -- regarding what law requires in respect to providing fbi documents that it obtained pursuant to provisions of law such as the wiretap act, the bank secrecy act, and those related to grand jury proceedings. we have been completely transparent with the oig, the leadership of the department of justice with respect to our legal disagreement and are

presently awaiting the office of legal counsel to render an opinion as to the weather -- the correct reading of the law. we are given the oig the associate of access to these -- and these audits with respect to title iii. senior leadership is also directed that our internal business process consulting group rigorously evaluate our processes to ensure that we are as effective and efficient as possible in providing the inspector general with requested documents and a timely fashion consistent with the law. chairman chick is, members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today concerning our commitment to ensuring allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct are addressed in a prompt, thorough, and equitable manner. we take a responsibilities very seriously and appreciate your interest in these matters. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

rep. chaffetz: mr. perkins, i completely disagree with your assessment. that is a topic we will discuss today, but i find it comes to be totally inconsistent with what the inspector general is telling us. we need to hash that out. it is one of the reasons you are here today. i want to focus on the dea for a moment. do you have any questions administrator, as to the accuracy of the oig report? you do not question the accuracy, do you? leonhart: i do not question the accuracy. rep. chaffetz: this included allegations and examples of dea agents participating in so-called sex parties where local police were watching dea equipment. included "a loud party incident"

which one would consider bad judgment and allowing prostitutes and allowing those in close proximity to dea agents to be in these agents rooms and housing. you wouldn't that have a problem with these -- this going away party that involved a dea assistant regional director at his residence. you would not disagree than with the assessment there are multiple accounts of landlord complaining's -- complaining about the loud parties going on? is it wrong for prostitutes to be in government housing? leonhart: it is deplorable behavior by those agents. it is absolutely a violation of policy. $ i rep. chaffetz: rep. chaffetz: is it wrong to have a foreign national in close proximity to a dea agent close

to their guns, personal effects, computers, smart phones? leonhart: of course it poses a security risk which is why these are serious allegations. rep. chaffetz: if you do any investigations into the age of the women involved? leonhart: the investigation although 10 years later, the investigation -- rep. chaffetz: don't try to paint a picture that this is an incident 10 years ago. there was an instance in july 2009, where a dea agent in bogota was accused of physically assaulting a prostitute over a payment dispute. as security guards witnessed this agent throwing a glass and hitting the woman. this agent then claimed the woman had a seizure while she was in the bathroom and cut herself on a candlestick. it was later admitted that he did engage with a prostitute. deal with the punishment 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 actions suggest otherwise. there was not the consequence that should have happened. this person was imposing a national security risk. engaging and the behavior that is embarrassing that we have to talk about it. it is an embarrassment that you do not fire the person. it is embarrassment that you do not revoke his security clearance. why can you revert the secure declarant? what prohibits you from provoking -- revoking this person's security clearance? leonhart: everything you said about the behavior i agree with. as far as the disciplinary entities that were handed out in that case, i'm very disappointed in that -- rep. chaffetz: you are the administrator. leonhart: the system set up following civil-service laws, i

do not fire. rep. chaffetz: can you revoke security clearance? leonhart: i can ensure there is a mechanism -- like i did after the cartagena incident, make sure that there is a mechanism in place for those -- for security review. which resulted in those three agents having their security clearances revoked and -- rep. chaffetz: here is the concern. high profile. it is in all the media. everyone is reporting about the secret service engaging with prostitutes. those people have the discipline. but when it is quiet and no one hears about it and he comes across your desk, and your senior staff, can you show me another example of people were engaging in prostitution and creating these national security problems where you revoked their security clearances? in this case, that is not what happened.

that was not too long ago. you are not disputing any the fact that show up in the report. is there a statute of limitations? is there a limit you cannot reach? yet, you'll love this person who engages a prostitute, throws glass at her breaks the skin and there was blood all over the place, and they are still employed at the dea? and you allow that? you are allowing that. did you try to fire them? did you try to revoke their security clearance? do need to change the law? what do we do? leonhart: you could look at an extension like the fbi has. myself and of the 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 was a result by cartagena where they had done these deplorable activities. that it is investigated and that a decision is made by the agency without appeal rights to the msp b. del. plaskett:rep. chaffetz: when it is high profile you take action. when it is not high profile and a woman is concerned you do not take action. -- i have exceeded my time. if the both -- if both the fbi and dea are sincere about rooting out this problem, you need to allow the inspector general to look at the information. why do you continue to prohibit him from seeing that information? why you hold it back? why not do all 45 search

terms? why do you really do three? i have to question your sincerity about rooting out this problem if you do not know the extent of the problem. you do not know the extent of the cases because he will not allow the inspector general and his staff to actually look at the cases that are there. you are limiting the inspector from doing their job. which is to help you, help us, help them, health or at the agency. i need you to explain the answer that wheel to the ranking member. go ahead. leonhart: moving forward because there is a number of things that i put in place after cartagena and you should know the other incidents i learned about after cartagena, but they had already been to the system. what we put in place in cartagena moving forward is the model for how we will -- rep. chaffetz: is the model to

impede the inspector general to look at the information? why can't the id look at this? leonhart: and those cases when they were first reported reported immediately over to the oig. they handed this case is back to us to handle as management -- as a management review. we felt the behavior was so outrageous they needed to be investigated. what we have put in place -- rep. chaffetz: you still can to the same conclusion that we would have come to. my time is far exceeded, but you gave them to to 10 days pay me -- paid leave and you did not take disciplinary action. i need to yield to the gym and for maryland. del. plaskett: thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you all.

of course, we all find reports of sexual harassment and misconduct particularly -- the actions of the dea spanning back to 2001 extreme the troubling. the american people seem understandably outraged over this behavior. and particularly women. the ig report states "sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the also affect employee morale. they hamper the employee's ability to retain effective working relationships." can you explain how sexual harassment and sexual misconduct can impact employee mile? -- morale? horowitz: it has a debilitating effect when individuals in the workplace try to report the information and see no results. that is one of the things we highlight here that is particularly concerning.

when, for example, and three the incidents we identified -- and one of them -- in one of them it was reported -- these are the three matters involving the dea. one is reported in june of 2010 through an anonymous letter. that is how that information is forwarded. the 2001-2004 events that are referred to in the documents as "sex parties" are not reported until 2009 -- two dozen 10 when law-enforcement officers are charged. del. plaskett: what is the rationale that was given why the reported? horowitz: they were reviewed locally and did not need to be reported. they were not dealt with and that is the concern we identified. on the third incident we reported, that was sent to the oig and the dea by the state department. not through the dea.

employees in the organization not only need to know they have a safe work environment to go to and a non-hostile work environment, but they need to know they can come forward report allegations and are going to be taken seriously and they will be addressed promptly. del. plaskett: thank you. you spoke about how your own outrage for -- i can play the understand that. i was raised by a new york city police officer that says every good cop hates the most the back top because they make all the good cops -- a completely take everyone else. do you agree that sexual harassment notably -- negatively impact for our? -- morale. leonhart: i know it has the potential to do that and that is why -- del. plaskett: i asked you if it has affected the morale.

leonhart: in the offices were employees attended to report misconduct, and there was nothing that happened -- i can imagine that those employees felt they lost face -- state in the agency. in a number of cases where they are reported up, they are investigated. the supervisors take immediate action, healthy employees who come forward with the complaint. i see over my 35 years in the dea a huge change. more willingness to report. what willingness for supervisors to help that employee became 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.

that is interesting -- del. plaskett: you just stated to the chairman that you do not have any control of discipline. do you are do not have say over the discipline of these individuals? leonhart: i am not in the process for investigating proposing, are handing out discipline. what i can do is what it did a year ago. i sent out a directive to every dea 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 types of instances they should be severe discipline handed out. del. plaskett: what would you

consider secure discipline? leonhart: i would consider what happened with the card eight -- carnahan agents to be severe discipline. del. plaskett: what about the agents ever given paid leave? leonhart: i am not happy about that. i'm very disappointed -- del. plaskett: you are not in the disciplinary process but you are responsible for? leonhart: i'm responsible to set up a mechanism to send messages to our employees to hold people accountable if they are not going to -- if they're going to conduct this misbehavior, that they faced significant 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 two, hold managers accountable for not reporting. and number three, make sure that

we set up a process, have good inspectors. i was one it one time. do the investigation so that our disciplinary process, our border conduct that purports is that -- reposes and decides, has all the information they need to be able to impose severe discipline. del. plaskett: don't you believe that the morale of your agents and the good men and women of the agency would of been better served and they would believe that you really sit behind that if the information had been more fully and quickly forthcoming to the inspector general? how can you say that you are -- were not pleased with the discipline when you in your agency impeded the investigation at the ig level? leonhart: the ig gave the investigation back to the dea. del. plaskett: they gave it to

