connolly and ogilvie to pass without further inquiry into their sobriety. he made this assessment based on his observations. while it would have been preferable if he ordered a field sobriety test or made other inquiries to establish both agents fitness to drive, it his actions must be considered in light of the vast disparity in rank between the watch commander and connolly. the secret service reputation for punishing or ignoring those who would further investigate reports -- and report such violations. the watch commander reported the facts to his superior officer. the watch commander and his subordinates should have been able to rely on their superior officers to appropriately report the situation. both uniform division deputy

chief dyson and simpson were notified that night that the agents had driven into an evacuated area and that alcohol was involved. each could have reported the incident but did not. i would like to publish late -- to publicly acknowledge the agent who conducted this investigation. they displayed the professionalism that does me proud and i am grateful for their efforts. i would like to express my appreciation for the outstanding cooperation we are seeing from the secret service office of professional responsibility and from director clancy himself. that concludes my testimony. i happy to answer any questions you may have. rep. chaffetz: thank you. i recognize myself for live minutes. there was an e-mail about the incident on march 4. can you tell me more about that? mr. roth: certainly. what we found was that -- let me

get to the page of the report that has that. rep. chaffetz: the version i have is page 15. mr. roth: thank you, sir. correct. there was an e-mail that was sent up the chain of command all the way to the presidential protection division that described, in very vague terms that occurred at the entrance. rep. chaffetz: why do you think the e-mail was forwarded by deputy chief dyson to mr. connolly himself? mr. roth: i think it was to let mr. connolly no -- know that he was getting out of the incident and he had the necessity to self-report. rep. chaffetz: how did mr. connolly respond? mr. roth: during the night, when he was driving home, he called

deputy chief dyson, who expressed concerns at the fact that this was getting out. rep. chaffetz: if deputy chief dyson denied he was aware of this, would you find that denial credible question -- credible? mr. roth: not knowing the other facts, it would raise some additional questions i would have to ask deputy chief dyson. the president -- the evidence we have indicates that they had a conversation as connolly was driving home expressing concerns about that e-mail itself. rep. chaffetz: for him to suggest that he had no idea that connolly was in the car, that could not possibly be true could it? mr. roth: our interview with deputy chief dyson, he indicated that it sounded like connolly was in the car as they were having that discussion. rep. chaffetz: did your investigators asked questions about the video cameras being directed away from the area

where they were questioning connolly and ogilvie? that is something that our whistleblowers had concerns about, that the video cameras were moved away so they would not see that interaction. mr. roth: i was not aware of any of that. what we did find with regard to the video preservation was as you know, there is only a 72-hour preservation of the video. what we found in the course of our investigation was the actual what i would call a barrel incident. ogilvie striking the barrel and moving the barrel out of the way was burned at the request of the uniform division folks who were on the scene. they wanted to figure out how it was that the barrel was moved. we had no other video. it was nothing else to review other than that snippet that had been burned. rep. chaffetz: that is one of

our deep concerns long-term. why the policy? you retire -- you require an airport to retain video for 30 days. they retain this for hours. there were a couple potential crimes going on. there were people trying to detain this person from driving away. that is not all caps it from start to finish. the bumbling of how we would apprehend this person who left a potential bomb. were there any officers who outranked braun? mr. roth: there was an assistant to the sack in the presidential protection division who was there. in other words, an investigative agent, gs-14 level. i am assuming that that outranks braun, but i am not sure. rep. chaffetz: one of the

concerns is that when director clancy new -- knew. this thing was spreading like wildfire. there were people asking for videotape to be preserved because they were upset. you had former agents, retired agents, a newspaper reporter, members of congress all heard about this before director clancy. is that feasible? mr. roth: apparently, that is what the facts show. rep. chaffetz: so who is responsible? where did it stop? where did it not continue up the chain of command? mr. roth: i think there were several points of failure. one is with connolly and ogilvie, who had a duty to report their own misconduct up the chain. the presidential protection envision -- division should have been informed by connolly and

the washington field office should have been informed by ogilvie but were not. that is one point of failure. the other is with the supervisors, the leadership in the uniform division. both the chief and the deputy chief could have and should have reported it up. each of them said that the reason they did not do it is because connolly said that he would self-report so they did not want to do it. they would rather have connolly do it. rep. chaffetz: technically, both should have happened, right? they knew that this conduct had happened. mr. roth: correct. rep. chaffetz: so why didn't they do it? mr. roth: i think it was a failure on those individuals' parts. rep. chaffetz: anybody else who should have reported? mr. roth: those are the four individuals who i believe had primary responsibility.

there were others, including the 18 special agents supervisor who was there that evening probably should have reported it up. there are the uniform division individuals themselves who could have reported as well. rep. chaffetz: my concern is that they did not preserve all the video that was germane to both the leaving of the package the fleeing of the person, and the incident is. with that, i yield back. rep. cummings: picking up exactly where the chairman left off i noticed that in the beginning of your report, you mentioned that you were deferring specific conclusions about systemic issues facing the secret service until you have completed your investigation into at least five or six other

incidents. is that correct? mr. roth: that is correct. rep. cummings: what form is that going to take? it seems like we have a culture of complacency, a culture of fear of retaliation. how do you -- what do you see -- where are you going with that? mr. roth: yes, i do. where we add value is having the independent fact-finding ability, to be able to go in and gather documents, interview individuals who are compelled under the dhs rules to talk to us. what we intend to do is very similar to what we did with the bush president's alarm report that was issued a few weeks ago. we are going to find a lot of facts and see what we find. we will publish reports, report them both to the secretary, to the director of the secret service.

we think that, at the end of those fact findings, some of the conclusions or some of the themes will become apparent. for example we are in the process of doing an investigation into the 24th incident at the cdc where the president was in close proximity to an armed security guard unknown to the secret service. we will write a factual report about exactly what happened where there were failures within that, and publish that to this committee as well as the other committees, the secretary, and the director. rep. cummings: when the doj comes into the police department and looks at patterns of practice, is that similar? mr. roth: i think that is a good analogy. the only difference is we are going to do this early. we are not going to wait until the end. we think it is important to get

the information out as quickly as possible. rep. cummings: i want to ask you about agency policies regarding alcohol. first, let me walk through some details. according to your report, it started about 5:30 and lasted until about 7:30, an open bar. afterwards, mr. connelly and mr. ogilvie stayed at the bar. according to your report, mr. ogilvie opened a new bar tab at 7:44 p.m. and closed it three hours later. as part of your investigation, you obtained the actual bar tab. i would like to put it up on the screen. your report says they purchased "eight glasses of scott two vodka drinks, one glass of wine, and three glasses of beer." they were on a roll. looking at this tab --

[laughter] the first three items are beers then a glass of wine then eight johnny walker reds, then two vodka drinks. investigators said that some were given away to others, but he could not remember to whom. at a minimum, mr. ogilvie admitted to drinking two scotches and one beer. mr. connelly admitted to drinking two beers. they also admitted that they drove the government vehicle that same evening on their way home. is that right? mr. roth: that is correct. rep. cummings: they had a policy that prohibits operating government vehicles while under the influence. your report says that this

policy applies only to uniform division officers, not to agents right mr. connelly or mr. ogilvie. this seems a bit ridiculous to me. do you know why? mr. roth: we do not. what we found with a lot of these policies is that they were put in in kind of a piecemeal fashion. we do not have a good explanation as to why it only applied to the uniform division but not the special agents. rep. cummings: the secret service is also part of the homeland security -- department of homeland security, which has its own policy which prevents all employees from drinking alcohol within eight hours of operating a government vehicle. even if we take the statements at their word in terms of how much they drank that night, it seems they violated these listings dhs policy. your report says you found "no evidence that anyone in the secret service was aware of this policy."

that is a problem. i do not see how we can have the elite of the elite and they do not even know what their own rules are. after the incident, secret ciphers -- secret service issued a new rule. this new rule is even more strict than the dhs offering. is that correct? mr. roth: that is correct. rep. cummings: do you know if the secret service is taking steps to educate their employees and conducting training in that regard? mr. roth: we did not look at that in this investigation, but it is something we are certainly interested in. rep. cummings: there are significant problems relating to alcohol at the agency. we have seen that in past incidents as well. but also, the vague policies just make worse the problem. i hope today's hearing is part of a broader effort to reform the agency's policies and make

absolutely clear to employees what is expected of them and to revitalize the agency so it can perform its vertical mission and once again become the elite of the elite. with that, i yield back. >> mr. connelly is not related to me, nor do i like scotch. thank you. rep. chaffetz: duly noted. we will now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. in your report, you said that the findings should be considered in light of the secret service reputation for punishing or ignoring those who would further investigate or report such dilation. that interests me the cousin before your tenure, the dhs released a 2013 report which did not find evidence that the secret service had this conduct

for the leadership had fostered an environment that fostered inappropriate conduct. given your tenure giving this report, what are your thoughts about the 2013 dhs report? is that an accurate reflection of what is going on in the culture of the secret service right now is to mark -- right now? mr. roth: right now, it is not. one of the things that you reference, there are fascinating findings within it. for example, they did a survey, and electronic survey -- an electronic survey where 86% indicated that they did not report such behavior. the report also indicated that, of the 2500-some electronic survey respondents 44% felt they could not report misconduct without fear of retaliation if they reported that.

within that report itself, there are some very disturbing trends. i think, given the nature of what it is we have seen since then, i believe that there is a serious problem within the secret service. rep. desantis: the report also found that 36% of respondents did not believe that senior managers are held accountable within the agency. do you think that that is still the case today? mr. roth: we have not done any work on that, but it would not surprise me if it is still the case. rep. desantis: is there any indication that the process for discipline has improved since the 2013 report? mr. roth: it certainly has improved. the secret service has taken steps -- that is the one that imposes discipline. our 2013 inspection, we made a number of different recommendations, including policies which they now have

adopted. i think the secret service is moving in the right direction in this area. rep. desantis: it is safe to say, though, that the conclusions reached in the 2013 report -- there is a conflict between the conclusions reached in your report. mr. roth: i would agree with that. rep. desantis: the question is how to correct the cultural problems that your report identifies. i think underlying the 2013 report, you saw evidence of that from the people who responded to the survey. as people are given oversight what do we need to be doing in your judgment? mr. roth: candidly, i think director can think -- clancy is moving in the right direction. they put together a table of penalties. they have an office of integrity. i think they are increasing training on this. i think they have treated violations of this very

seriously. for example, the auto accident in florida involving some of the uniform division that was alcohol-related. the discipline that was imposed their was -- there was appropriate. i will not expect that a problem that took years to create will be fixed overnight, but i do think they are moving in the right direction. rep. desantis: your experience with the other components of the dhs, do they all have similar issues with alcohol or is secret service unique in that regard? mr. roth: we have not taken a specific look at other law enforcement agencies to the degree that we have had with the secret service. rep. desantis: you have not had a lot of alcohol-related incidences brought to your attention that you have had to investigate. is that fair? mr. roth: that is fair. rep. desantis: do other organizations have the reputation were someone trying to do the right thing would be punished or marginalized? mr. roth: we have not looked at that, so it is difficult for me

to comment on that. rep. desantis: but you could say that not a lot has been brought to your attention during your tenure. mr. roth: that is correct. rep. desantis: thank you for your report. i think it was timely and had a lot of good information. some of the other incidents, we are looking forward to those results as well. rep. chaffetz: i will recognize ms. orton from the district of columbia. >> we appreciate your report. i suppose this committee is paid to be impatient. particularly in light of the recredited -- the repetitive incidents. i will try to put this in perspective, because iran an

agency that was a whole lot more troubled, at the time, then the secret service. someone said to me, within a couple of months, yet it in order -- get it in order -- i am trying to keep in mind what mr. clancy has found and what he has done. i asked when he was appointed exactly and he is actually a longtime employee of the secret service. he was acting from october -- the march 4 incident occurred -- i consider his acting time. he was official as of february 19. as of the march 4 incident director clancy apparently had

not issued the order that was issued after that incident involving the two agents. my concern is whether or not this indicates -- in light of his having been with the agency during the time when there was no reporting of the bullets that penetrated the white house, i was concerned that the first thing he did was not to say look, let me know before the press knows and anybody knows. it bothered me that, as short a time as that may seem, that he certainly was aware. my question goes to whether or not, in light of this order after the march 4 incident, you

believe there is sufficient clarity as to what is required. for example, i don't know and do agents know about drinking off duty? does there need to be greater clarification beyond reporting up the chain of command? these agents have been under huge duress, according to the special panel. "years of service has taken on additional missions in both protective and investigative roles, but has not matched its request for additional resources of those expended."

they reported that they had been on 12-hour days with fewer days off. you can step back and look at it . they had been subject to the sequester and the rest of that. the panel said that they needed, at best, 200 officers and 85 agents. and said that they were down 500. essentially, you had overworked, overburdened agents. you can imagine that if those people were overworked, they might go out and drink too much. was there any clarification of if you were an officer of the secret service and you are off duty, bearing in mind that everybody is entitled to a private life, is there enough

clarification about what is required on and off duty so that we can be assured that there will not be another incident like this? mr. roth: i think you raise a good point and a good concern. it is certainly one that we wrestled with with regard to what does it mean to be on duty? most of these agents are subject to recall at any time. does that mean that they can never consume alcohol? it would seem to be an irrational policy if that is the case. i agree that there is room for clarification regarding that. rep. norton: thank you very much. i would ask that -- because i think this is a very murky area. i would ask that we ask director clancy to bring some clarification. for example, the number of hours before being required to report for duty. some clarification might be fair. rep. chaffetz: i wholeheartedly

agree. what you see at homeland security issued by secretary johnson is different than what the individual agencies within his department have in front of them. there should be a uniform standard across the board and there is not. that is one of the things we need to work with. rep. norton: maybe even a higher standard for secret service agents. rep. chaffetz: amen. let's recognize the gentleman from north carolina for a few moments. >> let me pick up what we were discussing when it comes to off duty and on duty and it comes to government vehicles. did you determine whether any other entities drove government vehicles after consuming the alcohol? mr. roth: we did not. we interviewed some of the individuals at the farewell party. some of them had alcohol and then went back to the office to continue to work.

my point with regard to that is that the dhs policy, really unknown to the secret service. no one within the secret service understood it. we did not see any attempts by the department to promote this policy. the policy was in the manual for maintenance of government cars. it is not a place in which one would nationally -- naturally look to see a policy like that. it is difficult for us to blame somebody for violating a policy that they did not know about and no one made an effort to tell them about. rep. walker: i understand there are certain aspects and ethics but let me ask this. were any of the party attendees of the secret service part of the executive staff westmark if so should not they be held liable to understand what the rules are? mr. roth: i agree with that.