-- they gave the portion and disappointed individuals, not the systemic problems in the agency. 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. as we investigated and we have 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. i'm very disappointed that our discipline system did not do any needed to do and we have to fix it. i have put mechanisms in place moving forward to make sure that that does not happen again. because i do not believe that discipline that was doled out in those cases that the chairman mentioned is even close to what should be.

del. plaskett: i have run out of the generous time i've been given. mr. chairman, it is my assessment that the discussion here and the actions already complete disconnect. >> we now recognize the german from florida for five minutes. rep. mica: let me follow up on some of the questioning that is taken place as to whether there was a full investigation of this whole matter. you claim, administrator, that there was a full investigation of the matter. all of these sexual harassment's , sexual assault issues that have been raised that were part of the inspector general's review. just tell us.

you believe they were fully investigated? leonhart: i believe they were investigated. i have concerns about their completeness, their thoroughness on couple of the investigations. rep. mica: you agree that that -- that there was not a thorough investigation of all the incidents? leonhart: i agree that some of the incidents were not fully investigated, yes. rep. mica: that was your position. that in itself racist great questions, when the inspector general says that these incidents were not fully investigated. that is a big issue right there. i yield -- rep. chaffetz: march 26, of this year you as the administrator

sent this e-mail out within your agency and said these allegations were fully investigated by the dea office of professional responsibility. i yield back. rep. mica: there seems to be a conflict between what the chairman has just cited as we've had his previous testimony in with the inspector general says. that being said, i have some questions. you say you do not have the authority, but you took the authority postcard hanna. -- post-carnahan. you have been there since 2010, is that right? you did not just arrive on the block? and you see the conduct that took place in 2006 2008, the sex parties. the assaults.

all of these things that were going on. carnahan was what, two years ago? leonhart: 2012. rep. mica: you set up a culture within the agency that you can get away with this. you must've known some of this was going on. cartagena brought it to the press in our attention of the size and scope of what was going on. the thing that concerns me is before that, some of the people who were involved -- it looks like they attended a sex party. one agent was cleared of any wrongdoing. seven out of 10 agents ultimately attended the parties engaging with prostitutes. it looks like the penalty they got was suspension of a few days. i think the most was six days.

that was sort of the standard operating procedure while you are there until carnahan. -- cartagena. that is the penalty they were getting? leonhart: if i can explain, congress and. -- congressman. the first i heard of these sex parties or the behavior that is described in the reports was actually cartagena. when that happens, i became concerned as was this system this -- systemic. we looked at where this activity had occurred. had anyone been discipline for it and we found one bogota case. rep. mica: again, we have instances and we have penalties. most of them only got minor penalties. and it was known that some of this and in -- had posed great

security risk. i guess drug folks were paying for some this activity. and they got anywhere from 4-6 days. only a suspension of 15 days or more is considered serious for adverse employment action. those people went right on working at that time. what i am saying is a culture existed while you were there up to cartagena and there were low penalties. after that, you did -- you took some action and people were actually fired. is that correct? leonhart: yes people -- yes. rep. mica: she doesn't have the right to summarily fire people. she has to go through a process that nearest system protection the protection of title five, and act created by congress. unless you change that law and

give the people the ability to fire people summarily when they are found in a proper process and a speedy process to violate, whether it is sexual assault sexual harassment, you will have this continued -- all these problems continue across the scope of all our civil service system. the only one exception that is the fbi, to give you time to answer how many people you fired. >> the time and no recognizes -- recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. rep. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i would to thank the ranking member for love me to go in his place. how do you hold people accountable if you are not able

to discipline them? 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 sex 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 sex 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 states and tell -- elijah cummings: were they the agent received 14 days off. the regional director take action when he heard about erin he took action immediately. he put in place some mechanisms to make sure that those behaviors or reported promptly. >> who was the highest-ranking dea official who was aware of these misconduct issues?

i am talking about -- let me change that. 2005 to 2009. >> that they were aware with it? probably a group supervisor. >> you have the power to discipline on the regional director? you could have fired him? >> i could not fire him. you have to show misconduct for him to be fired. with what the law allows me to do, he was counseled. >> you feel the he did something wrong? >> he failed to report it when he learned about it. >> you failed to discipline?

>> the discipline available to me was to reprimand him. >> who came up with the suspension? >> the discipline, there has to be misconduct. it 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 opr would not raise to that level. >> if he had reported it, he was supposed to report it. if you reported, there was a possibility that the agent would lose security clearance?

is that right? >> if the process was followed through. >> if they lost security clearance, do they lose their job? >> if you lose your security clearance, you cannot be a special agent. >> you feel the regional director received appropriate discipline? >> i believe he made a mistake by not reporting it. he took action, but it was not the right action. that has not happened with him in the past. he is done a number of things in columbia since that incident to ensure that this does not happen again. >> do you think there is a culture problem here? >> there may have been.

>> may have been? when did it stop? when did it stop? you are assuming that there was a date that you think it stopped. i would like to know what it is. >> when you see what was happening in 2000 to 2004, one group of agents in columbia, i would say that the culture problem. >> im new to the committee. you have said some things today that strike me as unusual. you say you can't fire people. why can't you fire people?

everybody else can be fired. ms. leonhart: under the civil service laws, i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. that's why the process is a three-tiered process. management is not intervening in the disciplinary process. >> who can fire people when they commit this conduct? ms. leonhart: are deciding officials. >> who is a deciding official? ms. leonhart: we have two deciding officials. they are senior dea with prior experience. they make all of the decisions for the agency.

>> are they senior to you? ms. leonhart: they are junior to me. >> could you recommend they fire summoning? somebody junior to you can fire somebody. is that we are telling us? ms. leonhart: as administrator under the civil service act, we have to follow protections. our system is set up that the discipline is decided by these two senior people within the dea. >> they are not senior to you. let's say that you wanted to fire these people. you saw activity that merited firing. does any of this conduct in your mind merit dismissal? ms. leonhart: the activity that has been explained today not

knowing all the facts and not knowing -- >> how do not know all of the facts by now? ms. leonhart: not knowing the same fact that the deciding officials look at. not knowing that, only knowing what the behavior was and what the investigation shows, i took action last year to put the agency on notice that activity like that and i named it, it required significant discipline. that is what our order of conduct was on notice. >> you know how absurd that sounds? ms. leonhart: i could see some in not knowing the civil service system and not understanding our system.

>> let's assume -- let's assume for the sake of this discussion that you saw something that merited dismissal, what would you do? ms. leonhart: i can't intervene in the process. >> had you start the process? ms. leonhart: i can put the agency on notice that this will not be tolerated. i told the deciding officials and the board of conduct that these behaviors required significant discipline. >> is it like this at the other agencies? does everybody deal with these are cane rules question mark --?