subsequent to this, it has been noted that the secret service put a new policy in place, a very bright line policy that says you cannot step into or operate a government vehicle if, in the last 10 hours, you have had any alcohol whatsoever. certainly, the behavior that took place at the party is now prohibited. rep. walker: there is no ambiguity. you proved the fact that they did know at least that part of it. if you have been drinking, probably not a good idea to get back into your vehicle. mr. roth: we found there was a lot of uncertainty as to what the policy was. the question of when you are impaired -- in other words, is it ok to have a drink and drive? at a previous hearing, director clancy talked about that. if you are not able to control your actions, you may not be

intoxicated by a legal limit, but some could say you do not have the proper abilities. some sort of imperative. that is such a vague standard that it is functionally unenforceable. rep. walker: you mentioned that some employees returned to work after consuming the alcoholic beverages. is that correct? mr. roth: correct. rep. walker: what has been done or said or recommended? mr. roth: our policy is that we find the facts, conduct the investigation, and then we give everything that we have to the secret service. we are not in the discipline business. rep. walker: i understand that. are you aware of anything who has been done to those employees who were drinking and have come back to work? mr. roth: no. we transmitted our information last week, so we have not heard anything back. typically, we will not. rep. walker: we talk about the

culture of the secret service and i appreciate some words that you talked about. there has been an expectation that has raised the bar a little bit. this kind of contradicts that mindset that they are still a frat party mentality, what applies to everyone else does not apply to us. i do not want to speculate, but is that a fair statement? the wrist to work that needs to be done to get the bar raised? mr. roth: i show your concern with exactly that. it certainly seems like there are some issues here. rep. walker: on a personal note mr. roth i've seen you here as well as my other committee on homeland security you always do exemplary work. i think the americans appreciate your thoroughness. with that, i yield back. rep chaffetz: i now recognize mr. clay.

0 i want to ask about an e-mail exchange that you obtained between the two who have been during thing in the bar. first, let me walk through some facts. the incident happened on the night of march force. your report found mr. connolly and mr. ogilvie should have reported this incident but neither did so. is that right? mr. roth: that's right. rep. clay: it seems like they were hoping this whole thing would just blow over. two days later on march 6, mr. connolly had his chance to come clean. he had a meeting with his superior, the special agent in charge. according to her report, he never mentioned anything involving this incident. your report says this, and i

quote, connolly met with his supervisor on march 6 and discussed the handling of the confrontation with the suspect and the suspicious package incident. connolly did not mention the incident involving him and ogilvie. with this meeting on march 6 mr. connolly decided he would just keep his mouth shut and not tell his supervisor what happened. is that correct? mr. roth: that's correct. rep. clay: he also would have learned at that meeting that no one else had reported the incident dealer. here's what i want to rescue about. the very next day on march seventh, mr. ogilvie and mr. connolly had an e-mail exchange. i would like to put it up on the screen. there we go.

mr. ogilvie, this is an e-mail exchange. "all good." "muy bueno." then at 8:50 p.m. from mr. ogilvie, "u are an angel." i don't know what was in their heads, but one interpretation of this exchange is that mr. ogilvie was asking, are we going to get in trouble for this? or are we all good? then mr. connolly who just met with his boss the day before determined that no one else had reported the incident assured him that everything would be fine. mr. ross, your investigators interviewed mr. ogilvie. according to the interview notes, mr. ogilvie admitted the context of this e-mail was to check in with mr. connolly about

the march 4 incident. is that correct? mr. roth: yes, sir. rep. clay: in contrast, mr. connolly said the e-mail had nothing to do with the march 4 incident. he claims that he had no idea what this e-mail was about, but no clue. he told investigators and i quote, he did not know with the intent was behind it. it was open-ended. he did not know if it was in reference to march 4 or the busy day that he was year -- he was having. mr. roth, i have one last question for you. do you buy that? mr. roth: no, i don't. i believe this was communication between the two to make sure or see whether or not the word had leaked out with regard to the incident that had happened two days prior. rep. clay: what usually happens

when a witness like that is being so dishonest? are there any follow-ups to a person's dishonesty? i guess this was a deposition or just a question? rep. clay:mr. roth: it was an interview as part of the investigation. there are penalties as a result of not telling the truth. rep. clay: thank you so much for your responses. i yield back. rep chaffetz: i now recognize mr. heights from georgia. 0 you have already stated that it was a failure on the part of the ice and and simpson not to report the incident. their excuse was they felt it was being self-reported. you believe allowing individuals

to self-report is acceptable? mr. roth: no, i do not. the supervisory chain, they had an independent duty to report this either to me or the secret service office of professional responsibility or up the chain. i would note that the uniformed division chief said he did not think it was his job to report misconduct. rep. hice: is this a policy problem or a communication problem? rep. hice: what does the policy say? mr. roth: individuals have responsibility to report suspicions of violations of law or regulation either to the inspector general or, for example, to the office of professional responsibility. rep. hice: does the policy state that individuals must self-report? mr. roth: there is a secret service policy requiring individuals to self-report. rep. hice: you do not believe

that is effective? mr. roth: it is effective if you have the integrity to do so. obviously, -- rep. hice: you just said that it's not an acceptable practice yet its policy. can we expect that to change? mr. roth: that is a question you should direct to the secret service. rep. hice: do you believe dyson and simpson should be punished? mr. roth: we are not in the business of determining the appropriate punishment. rep. hice: i'm asking if you believe they should be. mr. roth: their behavior was troubling. rep. hice: do you believe they should be punished? mr. roth: i believe the should be consequences, yes. rep. hice: do you believe any personnel should be able to retire in order to avoid punishment for misconduct? mr. roth: that gets into areas of personnel law -- rep. hice: i'm asking your

opinion. mr. roth: personally a bit of the government for 29 years. i have a pension. it's vested. that is my property. i would like to think i can rely on that. rep. hice: in order to avoid punishment for misconduct, we are seeing a lot of this. it's quite disgusting to me personally. it's a way of dodging consequences for personal behavior. it enables people to behave anyway they want to end when they get caught with her hand in the cookie jar, they just retire to know consequences. do you believe that's ok? mr. roth: i understand the frustration. the maximum consequentce would be termination from the service which is functionally what retiring would do. rep. hice: without punishment though for misconduct. somewhere along the way we have to deal with the problem of misconduct. at this point there seems to be nothing. they just retire to know consequences. that's an entirely on acceptable

policy when all is said and done. at some point, misconduct test dealt with. we are seeing, it seems like, on a regular basis secret service high profile cases of misconduct and there is a root cause somewhere for this culture that allows for misconduct. what you believe the root causes? mr. roth: i think it is a lack of accountability. rep. hice: how do we correct it? mr. roth: again with the secret service has done, and this is probably better addressed to them, is institute a series of reform, a table of penalties, a more uniform way of administering discipline, better communications, those kinds of things. rep. hice: i know you know this from the report that there a punishment for those who report misconduct. have you ever considered rewarding people for reporting

misconduct? mr. roth: financially? rep. hice: in any way. would it help bring accountability? rep. hice:mr. roth: i think that is something worthy of a discussion. one thing we try to do and one thing i tried to do when i came on board is i sent an e-mail to all 7000 e-mail addresses to the secret service indicating that we were interested in finding misconduct, waste and fraud within the secret service reminding them of the protections they have within the whistleblower protection act as well as the inspector general's act. as a result of that, we have gotten some reports, the report on the bush residence that had an alarm that had been out for 13 months of was a result of a whistleblower. someone can forward and said this is an unacceptable thing.

you should see what happened here. we were able to investigate it and bring that to light. we fixed the problem. what i'm hopeful love is as we move down the road, people will understand that they do have some redress. reporting of the chain will not simply be ignored but they will actually fix the problem but it will take some time. rep chaffetz: i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. roth for your good work here. you did a bang up job getting to the bottom of this investigation and we appreciate it. i want to talk to you a bit about the videotape procedure there at the white house. chairman che fitts and i, the ranking member mr. cummings, we went over to the command post for the secret service and they had a full spectrum situation there where they had maybe a

dozen different cameras, different angles. they get a pretty good view of the white house. the problem is, in this case let's just take this case with the most recent incident where the woman got out of the car and left the bomb in the driveway. that tape was only retained for 72 hours. they did not tell director clancy for five days. by the time they told him about what had happened, the tapes had been taped over. that is every 72 hours. we also had an incident back in november 2011 where we had an individual, i believe his name was ortega fernandez, who took a semiautomatic rifle and shot up the white house.

and yet the secret service completely missed it. capitol police misted. a housekeeper happened to find some shell fragments and reported it and the fbi did an investigation. meanwhile, those tapes were destroyed. but for the fact that this fellow after he left had a car accident down by the 14th street bridge, we would not have known about it. we would not have been able to connect that incident to shots fired at the white house. what i'm getting at is the airports, everyone uses a 30-day cycle on these tapes. the technology today allows us to do that. i know you had some inquiry into the reasons why they collapsed that time.

why would the secret service want to tape over tapes when we've had these repeated incidents where a longer preservation of those tapes would help us to make the white house more secure and the second example i gave, the president's mother-in-law and his two daughters were in washington at the time. one of the daughters was home. we're talking about pretty severe consequences here and we are whistling to the graveyard in allowing this process to go on. what i'd like to try to do is change the protocol, the security protocol at the white house, to start doing things in a way to make the president and his family safer. obviously you are people jumping all over the fence, helicopters landing, drones, people shooting at the white house. i'm starting to lose faith in

the secret service. i really am. and the level of seriousness we have in protecting our president and his family. this is pretty basic stuff. after having inquired about the taping practices at the white house, can you tell me if you have any recommendations they might adopt to accomplish our goal here of protecting the president? mr. roth: what we found was actually even worse than what you described. for the longest time, it was only a 24-hour retention policy and they only change that after the incident in which there were these gatecrashers at the state dinner in 2011. then they moved it to 72 hours. the system, as you know, is a combination of digital and analog. really in some ways, it's very similar to what we saw in the bush residence where they had installed an alarm system --

this is the senior bush -- left office and they never replaced it. it was a 20-year-old alarm system that was protecting a former president. they did not have a system in place to be able to update these kinds of things. there was not, for example, a ticket system where you needed something repaired there would be a record that you requested these types of repairs. a lot of their fundamental business practices simply have not cap up with the 21st century. -- simply have not kept up. with the white house system, there are updates that will occur in the near future. rep. lynch: any timeline on that? mr. roth: i do, but am not sure if it's public information. rep. lynch: fair enough. i yield back. rep chaffetz: i recognize mr. heights of georgia for five minutes. -- mr. hice. my bad, mr. carter.

mr. carter: mr. ross, thank you for being here. i want to get something that is bothering me about the series of hearings. it seems to be the culture, if you will, of the secret service about reporting. we have been told and it's been alleged that a vendor said he did not want to report this. he did not want to ask for a field to bridie test as it would have been a career killer. is that true? -- they did not what to ask for a field sobriety test. mr. roth: yes, the watch commander subsequently denied that. rep. carter: when he said that's a career killer, is he referring to his career for reporting it? or referring to their career if they had been found guilty? i'm not sure. mr. roth: the sense we got was that was one of the motivations

for the watch commander not to do any further inquiries. he felt there might be retaliation against him. in other words, a career killer for him. certainly consistent to things he found in the 2013 report to a high percentage of people failing to report misconduct believing that either nobody would listen or you would, in fact, be retaliated against. rep. carter: tell me what the policy is. what is the policy of the secret service when someone does recognize this or when someone is faced with the situation? are you required to report? or just to keep it quiet? mr. roth: it is certainly not the latter and it is dhs-wide policy that it is required to report it to be did the secret service office of professional responsibility were the inspector general. rep. carter: what is the punishment? mr. roth: i'm not sure at this point what it is. rep. carter: it would appear to

me that's an important component. mr. roth: correct. the inspector general's office is not involved in specific discipline cases. that is the secret service responsibility. what we'd do is we engage in fact finding and handed over to the secret service to do exactly what you suggest. rep. carter: ok. i'm still a little disappointed -- not in you. it would appear to me it would be cut and dry. mr. roth: sure. rep. carter: let me ask you about the two agents involved. when they arrived at the white house complex, the officer who stopped them asked, where are you coming from? there answer was? mr. roth: secret service headquarters. rep. carter: and that turns out to be a blatant lie. mr. roth: that is not true, correct. rep. carter: we teach our children there are consequences to actions. this was an action. what is the consequence?

mr. roth: there is a secret service table of penalties that talks about the range of consequences for specific things and i can go through the specific ones with regard -- rep. carter: i appreciate that and i understand, but let me ask you this. what will happen to them? mr. roth: there is a process in place that the office for integrity of secret service runs that is the deputy of the office of integrity will write up, take a look at our report of the supporting materials that we have produced, and determine whether or not this a plan is warranted. if he does he will write up what is functioning a charging letter and give it to the individuals involved, connelly and ogilvie. they have due process. they had the ability to appeal to the integrity officer as well as if consequences are severe enough to the merit systems protection. rep. carter: is one of the options to go ahead and retire?

mr. roth: i'm not sure. certainly, you can only discipline people who are federal employees. if someone leaves the service there is no discipline to impose because the most you can impose is to throw them out of federal service. rep. carter: does it go on permanent record? mr. roth: yes, it would. rep. carter: is that shared with a prospective employer in the future? in the private sector, do you tell them this is what happened? or do you just tell them they were employed from this date until this date? mr. roth: i'm not 100% sure. in these two individuals, i think a google search would take care of that. rep. carter: obviously in this. mr. roth: i'm not sure that's an area of employment law that i do not know. rep. carter: my point is -- the concern i have is with the general culture that exists in the secret service at this time. mr. roth: i certainly sure that concern. rep chaffetz: glad to see mr.

carter coming in under time. we now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. cartwright. rep. cartwright: i want to thank you for mentioning the valor that is routinely shown by agents of the secret service and in particular and especially a young man that you mention from scranton, pennsylvania, in my district. today the u.s. secret service is proud to note its own sergeant technician william muir was presented by secretary jeh johnson the secretary's award for valor which is awarded for displays of expression -- exceptional courage. as the chairman mentioned he pulled the next in an victim from the baltimore-washington parkway accident.

it was later determined that the victim would have been unable to extricate himself without his help. we are exceptionally proud of him today. we are proud for him coming in 30th in the scranton marathon last much -- last month. mr. roth, we are here to talk about failures of the secret service though. it is a dour duty that you have to talk about the downside is in the things we've seen in the secret service. your report concludes, and i quote, "both connelly and ogilvie had a duty to report this incident to their superiors but did not do so." is there a policy requiring them to self-report incidents of this nature? mr. roth: yes, there is.