mr. horozitz: we have a highly structured disciplinary process. it raises it up to the appropriate levels for the appropriate punishment. there are occasions when the behavior is egregious. mr. horozitz: my understanding is the fbi is unique in that regard. the other three law enforcement components have to follow the title five rule. is true that if you suggest a suspension longer than 14 days no one was ever suspended for more than 14 days, if someone gets a suspension more than 14 days that a merit system takes

over the investigation? ms. leonhart: not quite. if the deciding officials to let discipline and it's more than 14 days, the employee can appeal it. when the employee appeals at it goes to the merit system or it >> who takes over the investigation? ms. leonhart: no one takes over the investigation. it has already been done. this is at the end of the disciplinary process. the dod -- dta -- >> is at internal to you or external? ms. leonhart: it is internal. >> this is just nuts. how we can't fix this i have no idea print she is telling us she does not have the legal

authority what everybody on this committee thinks she should of done. maybe we should fix that. >> as a new member of this body, i keep thinking i've gone through the looking glass and i won't do it again. then you come to a hearing like this and it seems hard to believe. it does bring a number of questions including the collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street. people see this different type of administration of justice. mr. horwitz, what was different between the atf and the u.s. marshals. mr. horozitz: they have been

fully cooperative without our reviews. they have not raise legal objection. they have complied with what we've asked for. >> is it a cultural thing? do you need more enforceability? mr. horozitz: we don't have any enforceability other than my testifying publicly and raising it to the -- and ultimately turns out to be in some instances. it is a repeated problem. >> the individuals involved in these sex parties, accepting weapons, are they still employed? ms. leonhart: the majority are still on the job. >> it seems counterintuitive that they could cut back to work and be model agents. have you had to spend extra time overseeing their job performance? ms. leonhart: the supervisors

and agents in charge, their high level bosses are aware of the conduct. the exception of one we have not seen any misconduct since. >> do they have heightened supervision? ms. leonhart: the supervisors can put them in positions where they can have supervision. >> go back to the question i asked mr. horwitz, why did it take so long to get this information? being aware -- did you think you're spending too much time on this? didn't you admonish people that they should be more forthcoming? ms. leonhart: i knew early on that there were disagreements

and misunderstanding in a couple of areas. what type of records they were looking for, that deleted. i wish i would've known about those delays and i could've done something more about it. at the end of the day the report did get to mr. horwitz. he and i would have an agreement that if someone is going to deny something to the ig, it has to be raised to my level right away. >> that you have to spend this kind of resources in something that is such an egregious case. it seems like a misappropriation of taxpayer funds. without a been a more efficient

response? mr. horozitz: on the access issues there is no reason why dea and fbi shouldn't have done the same thing the marshal service and atf did. they did not raise concerns about whether we could see names or the facts. they just did it. ms. leonhart: it sounds a you're complicit on the management problems. with all the respect, we heard this from the ig when it came to the secret service. sometimes you need somebody from the outside it. ms. leonhart: i think being an agent i can intervene in ways -- >> all evidence to the contrary.

i think there were misunderstandings of what the scope was. ms. leonhart: there were misunderstandings of the bogota case. it's not a close pace -- case. ms. leonhart: for me to talk to somebody in my district -- >> how can you admonish us and make was tougher for us when you've let the dea manage their own department this way, it's counterintuitive. i yield back the time i have. >> we will recognize mr. dowdy. >> if an agent were soliciting prostitutes provided by a drug conspiracy, what punishment would you recommend? ms. leonhart: i can't recommend

the punishment. it would need to be thoroughly investigated. >> nobody cares what the administrator of the dea thanks should happen to an 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. last year, i sent e-mail and a memo to every employee in dea and put them on notice that this kind of conduct -- >> i wasn't talking about future conduct. i was talking about past conduct. what punishment did you recommend? ms. leonhart: i cannot recommend

a penalty. i can't intervene in a disciplinary process. i can't even make a recommendation. >> what would it take to get fired as a dea agent? the agents i worked with were worried about using their car to pick up dry cleaning. they were worried about being disciplined. apparently that world has changed. the you know if any the prostitutes were underage? ms. leonhart: i don't know that. >> with that recommend -- change recommendations of sanctions but cannot ms. leonhart: i cannot recommend a penalty. there is a guide that the deciding officials abide by. they have a penalty guide that they look at. the penalty guide for this is

anyway from reprimand to removal. >> how about security clearance? do you have any authority over that? ms. leonhart: there are adjudicative guidelines. >> honestly? what power do you have? you have to oversee agents that you have no control over. ms. leonhart: i can build on an approved mechanisms to make sure the outcome is what we believe the outcome should be. that is what happened in cartagena. that is going to happen moving forward. >> i find that stunning. let me ask you this, did the agents know that the prostitutes? mr. horozitz: what we found from

looking at the files was that they should have known it given their -- they are trained law enforcement agents. >> were they supposed to be investigating these cartels? mr. horozitz: they were. >> they are receiving prostitutes from cartels they are supposed to be investigating. and she can't fire those agents. do you agree with her? mr. horozitz: i think as a matter of title five, she can't directly intervene and fire them. i think one of the concerns we have in the report as to dea and the other three agencies is how they adjudicate these cases. they under charge them in some instances. at dea, sexual harassment,

there's only one punishment, removal. if you're charged with conduct unbecoming or poor judgment then you've got a range of penalties. one of the issues is how you charge the case. that has a consequence. >> i do know what would need to be done. like my friend from south carolina, i find it stunning that you can still elicit -- solicit prostitutes did do we know if any of them were underage? were they part of any human trafficking rings? ms. leonhart: it happened the decade ago, there were no interviews with prostitutes. the more recent one, they did not identify and age for the

prostitute involved. >> i would find it impossible to explain to any reasonable minded person how an agent cannot be disciplined for soliciting prostitutes from drug cartels they were investigating. i find that stunning. >> if someone he murdered somebody, could you fire them? ms. leonhart: there would be criminal charges and that's how they would be fired. >> could you take away their security clearance? ms. leonhart: the office of security programs can review security clearances and take their clearances as they did with the agents in the carnahan and senate. >> i'm sorry. you can fire somebody for sexual harassment. if i flirt with a coworker in

the office and that constitutes sexual harassment, i can be fired. i can take an underage hooker from a cartel i'm investigating and you can't fire me, is that what we're talking about? if you charge the offense removal is a possibility. if you charge something less you don't charge what actually occurred. mr. horozitz: that's when the ability to discipline is limited and that's the concern we found. >> thank you. >> on page 15 of the report, it says he believed he gained

information from the u.s. agents by getting their guard down through the use of prostitutes and paying for parties. he bragged about the parties and how he sold relationships with agents. he could easily get the agents to talk. do you believe actual information was compromised through these sex parties? ms. leonhart: there is no evidence that actual anything was compromised. the concern is that participating in this behavior bringing foreign nationals and prostitutes to your gl to bringing them around other agents, all of those are security risks. >> doesn't the report itself provide evidence that you had

agents and compromised positions with foreign officials and they believed the agents were compromised and they could get the agents to talk? how do you know they didn't say something? ms. leonhart: reading the report, one of the concerns was the agents got very close to these two corrupt colombian national police. they were providing gifts and prostitutes to get in the good graces of the agent. is the furthest that it goes. >> did you do an investigation as to what information may have been only? -- late? ms. leonhart: the investigation

did not identify any instances. the agents were all out of country by the time it was investigated. >> it's possible that it was late. ms. leonhart: absolutely. that's a major concern. >> let me focus on this discipline issue. when i served in the air force as a jag, i understood some of the restrictions that you have because of the civil service system. the fbi is not under title v. dea agents go undercover. is it any reason not to move the dea out of title v? ms. leonhart: we would entertain any exemption that could be given so that an administrator or director can take action and

make sure that only people with outstanding reputations and ethics are employed by the agency. >> if the deciding officials make the decisions, can you do anything with that decision? ms. leonhart: i can't do anything with the decision. i can do what i did last year, that is put on notice for the entire workforce 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. >> even though there are civil

service protections, when something goes badly wrong and it's a cultural issue leadership resigns or gets fired. in the air force, when there are problems with some of the nuclear weapons we have, even though the secretary of the air force did not know about it they were both removed. in the secret service, the head is gone. do you believe the climate issue , maybe needing leadership change? ms. leonhart: we have changed leadership. we have a different set of leaders within dea now than we did a decade ago.

i believe that moving forward with a better system to deal with this discipline and moving forward with not looking at the discipline in the past. the deciding officials of the board of conduct has declared ability to reset. they can look at the activity and they can say this deserves significant discipline. it they can take a kind of action. >> i yield back. mr. walker: thank you, mr. chairman. you have said earlier today that you do not dispute the report, i believe is your exact words, but a couple times you have mentioned this is an isolated incident.

from 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 judgment to protect classified information. is anyone ever been fired for preaching that? -- breaching 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? ms. leonhart: carnahan. mr. walker: soliciting

prostitutes -- does that expose the agency 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 appalled at that? how appalled do 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 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 -- 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. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia.

ms. norton: 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 worse. 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 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 500,000 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 -- ms. 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. ms. norton: how is the 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. ms. 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. mr. chaffetz: 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. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentlewoman. mr. hice: 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. hice: did you ever determine if someone communicated that x did your office ever give information instructions that affect? miss leonhart: when i saw the draft asking the office of professional responsibility and inspections about that, they said there was a

miscommunication, they were under the belief that closed cases miss her horses -- mr. horwitz's on it would cover. >> to give instruction to withhold information? miss leonhart: absolutely not. we weren't involved in that part of the process. >> there was testimony given to mr. horwitz that your employees were instructed not to give information. miss leonhart: inspectors that were interviewed received instructions from opr and the office of infection.