rep. cartwright: can you explain the policy? mr. roth: i'm simply rating from the manual that secret service has. any incident in which an employee of the secret service is involved which may be the cause of publicity or inquiry from others must be immediately reported to the supervisor. the range of said -- the range of incidents is so wide that it is impossible to enumerate them. it may or could be given publicity or make me the subject of inquiry. and it goes on, but that is the just. -- that is the gist. rep. cartwright: others knew and failed to alert senior leadership. in particular you found, and i quote, "deputy chief dyson and kevin simpson were notified that night that two agents had been drinking and had driven into an evacuated area and each could have reported the incident.'

is that correct? why did they not report the incident? mr. roth: that is correct. we answered -- we asked them that question and it was twofold. deputy chief dyson had spoken to connelly twice and connelly said that he would self-report. dyson believed it was better for connelly to self-report than for him to report. with regard to the chief, he said he believed connelly would report and that it was not his job to report misconduct on behalf of agents but just misconduct on the half of uniform division officers. rep. cartwright: who should johnson and -- dyson and simpson reported to? mr. roth: the opposite professional responsibility or the inspector general. rep. cartwright: sergeant simpson was the most high

ranking official who knew he was drinking when he drove into the evacuated area. what was his excuse for not reporting this to anyone else? mr. roth: he did not report the incident because he did not believe it was his job to do so and assumed that connelly would self-report. rep. cartwright: i don't think there's any acceptable reason for failing to report a clear incident of misconduct of this nature. the secret service has to make it clear that reporting misconduct is not optional. employees are required to report potential misconduct up the chain of command. mr. ross, thank you for your report on this matter and i yield back. rep chaffetz: i now recognize mr. meadows of north carolina for five minutes. rep. meadowes: thank you for

your work and please thank your staff as well. it was timely, quick. i appreciate your frank and direct answers. i especially appreciate that because it's not always the case. i want to give credit where credit is due. i want to follow-up on questions asked with regards to the alcohol policy that is either known or unknown. i think you said most people are not aware of the dhs policy is that correct? mr. roth: at the time they were not aware. sis this incident, there have been steps -- rep. cartwright: that does not -- rep. meadows: you can find it on your website and maybe you have to look for it. it's there. why would they not know about it? is it just willful ignorance? is the eighth floor not

stressing the policy? why would they not know? mr. roth: it's a matter of both publicizing it educating individuals about it. for example, we interviewed ogilvie's direct supervisor who did not know what the policy was. rep. meadows: let me go further then. there's a policy everyone is aware of and i believe it's called the 10-hour rule. we have this receipt that would indicate there were a number of people that were drinking and possibly reporting. would they not have been dilating -- of violating if they reported within the 10-hour rule? mr. roth: the bar tab was closed out at 10:47 p.m. roughly. they entered the east street gate slightly before 11 p.m. their duty hours started at 9 a.m. the next day. rep. meadows: what about others?

obviously it was a pretty big party. mr. roth: by the preponderance of the evidence, the four individuals there were the last to leave. there was that anybody else left. rep. meadows: it sounds a key been pretty thorough. that me tell you why we need to reemphasize that. on the way here, i got two calls from random agents that it could not name because they are afraid to die vulture they are. literally within an hour of this meeting letting me know of all kinds of problems. the expectation of secret service agents to actually put liquor in the rooms of supervisors as they travel. if they don't do that, it is frowned upon. gs 15 that have been caught inappropriately with females and yet still leaving ammo and guns behind. i'm hearing a kinds of things. if i'm a member of congress hearing this do you hear the

same kinds of things? should we report to you to investigate? it's troubling. we have this culture from the most elite protective service in the world to get it seems like i'm getting calls almost daily. mr. roth: by all means, you should encourage them to contact us. the other look backs we are doing. i really think the only way the culture is going to change is a quick can demonstrate we are going to take these things seriously. rep meadows: i have your commitment, if we give you potential things to look at, you will take them seriously?

you are 100% committed to routing of the problems? i know we are about to have votes. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. the secret service division, component it is a component of dhs. do you think it makes better sense that there are departmentwide policies regarding such important things? as opposed to component wide policies? mr. roth: there is certainly a validity to have uniformity across all of dhs, which there is not right now. >> we hear that on the other committee i am on. according to them or memorandum

of under standing, certain kinds of misconduct must be referred to you. does march 4 constitute that level? mr. roth: yes:. >> who should have reported it? what level, what titles? is it just one person's responsibility? mr. roth: the duty to report it to us, the office of inspector general is -- if they get a complaint that talks about someone who is a gs 15 or above they have a duty to report it to us. once they hear it, they report it to us. independent of that is the duty that all employees have,

reporting suspicions of wrongdoing. >> some of it is getting confusing. this entity -- mr. roth: the internal affairs within the secret service. >> when did they know about it? march 9. you were informed of it on march 9. mr. clancy was informed of this on march 9 also? mr. roth: correct. >> he did not start an investigation of his own when you were going to take this on? is that usual operating procedure? where if you are going to do it, the agency will not conduct it. mr. roth: once decision is taken, everybody has to step back.

>> we were going to focus in on who or what level we believe -- other than the self reporting of the chain of command. mr. roth: the point of failure. the senior management was in the uniform division, they knew of it and did not report it to for example director clancy. the watch commander reported up his chain of command. for example, the debbie -- deputy chief. additionally, there was a special agent. who was aware of what went on. she certainly could have and probably did have a duty to report it as well. >> i'm going to close because we are running late.

i want to associate myself with something another person said. i don't know how long the work in public service, five years or 15 or 20 years. if you are found to have done something as egregious -- there needs to be some consequences. you are not allowed to walk away and say, i retire. thank you very much. >> now i recognize mr. russell. mr. russell: thank you for your tireless investigations.

i guess might take on it is a little more simple. would driving through a potential crime scene be acceptable off duty? >> neither, sir. mr. russell: what inter-are -- w ould entering the white house buzzed or inebriated be acceptable? mr. roth: no sir. mr. russell: what kind of question says that raise? mr. roth: i share your concerns. rep roth: what sort of example the think that sets for the agents?

knowing that any of them at any moment could be called upon to protect free world? mr. roth: that is something we wrestled with. that is one of the reasons they have government cars. at 80 moment, they could be called out to give you a good example -- at any moment, they could be called out. a good example is the philadelphia agents who responded to the home of the woman who had dropped the package. it is very troubling. rep. russell: this is the highest level they can perform.

what discipline have they received? mr. roth: the way the process works is, there is an investigation that is done. we transmitted all of our materials to their office of professional responsibility. which then manages that program. the deputy within the office would assess the materials and write a charging document. they have a table of penalties. i think this is serious conduct. i think the fact that it has caused me to expend these

resources, the director of the secret service to distract himself from his important business. i think it is detrimental to the effective functioning of the secret service. rep. russell: should the american public have more confidence or less in the ability to protect the president? mr. roth: i am hoping this process will create more confidence. rep> russell: we had a similar answer after barricades, drones. we talking about the president of the united states. at what point do you see -- what is your estimation -- you have

been handling investigations a long time? are they taking it serious? while they make the changes the american public demands? mr. roth: i have had a number of conversations. do i think he is making the right moves? mr. russell: my hope is the director thank you for your text to moni -- testimony today.