i have information about what was relayed to them. >> you don't know. is the bottom line? you don't know if that information was relayed or not. let me, miss leonhart, you're all over the board today. you say you can't fire anyone and, that you didn't have all the facts, yet you send information that this behavior is not going to be tolerated. is absolutely all over the board. you have junior officers who evidently can fire but you can not fire. do you have any authority over them? can you fire those junior officers? miss leonhart: if they are not doing their job, they can be replaced and that is done by -- mr. hice: did they do their job but not disciplining appropriately in this situation? miss leonhart: i'm disappointed

in the discipline. i think that it's not enough. mr. hice: so why were those junior officers not replaced? miss leonhart: again, i can't interfere with the disciplinary process but i can make sure through our career board replacements or people coming up to take those positions to take those positions are of -- mr. hice: do you or do you not have any authority over junior officers? miss leonhart: i don't have the authority to intervene in the disciplinary process. mr. hice: all right. a moment ago you would said you would act differently if you had this to do all over again. why in the world would you say that? seems you made it clear today that your hands are tied, that you can do nothing? i'm really having a difficult time understanding, it appears to me no one listens to you quite frankly. you write a letter saying this behavior is not going to be tolerated and yet you have no influence as to whether that

behavior is going to be tolerated or not. did anyone listen to you when you wrote that letter? miss leonhart: yes, the entire workforce listened to me. and in fact, like me -- mr. hice: why would they listen to you, if you have no influence whatsoever on the disciplinary process -- miss leonhart, you say you're in charge of discipline on one hand. then you come back you say you have nothing to do with discipline. you're in charge of the entire agency. then you come back and say you have nothing to do with correcting problems. quite honestly i have serious questions as to your competence, quite frankly and it appears to me that we need to seriously consider new leadership at the dea. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. chaffetz: before the gentleman yields back i would like to give mr. horowitz the opportunity to respond to the questions mr. hice asked earlier. if you could address that directly, mr. horowitz.

mr. horowitz: sure, certainly. with regard to the production of information and in answering questions, again 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 didn't, weren't told originally. that was the case with regard to documents. we got redacted information. we had to, i had to elevate it in both instances, months after this all started, with regard to the interviews, we learned later in the process, that certain individuals at dea, that we had interviewed hadn't told us about an open case because of their understanding that they shouldn't talk about an open case. we found out that when we did get productions from both the fbi and the dea, that they didn't give us everything. we only learned that, because they went back and checked our own records to compare and see if we had everything that, that they provided us with everything that we already had. we thought they had even more than we had, which is why he went to them in the first instance for the information but then we found out that the

production was incomplete. we then had to go back and ask for a further review and then after we did the draft report, we found out that the dea hadn't run all the search terms we had done, without telling us that they had made that decision on their own. so we had multiple instances where that occurred. it delayed our report. i can assure you it frustrated the good, hard-working folks in my office, who spent months just trying to get information. i will go back to what i said earlier, the atf, the u.s. marshal's service, asked, made the same requests of them. we got the material. we got it fast. we never thought we didn't get from them what were entitled to. it should have happened across the board and should be happening across the board in all instance. mr. chaffetz: appreciate it. recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr.

chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. mr. horowitz, the ig report we're discussing today, would seem to suggest that dea's tolerance level for prostitution depends on the local culture in which the, what we would call offense occurs. for example, 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's correct. mr. connolly: miss leonhart does the dea recognize that prostitution is embedded in certain local cultures and by implication therefore tolerable? and that you recognize the agency, the agency recognizes tolerance zones of prostitution? miss leonhart: no. what i believe the inspector was talking about in colombia there are certain tolerance zones for prostitution.

it doesn't matter with the dea. the partaking in that kind of behavior is against all dea policies. it's not, doesn't matter if it is legal in particular country. it doesn't matter if it's legal in a particular area of a city. it doesn't matter. they're not to take part in that type of behavior. mr. connolly: so it's always wrong in terms of your policy, no matter where, no matter when, no matter what the circumstances? miss leonhart: that's correct. mr. connolly: that's an explicit policy? miss leonhart: it's, you find it in our personnel manuel. you find it -- mr. connolly: does is there a chapter called, thou shalt not? miss leonhart: basically. it is very clear. mr. connolly: okay. mr. horowitz, did you confirm that? mr. horowitz: well, certainly that wasn't the case back, during the course of the years that we were reviewed, that's the problems we identified here. mr. connolly: it was not case?

mr. horowitz: certainly not the culture and certainly not the understanding based on the interviews we conducted. mr. connolly: i'm going to get to that but did you find an explicit policy in their personnel manuels, human resource policy, that explicitly barred such illicit activity? mr. horowitz: it did not, at that time, it does now. and in light of both the administrators mow and the attorney general's memo. mr. connolly: so miss leonhart, when you said to me now, that is violation of our existing policy you meant the new existing policy, is that correct? miss leonhart: the new existing policy, but it existed in our personnel manual in a couple of different sections. one about you can not have a relationship with someone involved in illegal activity. you can't do anything -- mr. connolly: wait, wait, wait. you just said to me, that the tolerance zones referred to colombia, not to dea designating tolerance zones.

in which prostitution, in fact was legal. you just cited something that refers to illegal. but if you go to colombia, it is not illegal in certain parts of the country. and, did your policy, therefore, in a sense open the door for what we would consider in most of the united states illegal activity that was not prohibited in the host country? miss leonhart: what we find, found with the cartegna case was, our policies didn't specifically say, you can not partake in prostitution. but we had different sections in our personnel manuel, different sections in our standards of conduct, that the every agent in the agency signs one year as acknowledges. dea personnel are prohibited from engaging in nye criminal,

-- any criminal, infamous, dishonest or notoriously disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to dea, doj, or the government of the united states. mr. connolly: well apparently some of your agents when they went to cartegna thought prostitution was not included in that litany. miss leonhart: no dea agent thought that prostitution was okay. mr. connolly: hmmm. well i don't think that is what the inspector general found. let me read to you further from the report. according to the inspector, it is common for prostitutes to be present at 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 not withstanding, the practice seems to be, very much

contingent upon local acceptable practices. and we're influenced by that, your policy not withstanding. would that be fair to say? miss leonhart: i would say every dea agent knows to include going back to the 2000, to 2004, in that period of time, knows that partaking in that kind of activity is against dea policy. when cartegna happened, and we reviewed all of our policies just to make sure, we decided to strengthen them and to put wording in about prostitution specifically just so that, to put everybody on notice to make sure it was clear. our policies were not as clear. 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's a violation of standards of conduct.

mr. connolly: would the chairman allow me one more question? i just have one more question if the chair would indulge? thank you, mr. chairman. mr. perkins, the report talks about fbi providing employees with extensive predeployment training regarding conduct abroad and has done the most to prepare its employees to make day-to-day decisions unlike apparently dea or even the secret service. can you comment on that? does your training program in terms of deployment overseas explicitly deal wish shoes like prostitution -- with issues like prostitution and dishonor it brings on the united states if employees engage in that activity? mr. perkins: yes, congressman, it covers issues of personal security of individuals going overseas to standards of conduct

we would expect them to exhibit while they're overseas. a good bit of this began under former director louis freeh as we began to expand our overseas presence with the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we had a significant significant presence overseas at that time, which required that yet, again, additional training added to that as our overseas presence remains high, we see great benefit in maintaining that type of predeployment training for these individuals. mr. connolly: and final point, on training, miss leonhart, does dea have a program similar to the fbi in terms of predeployment training? miss leonhart: yes, we do. it is called the foreign orientation program and in may of 2012, we started, we were handing out state department cable prohibiting prostitution even if it's legal in a country. we also added extra slides to a presentation that our opr gives to all the employees and their

spouses before they head overseas. and that includes information about prostitution, information about security clearances, so they are informed before they go overseas. mr. connolly: okay. thank you. my time is up. mr. chairman, i just, would like to pursue with you at some point this whole issue of training because i think that has a great bearing on what as allowed to to happen. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: thank you. now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes.

mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. miss leonhart, you've been with dea for how many years? miss leonhart: 35. mr. meadows: 35 years and, as i understand it, about five years as, in your current position? miss leonhart: since 2010. mr. meadows: so you take this very seriously, being part of law enforcement? i enjoy a great relationship with law enforcement back home. and, in the standards of which they, they take and so standards that are violated by some within our ranks, really paint a very bad picture for the rest who serve diligently, wouldn't you agree with that? miss leonhart: yes. these are, you know, a few compared to the 4600 agents that work for dea. very proud of our agency and this hits us hard. mr. meadows: well, and it should hit you hard. it sounds like, that you know, you keep saying you're appalled and you just can't believe this kind of behavior but my concern is, in 1994, there was a gao report outlined, you were there at that particular time that outlined sexual misconduct within the agency.

in 2000 four that was an oig study that talked about the same kind of inappropriate behavior. and yet here we are today, with a new oig report that is over 100 pages in length, but we're addressing a decade-old cultural problem, army -- aren't we? this is not new to you correct? miss leonhart: this is new to me in this position. but in law enforcement, every company every organization has some people who are not going to follow the rules, and to see what happened back in 2000-2003 in colombia, to see what happened in 2009 with the

incident with the agent in bogotá and then to see cartagena, this is our opportunity to make sure that culture, if there was one that existed, that there's no doubt that employees know that this is unacceptable, and see what will happen to them. that is why firing the three employees, agents after cartagena sets the tone for what happens from here on. mr. meadows: well, it might if it wasn't reinforced in other ways. let me tell you, you keep coming back to cartagena because it really may be the only time that there have been people that have actually been disciplined for improper conduct wouldn't you agree? you keep running back to this as a good example, but yet your directives didn't come out until two years after that event. you are bragging about your directive that you set out.

didn't that go out in 2014? miss leonhart: yes, it went out of -- mr. meadows: so why if you're concerned about the culture wouldn't it have gone out immediately after the event, or is it just that the press has started to report this as a problem and now it's a problem for you? miss leonhart: no. actually we have discussion, the executive staff, on what things we should put in place. and we started putting things in place in 2012 after the discovery of what happened in cartagena. mr. meadows: is it your testimony it took you two years to figure out what to put in a directive, is that your testimony today? miss leonhart: no. actually we drafted that back after a working group got together to decide what steps do we immediately put in place. we drafted that, and on the heels of the cartagena case, being able to show kids what happens if you partake in this behavior, we have a case disciplinary case finalized.

we went out with a series of things. that memo we had already put additional training, every basic agent training, every intel analyst training -- mr. meadows: i'm running out of time so let me do this one follow-up because i have reason to believe that some of the people that today you are saying made, should it then fired but you didn't give a directive but i have reason to believe that some of them have actually gotten promotions, have gotten bonuses and have gotten new assignments. would you agree with that? miss leonhart: i know that, i know a number of them were promoted between activity in 2000, and when it came to light in 2010. i can tell you that since the allegations were raised and investigated, and there have been no promotions. mr. meadows: how about bonuses?

i have reason to believe that the were bonuses that were given. i'm sure you just looked into all of this. where their bonuses given to some of those folks. miss leonhart: i know there were bonuses given to the regional director. i don't know about bonuses -- i don't know about -- mr. meadows: so some bonuses were given to people who were directly involved in this particular thing that most americans find offensive, yes or no? miss leonhart: no. the regional director of -- mr. meadows: you said you did know so how would know? miss leonhart: the regional director that got bonuses was not directly involved in this. i don't know as to the other employees. mr. meadows: so is a possible they got bonuses? miss leonhart: it's very possible. mr. meadows: it's very possible because our intel would say that it is. i appreciate the patience of the chair.

if you would give, without means because obviously that is critical, would you agree today to give the names and the number of people involved in this to the oig to the report back to this committee on how many of those people got bonuses? would you agree to do that? because i find that that's reinforcing a bad behavior if they are getting bonuses. would you do that? would you agree to that? miss leonhart: i will work with the department who is going to be giving you additional information here shortly to see about adding that in. mr. meadows: so we can get bonus information just to see these people got involved in this got bonuses. you can redact the names. i just want to know the number of them. miss leonhart: so i will discuss it with the department and -- mr. meadows: is that a no? you're the administrator. you can make the decision. are you going to give it to us or not? miss leonhart: if i'm able to give it to you, you will get it. mr. meadows: mr. chairman, --

mr. chaffetz: will the gentleman yield? mr. meadows: yes. mr. chaffetz: we're asking you to provide the information to the inspector general. will you or would you not do that? miss leonhart: if it was up to me to give it to you -- mr. chaffetz: you are the administrator. you are the administrator. who do you have to ask? who do you report to? miss leonhart: the documents that are going to your committee -- mr. chaffetz: we're asking you to give them to the inspector general. miss leonhart: in if the inspector general wants that, we will give it. are mr. chaffetz: does the inspector general want that information? >> i would be happy to take that information to look into the issue. mr. chaffetz: will be inspector general report out to this committee about these particular

individuals? as suggested, the more senior person wasn't directly involved, was involved, was he not? miss leonhart: he was not involved in the activities. mr. chaffetz: did he properly report up the chain of command? miss leonhart: he didn't report it to the right place. mr. chaffetz: okay. so he was involved in a. he may not have been naked having sex in his apartment like everybody else was but he was involved, correct? miss leonhart: he failed to report to opr. mr. chaffetz: that person should be included in the information that you give regarding bonuses and promotions. and would also add to their promotion title changes? bonuses, title changes promotions. is that fair? looking for a yes year from the administrator. miss leonhart: we will work to do to the information. mr. chaffetz: is that a yes or no? miss leonhart: yes, we will get you that information. mr. chaffetz: thank you. does the gentleman have any other -- mr. meadows: i thank the chair for their patients. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: did you want to add something, mr. horowitz? now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, who is now recognize

for five minutes. mr. grothman: one of the things that's a little bit frustrating about this hearing, and i apologize, i feel a little sorry for you can is that you've expressed concerns about some of the civil service protections. people back home understand civil service protections are very important because if we did have civil service protection you would wind up in agency like the irs or something, firing anybody who wasn't on the right side politically. nevertheless, you have expressed frustration entity believe some of the people who are expressing the greatest anger at you to are the one who expressed anger at you may be the first to fight any change in the civil service laws. but could you give us some suggestions that you may have to make it easier to remove an employee who is, is misbehaving -- one thing i will say, we have a situation with people. just behaving in outrageous

conduct. you know, late night talk show host, you wouldn't believe but it really happened apparently. so things that are obviously wrong, it makes me wonder what's wrong. it's their job or where it's more subjected. could you give me any suggestions pertaining changes to the civil service law? miss leonhart: if you look at giving us the same exception as the fbi, i think that we then would be able to make sure that the penalties were appropriate. mr. grothman: and what would you think an appropriate penalty is for this behavior? miss leonhart: i think this is outrageous behavior and that knowing the facts of the case as i do, without having to be concerned with the appeal rights and being able to sustain it in

a merit systems protection board, i believe that some of the behavior would race to the level of removal. mr. grothman: you mean they should be fired. miss leonhart: just like cartagena, yes. mr. grothman: okay. just because you kind of danced around, could you describe to the public today why you feel this behavior was wrong so i get a sense of? why is this bad behavior? can you explain in your own mind? miss leonhart: partaking, it's wrong on a number of levels. start with prostitution itself. you know, human trafficking is like the second highest illegal market besides drug trafficking.

look at all the efforts the government has been putting into especially in recent years to go after the human trafficking threat. that's number one. number two, it is so far away from the type of conduct and ethical behavior that is required of someone to carry a badge as a federal agent, that those are the reasons. and the security clearance issues, the security, putting people and our information at risk are all reasons that i, this is appalling. mr. grothman: it is appalling. when i read his stuff, is the right some of the establishment establishment brought to detention the attention or were you aware by colombian authorities? they were aware of is spent actually by colombian authorities, by the time this was discovered on the corruption

of the police officers, the colombian national police did a great job in helping us convicted them, and also they removed a number of colombian national police officers who were involved in the same activity. mr. grothman: okay. i will ask the same question to mr. horowitz. could you comment on how you feel we should change -- still keeping protections but change things a little bit so we maybe had a little, not just outrageous conduct but even competent conduct out of the bea? mr. horowitz: well, within the current structure there needs to be prompt reporting, prompt investigating, prompted disciplinary action and follow through. that's within the current structure, that can be done. you mentioned the colombian

national example. those events that were learned about from the colombian national officers who were corrupt and disclose the information, related to the 2001-2004 events, all of the dea officials involved in those events down in columbia said nothing about it. it was learned eight years, six, seven, eight years later when corrupt colombian national officers disclosed it. that's a problem, a serious problem, but no one thought that that was reportable to headquarters and that there needed to be follow through. whether it's the current system frankly, whether it's under an fbi regime. that was the fundamental flaw.

mr. grothman: it's good that the colombian people had little higher standards, the right speak with these with the corrupt officers. mr. horowitz: that they felt it was wrong and once they of course got arrested, they were more than happy to come in and report out on what had occurred. mr. grothman: thank you. mr. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. ms. leonhart, is there any post policy against turning over dea weapons or communication devices to foreign agents or any non-dea or non-u.s. official? miss leonhart: if i hear you right you were asking about prohibition on turning over a device? mr. palmer: not having immediate supervision of the weapons and devices that belong to an agent. miss leonhart: well, number one,

securing your weapon, that's required. mr. palmer: i'm not asking you about that. i'm asking you, is there any policy at the dea that would result in any kind of reprimand or punishment for not having immediate supervision of your weapons and communication devices? that is a yes or a no. miss leonhart: it could fall under -- mr. palmer: no. yes or no. you either have a penalty for not securing your weapon and georgia communications device because there are things in those communication device that could be used against other agents or against this country. miss leonhart: it could fall under poor judgment. there's a number of areas that policies -- mr. palmer: poor judgment has already been pointed out, poor judgment is not one of the official criteria. and what happened here, you talked about these corrupt police officers. is it true that the same

officers who helped facilitate these parties may have helped pay for the prostitutes, supervised, had control of the agents weapons and mutation devices, possibly their security, their badges, is the also the case of? miss leonhart: part of the report is that while some of the agents were involved in that activity -- mr. palmer: it's a yes or a no. miss leonhart: yes. mr. palmer: okay. as egregious as the activities the agents were involved in, in many respects crimes against humanity because the age of these girls, could you not find a reason to reprimand or fire agents for turning over their weapons and their communication devices to foreign nationals? i mean, for crying out loud, china is investing in south american, latin america. they will spend another 250 billion over the next 10 years down there.

did it not occur to anyone that this might also be a national security breach or a problem all along that line? miss leonhart: someone doing a security adjudication could look at that and find that those are reasons why a security clerics should be suspended and revoked. mr. palmer: were they for any of these people? miss leonhart: for the bogota case, their clearances were never looked at. mr. palmer: let me ask you this and mr. chairman, you brought this up. who is your immediate supervisor? who do you report to? who has the authority to hold you accountable for the oversight of the dea? miss leonhart: the deputy attorney general. mr. palmer: okay. have you discussed this with the deputy attorney general and how to proceed with this? miss leonhart: i briefed the deputy attorney general on these cases --

mr. palmer: did he make recommendations about how to proceed? miss leonhart: yes. the security clearances are currently being reviewed by -- mr. palmer: i want to ask you something more specific. did the deputy attorney general express any reservations about how the dea has handled this? and in the discussions, were there any discussions about how to respond to the request and inspector general's office office of the inspector general? miss leonhart: i've had multiple conversations with their office on documents, turning over documents to the oig, and they have given us good guidance on that span so they give you good guidance, so that means they approve not turning over the documents that inspector general requesting?

miss leonhart: no. actually we didn't know, we were worried about the victim victim's names and how to handle that period. mr. palmer: mr. horowitz, you have said that there've been numerous instances where the fbi has -- you mentioned it about when you were here in january, you spoke of agency, particularly the fbi and others dealing production of material. i asked you then did this rise to obstruction. you said it had a significant impact on reviews but fail to go as far as calling it a obstruction to i want to ask you again. are you willing to call it up structure and now? mr. horowitz: what occurred back in 2013 when we are given documents indeed our ability to move forward with this investigation in a time and manner. and it took months and it required me to elevate it to the leadership of both agencies and it was when i elevated that we got the reaction.

but i didn't have to do that with atf and the marshals service. and i shouldn't have to do that. i'm still having to that. mr. palmer: i'm not trying to put you on the spot but it appears to me you have been obstructed. mr. horowitz: i think in this instance we were obstructed. mr. palmer: is there still information you would like to get from the dea? mr. horowitz: i think at this point we made a decision to simply move forward and issue the report even with concerns about the fbi and dea's productions because this is so important to put forward and frankly, at this point we've got other reports to do and get to but we saw the same issues on. mr. palmer: is there additional information to like to? mr. horowitz: on this issue no. on others, yes. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: thank the gentleman. now recognize that children from massachusetts, mr. lynch.

mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm not sure if the memo from attorney general holder has been admitted into of us, evidence, but in case it hasn't which is -- mr. chaffetz: without objection so ordered. mr. lynch: okay, great. ms. leonhart and mr. horowitz, in the attorney general's memo are all department personnel dated april 10, 2015, subject prohibition on solicitation of prostitution. it says that solicitation of prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and a consequent increase in number of miners and adult persons trafficked into commercial sex slavery. do you agree with that? do you agree with that assessment? mr. horowitz: i certainly think it raises the risks. miss leonhart: i certainly do. mr. lynch: and also under the department of homeland security regulations and a couple of the statutes we have, what we're talking about here is

solicitation of prostitutes for 15 to 20 parties at its codefendant definition of human trafficking, and yet the dea is actually charged, i know that mr. farenthold and myself and mr. issa were down in central america recently, and that's a big part of the epa's mission is really to combat human trafficking. we actually give grants to the department, to the dea into the fbi and the state department as part of the trafficking victims protection act and the violence against women act. we give grants to your agency to prevent human trafficking, prevent prostitution. and get the very people, and their departments that are getting this money come in this case, are engaging in human trafficking.

and it just brings me, you know, back to the unbelievabilityof of what has happened here. it is really unbelievable. under the douglas factors that we use in determining discipline, one of the factors is the seriousness of the offense and whether the offense is in direct violation of the agency policy. and the notoriety of the offense, and whether that offense prohibits that individual from doing their job. so in this case we have dea agents that are still on the job, that are receiving federal grants to stop trafficking who have already engaged in an admitted to trafficking.

and i don't see the end of this. i don't see the end of this if we leave the situation the way it is. and so, ms. leonhart, you know i wouldn't believe this would be necessary, but we may need to amend title v. we may have to put in a provision that says that, that holds you accountable. because right now you could pass it off to someone below you. you don't have to accept responsibility, and you have it, and that's clear. but if we adopted an amendment to title v that said outrageous and/or criminal conduct in direct violation of an agency admission would give you the ability to fire somebody, that would solve this i think in part. and also the failure to report because that's where this started, where the managers at

the lower level did not report did not take this up the chain of command. and so we need to hold them accountable, too, and there should be a provision that says refusal or failure to report an offense like this will give the agency in the government the ability to clawback pensions clawback salary that was accepted by those individuals who were violating the law. it's a shame we have to get to this, but, you know, i actually think that may be where we are at right now. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. chaffetz: thank you gentlemen. i'm going to recognize myself. i do have a series of questions as we wrap up. administrator leonhart, he became them you try to paint a picture of a decade ago, i heard you say multiple times, 10 years ago. when did you become the deputy administrators?

miss leonhart: i was confirmed in march 2004. mr. chaffetz: how many deputies are there, deputy administrators are there? miss leonhart: there is one. mr. chaffetz: so you were the sole deputy administrator. and then you became the acting administrator. when was that? miss leonhart: 2007. mr. chaffetz: and you'll confirmed in -- miss leonhart: 2010. mr. chaffetz: it's safe to say you've had your finger on the pulse of this department or the agency for more than a decade, correct? you have been there 35 years correct? miss leonhart: there is the deputy or the acting administrator or administrator yes, since 2004. mr. chaffetz: one of the things that you said that is troubling, and a long list, and was brought up by mr. lynch, is the idea that, and it was in response to some of the gentleman over asked a question about those that were directly involved.