>> you mention there were others who had been drinking. mr. roth: i am not exactly sure who that would have been. they would have a beer and a sandwich, say goodbye, and then go back to work. >> some of the people went back to work. how many people? mr. roth: i do not have that information. >> this is not just one person making a rookie mistake. you have two people, mr. connolly with 27 years. 46 years of experience. you are telling me they did not know it is wrong to drink? mr. roth: it is not right to

drink alcohol and work the french fry machine at mcdonald's. it is certainly not when you are there to protect the president and the first family. they have guns. they can blow past and say i am your supervisor. that is what is happening here. when you did have the poor officer. they are trying to do the right thing. the senior people with badges, guns, and alcohol on their breath said, i just came from headquarters. they did not mention they came from the bar. was that a lie? mr. roth: it would appear to be that way. >> they are lying to themselves because they did take a government vehicle. they should know after 46 years they are there to respond at a moment's gnomon -- notice.

these are the senior most people they were taking advantage. they were making taxpayers pay for their little rides to the bar. the only thing that is raising the bar is the bar tab. it has to change. i appreciate the good work. how long is homeland security and secret service -- how long have they had your draft? mr. roth: they received it may 6. they supply the underlying materials middle or late last week. chaffetz: and yet there is no

consequence. what discretion does he have revoking their clearance? mr. roth: i don't have that information. rep. chaffetz: he could revoke it immediately? mr. roth: i am not sure exactly what the process is. rep. chaffetz: he could be put on non-paid leave. do think this is an aggravated situation? rep. chaffetz: unfortunately you are getting into areas of employment law that are beyond by competence. i think that is a fair situation. as mr. russell pointed out, even if they were not drunk and they interrupted a potential scene, that is acceptable. if they lied to somebody who works for the secret service that is unacceptable.

if you look at what happened in the e-mail chain, there is monday of. this is a pivotable moment for the secret service. this is when we find out if they have the guts to do what needs to be done. in my opinion, these people should be fired. they should have their security clearances revoked. those that did not report it, i have a list of people who have at least according to your report highlighted policy that could lead to their removal. mark connolly. perhaps and probably michael. at the very least, they need to be taken to the woodshed and should lose their security clearance. i was the president, i would never want to see them again. i don't want to see them there. we have thousands of people like this gentleman who was recognized for his valor that

should be protecting the president of the united states. if you are going to go consume alcohol and show up at the white house, get out of here. find another job. you would not be able to work at my mcdonald's. he would not even be able to run the french fry machine. you are not going to drink and show up to work. that is what is happening. they continue to investigate your report is conclusive and independent. it is time for this director and secretary to take definitive conclusive action and fix the problem. send a message to the rest of the workforce that we are not going to put up with anybody showing up to work drunk inebriated, lying. that is my opinion. i will yield to the ranking member. >> thank you. anybody who just tuned in, --

you have done a great job. we appreciate your staff. i know you had to pull together a lot of people in a little bit of time. we appreciate it. how are we going to straighten this out? we cannot keep the pressure up without the information you have provided us. i am hopeful mr. chairman, when mr. clancy comes before us, he will have a report letting us know what disciplinary actions he is taking. i want to thank you. we appreciate you have done. we also appreciate you working with us. you have been great and your staff. thank you. rep. chaffetz: i totally concur. without that information, we would still be left in the dark. when viewing your staff have

done, we are appreciative. it is now our responsibility to hold the administration accountable and make sure they fix the problem. so we can stop having hearings like these. thank you for this work. this committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> on the next washington journal, vermont congressman peter welch joins us to talk about rail safety and other items on the congressional agenda including the patriot act. and then congressman steve russell on government waste and the bill in the house. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. this sunday night at 8:00

eastern, we will look into the personal lives of three first ladies. rachel jackson, and angelica ben-gurion. rachel jackson was called a bigamist. she died of an apparent heart attack before he took office. his niece emily's donaldson becomes the hostess. when art and van buren becomes president, his daughter-in-law is the hostess. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on first ladies. influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama. as a complement to the series, c-span's new book is now

available. presidential historians on the lives of 45 american women. lively stories of the lives of these women. an illuminating and inspiring read. house ways and means committee paul ryan talked about fast track trade promotion. >> congressman paul ryan is the chair of the ways and means committee. why do you think these measures are good for american workers? representative ryan: well, i

think getting a level playing field for american workers so we can make and xwroe more things in america and send them overseas is is very important for jobs. you know, the reason basically is 95% of the world's consumers don't live in our country. they live in other countries, so it's important we open up markets because one in five jobs in america is tied to trade and most of these jobs pay more on average than non-trade based jobs, so it's really a function of getting more growth, more job creation, better wages. we already give many of these countries decent access to our markets, but they don't give the same kind to their markets and so that's why you need trade agreements to open up those markets and get those countries to play by our rules so we can have free and fair trade so we can have more jobs, so it's really all about that. the last point i would make is the global economy is is here and it's always changing. the question is is, do we lead and guide that change or do others write the rule book is . right now it's really a way of

, do our allies write the rules or does china and for you know i for one don't want to see china writing the rules of the global economy because i don't think that's in our interest. i think it's important for america to be at the front seat leading this so we can have more american jobs and higher wages. >> in an op-ed for the "washington post," you said china is rigging the rules in its favor. how so? representative ryan: because it takes our land and locks it into property rights. it subsidized government corporations from china to unfairly compete against american workers. for a whole host of reasons china does not play by the , ordinary rules and what we get with trade agreements is getting other countries around china to play by our rules so set the standards. the goal is not to lower american standards. it's to get other countries to trade by american standards and you can't do that if you don't get trade agreements. >> what this means for organized labor and workers in general. the aflcio is claiming these bills allow you and others to go after the demands of

deregulation. they say it's going to give tax breaks to big businesses and hurt the average worker. representative ryan: i disagree. trade based jobs pay almost 18% more on average. one in five jobs in america is tied to trade and by the way, if we're not getting trade agreements, that means other countries are going around the world getting better agreements for their countries and freezing america out. we can't just make and sell to ourselves. we have to make things and sell overseas and without trade agreements, what companies inevitably have to do is is manufacture in foreign markets in order to sell in those. by getting a trade agreement to lower the barrier, we can make things here in america and send them overseas because those barriers have been lifted, so that's the key. this is why it's bipartisan. why you have president obama pushing for trade along with republicans in congress because we know in the final analysis, when you strip out all the uncertainties and all the misperception, it's really in america's interest to do this and with trade promotion authority, we are saying we need to have high standards.

we need to have transparency and we want to make sure that the american people can read a trade agreement 60 days before a president can even sign an agreement and then send it in for congress. we think we're getting it right with transparency, by putting congress in the driver's seat by , making sure people's voices are heard to get good quality trade agreements and if you're not getting trade agreements that means other countries are and america will lose. >> we learned from senator rand paul that the texts of these agreements are not available. it's 800 pages long. he's saying it should be made available. why isn't it? representative ryan: it's not finalized. these agreements are still being negotiated, so there isn't an agreement to look at and release. what trade promotion authority does under the bill we've written is that when these agreements are done, then the whole entire agreement should be made public for at least 60 days

before any president can sign an agreement and then send it to congress for congress's consideration. and so we don't have a trade agreement yet. we don't have a trade trans-pacific partnership. you need tpa, trade promotion authority, in order to get a trade agreement. what we're saying with tpa is we want more transparency, have people read negotiations. members of congress if he wants to under tpa can participate in the negotiations. he can attend the negotiations if he wants to. but once they're concluded, then you make it public. we don't yet have a trade agreement to make public because we have not yet completed tpa. >> and congressman, as you well know there are many who don't support these trade bills in large part because they don't trust this president. will you and speaker boehner get the votes you need to get this through the house?

representative ryan: i think we will get this through the house and i think it's going to be a bipartisan bill in the senate. to my friends who are suspicious and i share many of those concerns, trade promotion authority binds the administration to congress's will. it puts congress in charge of the process. because there's nothing that stops the president from going out and negotiating an agreement and just sending it to congress. what we're saying is we're putting out the guidelines for what the agreements need to include. 150 guidelines that congress is imposing on the administration. transparency requirements. making sure that the tax is made available to the public before we even vote on it. those are the kinds of things we're insisting upon in trade promotion authority so i would very much argue that by passing trade promotion authority you have congress asserting its prerogative, asserting its control of the process at the front end instead of just sitting back, waiting for the president to negotiate something secret and then send it to congress. >> finally, congressman, what's the biggest?

representative ryan: i think ways and means simply because its jurisdiction is so much wider. not only is it in charge of trade laws, tax laws, tax laws and health care laws and oversees our entitlement programs. >> congressman paul ryan joining us on capitol hill. thank you for being with us. >> president obama will patriot to law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. in 1962, president kennedy proclaimed may 15 as the peace officers memorial day. we will have coverage from the capital. and a house veterans affairs hearing on staffing. coverage begins at 9:00 eastern.