i want you too seriously consider, i want all these departments and agencies too seriously consider, in my mind they are directly involved if they failed to report. you may not have been the person who was directly fully engaged in the inappropriate behavior, but once you know about it you have a responsibility to deal with it under the department correct? miss leonhart: that's correct. mr. chaffetz: when you suggest they were not directly involved, that offers me great concern to do you understand that? miss leonhart: i do understand that. i was, i was just making the point that it wasn't involved in the behavior. he failed to report and that's what his shortcomings were. mr. chaffetz: part of the

abhorrent behavior is covering it up. that's the concern. that's what it. that's what her district is covering it up by not reporting it up the chain because as mr. horowitz pointed out, the only the only alternative based on the law enforcement component of offence table, appendix three of such misconduct and sexual harassment is removal. the only one. there's no his fans our butts, no ambiguity. i know there's things were going to look at with title v and whatnot but removal is the only option. so let me ask you, administrator, do you believe that soliciting prostitution is sexual harassment? miss leonhart: no. i believe that prostitution is sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: explained the difference between sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. miss leonhart: sexual harassment is a workplace behavior.

it's what, sexual harassment is something that affects the employees in the workplace, or an employee. sexual misconduct is outside of the workforce, outside of the workplace, like prostitution. there's a difference. does it affect the employee getting a raise? does it affect an employee getting a transfer, getting a particular job? is it a hostile work environment? those are sexual harassment, sexual misconduct -- those are sexual harassment. sexual misconduct, you could have sexual misconduct that is also sexual harassment but there is a difference. prostitution would be sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: so explain to me then exactly what you believe,

fully explain to me what you think sexual harassment is. what would be some examples of what is sexual harassment? miss leonhart: unwelcome remarks, touching an employee, a supervisor touching an employee. a supervisor making threats about you are not going to get that promotion unless you do a b, c or d. those kinds of activities. >> mr. horowitz, you want to mr. chaffetz: mr. horowitz, you want to weigh in on, the difference between sexual harassment and sexual misconduct? mr. horowitz: i think it's based on what you have before you, which is what's written down as the definitions, and looking at the actions. some of these, for example, one of the incidents that we cite talks about the assistant regional director making inappropriate sexual comments, forcing others to watch graphic

movies, yelling at employees other kinds of actions. obviously, clearly within the definition of -- mr. chaffetz: so do you believe those are sexual harassment? miss leonhart: that is sexual harassment. mr. chaffetz: so if you're a dea agent, let's say, and you were having sex, commercial sex paid for, you don't believe that that sexual harassment? miss leonhart: no. that's sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: is procuring a prostitute sexual harassment? miss leonhart: it would be sexual misconduct but it didn't happen -- mr. chaffetz: no harassment? miss leonhart: it's not the workplace. mr. chaffetz: it happened in government housing. miss leonhart: it's not, it's not behavior against a fellow, another employee.

mr. chaffetz: so in your mind in your world, a different planet which i live, it's not sexual harassment if you do something to somebody who is not a federal employee? what if they were here and the washington, d.c., or you were in charge of the the los angeles field office. is it sexual harassment if they go up to someone in los angeles and start saying, you know, some ridiculous comments trying to solicit somebody, is that harassment, or it's not in your world? miss leonhart: as it's defined for government, as it is defined by the eeo, in eeo terms, it's all workplace related. mr. chaffetz: so in the course of the workplace, somebody they're investigating, if they accept the federal employee accepts commercial sex, is that

sexual harassment? miss leonhart: that is sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: we will have to further explore this because i think this is, we're getting too hard of one of the biggest problems here, which is in your world, which i don't think is the real world, the charge for the person in bogota was improper association. does that sound like the inappropriate charge? miss leonhart: for which person in bogota's? mr. chaffetz: a dea agent in bogota in july 2009 when they engaged -- this is the case with a prostitute. they had a payment dispute. he throws a glass at a woman. a security guard sees this happening. there's no doubt about the facts according to your previous testimony, so that was not sexual harassment. miss leonhart: sexual misconduct. mr. chaffetz: wow.

and under sexual misconduct do you think that improper association is one of the proper charges? you think this person was properly, i guess the word is charged? based on that case and everything that you know, this person was suspended without pay for 14 days, for conduct unbecoming and improper association. do you believe that that was proper charge for that person? miss leonhart: i believe those are two proper charges. the deciding official had a number of other charges that they could've looked at as well. mr. chaffetz: i'm asking what you personally believe. what do you believe they should been charged with, or deeply that was the proper conclusion? miss leonhart: conduct unbecoming, it is improper association. i would have concerns about

false statements. i have a number of concerns with those cases. mr. chaffetz: any other, in your professional opinion, your experience, he worked for the opr, you've been at the agency for 30 plus years, you've been the acting or the deputy or administrator for more than a decade. do you believe that this person in bogota was properly charged or do you believe that they fell short? what else, if they did fall short what else do you think they should be charged with? miss leonhart: i do believe they fell short. mr. chaffetz: what else do you think you should be charged with? miss leonhart: it's not so much the charge. it's the penalty. the other charges -- mr. chaffetz: the charge determines the penalty. and when you say that this person engaging with a prostitute throwing a glass at her, how many things could we list out that are wrong along every step, improper association

is the one they go with? miss leonhart: the penalty for improper association in conduct unbecoming can be removal. mr. chaffetz: and it was only 14 days. we even had an eyewitness, security guard who worked for the federal government. do you think any of these cases that we have brought before you should be, there should be additional charges? miss leonhart: again, not knowing all the facts that -- mr. chaffetz: you said you knew all the facts. you issued a memo saying unit you had fully investigated this. miss leonhart: if i can -- mr. chaffetz: it says quote these allegations were fully investigated i dea office of professional responsibility you send this out at 5:33 p.m. on march 26, 2015. miss leonhart: not knowing all the circumstances that the deciding officials who are the only ones that can decide punishment in dea, and that not

everything they took into consideration, they, they could have -- by charging conduct unbecoming and improper association, the penalties are up to removal. mr. chaffetz: mr. horowitz, do you have a comment on this? mr. horowitz: i think the concern we found is as we cite in our report, is that they were charged with offenses such as conduct unbecoming, poor judgment which by the way is in the category, and others that were inconsistent. and the conservatives and we deal with this in our own agency when we have to look at individuals who may engaged in misconduct, you want to charge what the number of charges should be, in part because there's president. you look to a private individual accounts for similar situated conduct under similar charges. and so that's one of the

concerns we have as we lay out your as the imports of insistence of charge and charging the appropriate offense. mr. chaffetz: to the administrator, are you, a dea part of the intelligence community? miss leonhart: is part of the intelligence community. mr. chaffetz: is it a governed by the intelligence community directive number 704? miss leonhart: that sliver of the agency is, yes. mr. chaffetz: defined that sliver, please. miss leonhart: under 60 positions in dea within the intelligence division. mr. chaffetz: those serving overseas, would they be subject to this? miss leonhart: it depends on the position. there are in some countries some intelligence analysts that would be under that. a special agents would not.

mr. chaffetz: again, we are getting -- we are not half-time. we are well past that, walk me through security clearances. who makes the determination who gets the security clearance and who makes the decision as to whether or not it's revoked and when? miss leonhart: the same office that determines that a new employee is a security clearance, that same office makes -- mr. chaffetz: what office is that? miss leonhart: office of security programs. they do all adjudicating of security clearances for new employees them for contract employees, for anybody that's going to be in the workforce within dea. the same office also handles review, periodic re-investigations, and handles reviews of people who already have security clearances.

so for instance, in the cartagena case, opr referred referred the case over to security programs when they had completed their investigation. and the security programs did a complete review of the security clearances, adjudicated it, made a decision that there was enough to move to suspend the clearance, and then the agency moved for -- because the person no longer has a security clearance, removal from service because they can't be, they can't be a dea employed without having security clearance. mr. chaffetz: so what are the standards of which you can have and not have security clearance? where is that standard? miss leonhart: there's a number of things to look at. the main thing is securing securing information, national security interest information.