>> ♪ there is nothing left to do ♪ >> sunday night on c-span's q&a veteran canadian astronaut chris produced many videos on his activity at the international space station. >> the only time i felt a shiver of fear was on the dark side of the earth, looking at the one side of australia. eastern australia. watching a shooting star come in between me and the earth. at first i had the standard reaction of wishing upon a star.

then i had the sobering realization that was just a huge dumb rock from the universe going, who knows, 20 miles a second that missed us and made it to the atmosphere. it was big enough to see it. it it had hit us, we would have been dead in an instant. >> sunday night on q&a. >> the house continues to debate and vote on amendments to the defense programs bill. in one vote, they removed in immigration provision. it would have allowed studying the possibility of undocumented children to enlist in the military. here is debate on that and others. >> thank you. i rise in support of the

amendment. er comittee a rema oosed to brinng this issue of igration into the defse thorization bi. there are mbersn both sides of theie with a variety of positions whent comes immigration. but a defense auorization act is not the appropriate time or pce to have this debate. remember t gallego languag doesn't changany w. 's aense ocoress th secretary should review existing auries systemf a sensitive debate wherehere can be no results that chame anng, on disacts from e provions in this ll that do matter to our troops a our nation'security. i notice that the chairman of thsenate armed seices c said plicly 'rnot gong to do anything on immigrion in the ndaa. that's myiew as well thereforer. chairma i support the brooks amendt to removthis provisionow so th we can better foc othe thngs that are essent for r troops security. i yield back. chr: the gtlemanyields ck. the gentleman from alabama reserves.

th genemanrom washgton. mr. smith: i yield one mine r. gallego. thchair: does the gentn seek time in oppotion in . smith: yes, i sk time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recogniand yields one minute to the gentleman from ariza. mr.al: dreame this countryre deeply patriotic. for many, s isheonly country they know, the on the love anllome. manyannotng more than the chanceo serve in tunited states military brooks amendment attempts to strikthat ali. we approveh amendment, we leave the deep unjust stus qunchanged. right now in arica, dreamers can be drafted into the military, but they can't sign up to servee military force

they choose. th simply unacceptable these young people are americans in every respect exct on paper. i fought in iraq and i know that what really mas on the batefield is t whher you have the right pape, it's whether you have the heart to fight, patriotismor your country and the righaracter. for tood of cntry, i hope w defat this deeply uided brooks amendment i back. the chair: the gentlan yields back. the gentl from washington reserves his time thehair recoges theeman from a, mr. brooks. mr. brks: i yi one mine tohe gentlman fr virginia, chairman gd lath the chair: thgentleman is reize . goode: the houseuld noke action to legitimize the pridt's unconstitutional overreach regdimmigration. especially that of creating a programo defer removal for an entclass o hundreds of thoan of uawful ail yeps. e ntleman's ament is nessary preserve the

congress'nstitutionally guaranteed poweover immiation law a policy. whher and how to dealh unlawful u.s. as minors by their parents is a question that we should debate thoroughly any legislative efforts regarding these individuals should move through regular order. legitimate concerns must be addressed. not the least is whether parents should be able to benefit from the illegal activity. as the policy currently stands that will happen if any childhood deferred action enlist in the military. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> the gentleman from alabama reserves his time.

>> i am pleased to yield one minute. >> the gentlelady from washington is recognized. >> there is no greater love than to lay down your life for your friends. abraham lincoln said giving your life for your country is the last full measure of devotion. i am proud that citizenship means something. it is worthy to be earned. amnesty means giving it away. i do not support it. i support the ability to earn citizenship at. if a person has the willingness to serve the nation, what more can they do to prove their allegiance? it is not a jobs program. if someone through their merit and hard work earns acceptance, where they could die defending you and me, i leave you with

with this question. which country's flag would you have draped over the casket? i yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. >> mr. smith is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i support the amendment. the house has voted against the president's executive amnesty. this would support the president unlawful actions which violate his constitutional authority. serving in our military forces and defending our country should be a privilege reserved for those who are citizens and u.s. residents. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment and tell my colleagues, no more unlawful

actions. i yield back my time. >> i yield a minute to the gentleman from california. >> thank you mr. speaker. the gentleman who -- they are test with a responsibility greater than the rest of us. it takes avery and honor to put their lives on the line every day. i believe we can agree on this. some of my republican colleagues think it is fair to punish those who want to take on this courageous responsibility because they have not been granted full citizenship.

for most, this is the only country they know. we should not allow our system to stand in the way. i urge opposition to the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i yield the balance of my time. how much do i have? >> 2.5 minutes. >the gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

to the ndaa boresens that plight. over -- worsens that plight. 92,000 positions were eliminated. this year 28,000 positions prb eliminated. over the next four years, another 38,000 mirlts fogses will be cut. between 2010 and 2019, the armed forces will eliminate a total of 158,000 uniform personnel positions, thereby costing american citizens and lawful immigrants 158,000 military service opportunities. what is the result? americans serving around the world today have been handed pink slips while they are risking their lives for america. that's outrageous. for emphasis, there is no military recruitment and retention deficit that justifies supplanting americans and lawful immigrants with

illegal aliens. in 2014, every branch of the military, the army the navy, the air force, the marines, met their recruiting and retention requirements while turning away thousands of highly qualified americans and lawful immigrants. each year there are limited number of enlistment opportunities. each time gallego's amendment helps an illegal alien enlist, a lawful american loses an enlistment opportunity. the ratio is 1:1, period, that is the math. this congress should support and represent americans by voting to stop military service opportunities from being taken from struggling american families in order to give them to illegal aliens. as such, i urge this house to support my amendment to strike the gallego amendment from the

national defense authorization act. mr. speaker, thank you for considering my thoughts and request. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. smith: first, i agree completely of the comments from ms. herrera butteler. if you're willing to put your life on the line for your country then your country ought to accept you. it truly is your country. second of all, the united states military is not a jobs program. if you're willing to show up and put your life on the line then that ought to be honored and you ought to be accepted. the notion these people are taking jobs from americans is frankly one that doesn't make any sense. we are asking people to serve in a very difficult job to defend our country. and if people in this country are willing to do this, we ought to at a minimum accept them. by i'll even go further than that. the undocumented population in this country is a population for too long has been ignored and shoved into the shadows. we all imagine that they're