does this person -- mr. chaffetz: contact with a foreign national allowed or not allowed? unreported i should say. miss leonhart: not allowed if it's unreported, and there's rules for reporting. mr. chaffetz: is there a document that determines, that governs what you will and will not give for security clearances? miss leonhart: there's a document that every employee is to fill out spent but it's just -- mr. chaffetz: it's just a couple of dudes down in the bowels of dea that make a random decision or how is this a decision made? miss leonhart: no. they are trained on adjudication adjudication. they review, if there's anything that is a red flag for them like past -- mr. chaffetz: sexual misconduct a red flag? miss leonhart: sexual

misconduct, if a person is discipline, received any discipline, they on their form check it, office of security programs does a review of that -- mr. chaffetz: office of security , have they ever revoked somebody's security clearance for people engaging in prostitution? miss leonhart: i don't know about prostitution. i know that they have revoked security clearance is. so other than the three from cartagena, i'm not sure. mr. chaffetz: you are just the administrator. mr. horowitz, have you looked into the security clearance possibility? mr. horowitz: we didn't look into what could have happened had they been referred to the offices of secret programs -- security programs primarily , because the concern we saw was that they were not being referred to the offices of

security programs. so we weren't in a position review what actions they took with regard to these matters because we learned that opr, when they did finally get these allegations were never turned around and sent them to the osd. mr. chaffetz: what do you say about that, ms. leonhart? miss leonhart: that's one of the changes we put in place. mr. chaffetz: when? miss leonhart: november. november of last year. we have never had in history of dsa can, we've never had a formal neck mechanism for the security glances, review upon an opr investigation. mr. chaffetz: you i did minister, deputy administrator and acting administrator for almost 10 years at that point and you never have that policy in place? it seems like -- miss leonhart: we never had a

formal policy. it would be up to the office of professional responsibility to flag an internal investigation that had security issues, and then to refer that over to security programs. so we have set up a mechanism for that to happen automatically . mr. chaffetz: so were those recommendations made before or after the draft report from the inspector general? miss leonhart: the recommendation that 30 programs, -- security programs, that office of professional responsibility flag security violations and give them the security programs was happening long before that. what we did is come in cartagena, made sure that the security clearances were reviewed. and then more recently in november set up a mechanism so that security programs and opr

have a mechanism to pass on a regular basis security clearances over speed and this -- security clearances over. mr. chaffetz: and this is just unbelievable to me. you know, there's some things you just think, you just think this has to be happening. on the one hand, you've got this problem. i mean, we listed out the host this is not one incidence. we're going to have some people did something stupid somewhere. people are going to make mistakes. people are going to get themselves into trouble. this is happening with such frequency. cannot have that moved up the chain, for you, earlier not say they were not directly involved, you've got told to put a candle to get the thing all the way to the finish line. i just don't understand what you personally don't think he had in the. mr. horowitz has referenced these major categories of offenses why did you make those up?

miss leonhart: that the employees for the last 40 years have been charged at dea. so -- mr. chaffetz: so nevermind the part of charging by the board of conduct and officials is looking at agency president and government precedent. >> the problem is this is a problem. you get called before this commit in say, oh, it's terrible, awful. but you personally have been responsible for this for more than a decade and you didn't do anything about it. you may cry in the mirror, but i'm telling you you are in a position to do it and you didn't. and after car to hang you -- after cartajena, you had two

years and you did not do it. you have a lot more you need to go through. mr. horowitz, are there any more outstanding issues you need help with from the department of the drug enforcement agency? mr. horwitz: no. chef it'sstill do not have all the records that we need because of the fbi's continuing process of reviewing records, determining what is allowed under its legal judgment to provide to us, go through that process, go to the a journey general in the deputy attorney general. get their approval and then get to us. as to several ongoing reviews, we still don't have all the materials for our request.

>> why does the fbi think it is so special and doesn't have to adhere to the law? >> we are adhering to the law. i think the perception with the inspector general's comments along those lines, in this latest letter yesterday, there were five investigations. the records are there. we have turned over 35,000 e-mails to them. there are 200 e-mails in question out of 35,000 that we are working with them to go through. we believe in the rule of law. we have a legal disagreement with the inspector general. mr. horowitz: they are not working with us to get us 200 e-mails. they have not given us 200 e-mails. our understanding is because

they believe they have a legal review to conduct. that's why, our understanding is,'s to why we are not getting them. these are multi-months we have been waiting for them. there is no reason why we should not be getting the materials immediately. none whatsoever. i understand they have a legal position that is different. frankly, the easiest way to resolve this is if the office of legal counsel would simply issue its opinion. i think we would both say we would be very satisfied. may will be the one year anniversary. mr. perkins: we will follow the referral to the letter. i can't speak for the other agencies but i can speak for matters involving rule 60 matters involving the financial

matters. we strongly believe we have a legal responsibility to review and then to the inspector general. representatives chef it's: what are you know willing to share? mr. perkins: rule 60. rules of criminal procedures. once matters our review -- cheffeits: it has been a long-standing history of sharing

the segmentation. mr. perkins: i cannot share that. legal review, we determine that we are in solid ground. mr. horowitz: pretending -- pre-2010, there was no such objection from the fbi. we got that material intact in a 19 98 and 1999 proceedings in district court in oklahoma. the department itself took the position that we were entitled to it and t deleo federal judges agreed. this has all changed since 2010 with no change in the law. the only thing friendly that occurred was several hard-hitting oig reviews about how the fbi was handling information from the national security authorities.

other than that, nothing changed from 2010. rep. chaffetz: we have hundreds of people working for the department of justice intended to be the fair arbiters to look under the hood and see what is the problem. quite frankly, the reason that the dea and the fbi are here today is that they are the problem children. we cited several times that atf and marshals and others -- it's not a problem. it's not an issue. they have problems within their agencies, don't get me wrong. they have got to clean up and we are going to work with them on that. but the reason you're sitting here today in this hearing -- and i know we were very focused on the dea -- the two agencies, the fbi as well as the da, are impeding the ability to understand what the problems are.

mr. perkins: this is an apples and oranges issue. the deputy director has made changes that the inspector general is aware of. it will eliminate these types of hold up. rep. chaffetz: all of them? mr. perkins: not having to do with the other issues that he brings up into 18. we are expect inc. -- we are expecting and abide by it 100%. mr. horowitz: i think we would both take any opinion at this point, glitter bad week as this is ongoing. we completely disagree on the legal issue. certainly, we have questioned why all of a sudden, in 2010 -- rep. chaffetz: i have hours of questions on this but we are going to wrap up pretty wick. -- pretty quick. the inspector general act

authorizes "to have access to all records reports, audits reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, and/or other material available to the applicable establishment that relate to operations with respect to which that inspector general has responsibilities under this act." doesn't sound ambiguous. and there was no change in the law. it's just that, in 2010, after the inspector general was under thing a lot of difficult things for the agency, they decided we are going to change the rules. we are going to change the rules. i'm not suggesting you personally did that, but the consequences, we have hundreds of people at the inspector general's office who can to do their job. and you, the fbi, are standing in their way. and the dea is standing in their way.

we are going to keep yanking you appear time after time after time if we have to. the very first hearing we had is on this and i can promise you we will continue to yank you up here as long as this continues to be a problem. the act is clear. the inspector general has unfettered access to all records, not just the ones you want to choose from. this idea that it is pending and it's going on for close to a year is intolerable. and there is not a prevailing attitude within the fbi or the dea that believes that the inspector general work is of value to. those department send agencies. otherwise, they would want them to come in and help them clear there did name or ferret out problems. in this nation, we are different. we are self-critical. i cannot hear of this kind of

hearing in another the nation. but you can in the united states. but it requires that people to allow somebody to come in and check and look under the hood, which is what the inspector general is supposed to do. we have had a long hearing. i appreciate your patience. we need your help and cooperation moving forward. again, to the thousands of men and women who serve in these departments and agencies, i cannot think them enough for putting the lives on the line. my grandfather was a career fbi agent. i care about the agency, ok? i care about law enforcement. we are going to do it the right way. we are going to do it the right way. and allowing sexual harassment or misconduct to get a little slap on the rest with two to 14 days paid leave is not acceptable. it wasn't then, not now, and it shouldn't be. we are going to look forward to other things we can do with the

line future administrators and directors more latitude. and to the inspector general, i thank you for the report. this hearing stands adjourned. [laughter] host: the eea operates under the justice department which could soon have a new attorney general. bob corker and and carton both expressed optimism this morning that the nomination of loretta lynch could come up this week on the senate floor after weeks of delay. the confirmation vote is still expected only after the chamber moves forward with a human trafficking bill.

senators will also consider tomorrow a judicial nomination for the southern district of texas. later in the week, it's possible we could see action on the bill that would give congress oversight of an iran nuclear agreement. you can watch the senate live on c-span two. items on the agenda this week with the financial protection bureau. meanwhile