somehow different from the rest of us, but i guarantee you everybody in this room knows someone who is undocumented. and the overwhelming majority of them are law-abiding people who have jobs, raise families, contribute to our community. they deserve an opportunity to be part of the country that they have unquestionably claimed as their own. now, mr. gallego's amendment that we put on in committee is one small piece of doing that, to give them the opportunity to serve in the united states military and be given legal status, i think we need to do a lot more than that. i think we need comprehensive immigration reform so we can bring the undocumented population out of the shadows, give them a path to citizenship so by support mr. gallego's amendment, i oppose the effort by mr. brooks to strip it. i think it is the least our country can do for someone who is willing to fight and potentially die on our behalf to give them legal status, to treat them as the americans that they truly are. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his

time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? ms. with a lohr key: mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentlelady from indiana mrs. walorski, and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank mr. thornberry for his support of my amendment. i want to start out by saying this debate is fundamentally about risk and trust. it's safe to assume the administration is risking our national security for the sake of fulfilling a misguide campaign promise. simply put, we have too much at sake to trust an executive order from the president. my amendment protects our national security, further strengthens and extends commonsense restrictions on guantanamo transfers. it prohibits detainees from coming to the u.s., a policy which has in the past had strong bipartisan support. in addition, it restricts the most dangerous detainees from being transferred. finally, it bans transfers to yemen, an al qaeda strong hold, one of the moist does places on earth, to set -- one of the most dangerous places on earth to set terrorists four-seam. it seems like the only thing we can trust the administration to

do is underestimate the threat. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. smith: i oppose this by closing guantanamo and this amendment makes it more difficult to close guantanamo which is a policy we ought to do. again, president bush, secretary gates, endless string of military leaders and in a bipartisan way john mccain was running for president, people said we need to close guantanamo. it is not something a policy that we should continue. for beginners, it costs nearly $3 an inmate now to house them there when the ones that need to be kept can be safely housed in the united states. we have proven that we are perfectly capable of locking up

terrorists and protecting our country. we have well over 300 terrorists now locked up in the united states of america including the blind sheik zacharias mow sigha and -- and bad guys. we don't need guantanamo. beyond that, this amendment makes it difficult to transfer anybody. and a large number of inmates at guantanamo have been cleared for transfer. they have been deemed not to be a threat and they are cleared to be transferred. mrs. walorski's amendment would make it pretty much impossible to transfer them. so these are people we've already decided are not going to be a threat and now we're going to pass amendments saying we're simply going to lock them up and hold them forever just because. now, i understand the because. the because is there's a risk. and i'm not going to deny there is a risk if you release somebody. i will say that the statistics on people returning to the fight who have been in guantanamo are very skewed.

back before 2008 when we had i think at one point we had as many as 700 inmates at guantanamo, a lot of people were released without proper care. now, they were also brought there without proper investigation to figure out whether or not they were people we should legitimately pick up. since 2008, the number -- the percentage of the people who have been released who have returned to the fight is less than 10%. it has gone down considerably. and beyond that, just as a basic system of justice, it is not our principle here in the united states that if there is any possibility whatsoever that someone will reoffend, well, we're just going to lock you up forever, that's not the principle of justice we have. there's a principle of justice that says you served your time and then you are let out. and at guantanamo we have released a fair number of people in the last year because they were deemed to not be a threat. this amendment would eliminate our ability to do that and also make it more difficult to close guantanamo which, again, $3 an

inmate when we can safely do it here. and internationally, guantanamo continues to be a blight on the u.s. record. now, i will not make the argument that some make to say this is a recruitment tool. it is a recruitment tool for al qaeda and like-minded groups. they don't have a shortage of recruitment tools. our allies, countries in europe other arab states that want to work with us to try to contain groups like isil and al qaeda, they have to deal with citizens who hate guantanamo, who see it as a symbol of injustice and a betrayal of their values and our values. so working with our allies to properly confront the terrorist threat is made more difficult by the presence of guantanamo bay prison. so i oppose this amendment. i'll have an amendment after this one that would give us a

path to opposing the prison. i oppose this amendment because it will make it more difficult to do what we need to do in this country and that is to close guantanamo bay prison. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to dr. wenstrup, original co-sponsor of this bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wenstrup: today sadly the threat from radical terrorism only continues to grow and i take that threat very seriously. unfortunately, the administration is still determined to close guantanamo bay detention facility regardless of the risk that it poses to u.s. national security. as in previous conflicts it's appropriate and lawful to hold detainees, and in this case until al qaeda and associated forces are defeated and surrender. guantanamo is the safest and most appropriate location. it's secure and relatively distant from the united states and terrorist safe havens. guantanamo also provides humane conditions for the detainees.

they have access to health care religious and cultural materials. many have visited guantanamo and have seen the conditions in which the dangerous detainees are held. released guantanamo detainees have a high risk of recidivism. the u.s. military and intelligence community suspect that one of the taliban five has attempted to return to the fight. no one has escaped guantanamo, unlike other terrorist detention facilities around the world. and the facility has not been attacked unlike other facilities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. wenstrup: i ask for your support and i yield back. mrs. walorski: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. smith: no terrorist has escaped from a u.s. prison either just to be absolutely clear about that. i'm not sure which prison the gentleman is talking about but no one has escaped from a u.s.

prison either, no terrorist. i believe we have the right to close, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close. mr. smith: i have one more speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: thank you. i yield one minute to our chairwoman of our oversight and investigations committee mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i rise in support of this very important amendment. you know, we live in a dangerous world. whether it's the ongoing conflict in yemen, the march of isil the slaughter of christians by boko haram, the murder of innocence byal that back or the threat of attacking americans by al qaeda, the rise of islamic extremism is real and we need a safe, effective place to detain these terrorists. gitmo is a unique place. now is not the time to transfer these detainees or close its doors. i had the opportunity to visit guantanamo bay and see the operations there first harned

and i can confirm that -- firsthand and i can confirm that gitmo is the most safest play to hold detainees who threaten the u.s. and our allies. we need to continue to protect american citizens from some of the world's most dangerous individuals. we need to pass this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from indiana reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: i yield one minute to mr. royce. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: i rise in support of this amendment. i already expressed my deep concern for the rushed, almost frenzied manner in which the administration is emptying the detention center at guantanamo bay. we saw the dangerous taliban five transfer. just this past december, the administration released six guantanamo bay detainees to the small south american country of

uraguay. these six detainees had been trained in munitions and document forgery. in quiet negotiations with them to take the six, the obama administration offered the president of uraguay reassurances that none of them had ever been involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities. . throwing out with a stroke of a pen the analysis that had led to their detention. these six former terrorists live only six blocks away from the u.s. embassy which forced the embassy to heighten its security posture. the obama administration effectively prioritized its political goal of closing guantanamo over our national security interests. the administration's best -- desperation to empty guantanamo has caused six hardened terrorists to land dangerously close to an embassy in our hemisphere. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from indiana is

recognized. mrs. walorski: i yield one minute to my colleague from montana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: i rise in support of this amendment. i spent years as a navy seal. most of the last years of my service was spent hunting killing, or capturing those who had american blood on their hands. i had the honor of leading special operations troops in hunting these dangerous assailants and bringing them to justice. releasing terrorists from guantanamo bay who have committed killing american citizens, not only is a national security risk but it's also a slap in the face to every american every man every woman

who died in the battlefield to put them there. the president insists the terrorists are reformed. the facts say different. according to the director of national intelligence, nearly 30% of former gitmo detainees are confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. the majority remain at large. a catch and release program may work for trout in montana but it doesn't work for terrorists. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from indiana, her time has expired. mrs. walorski: thank you mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized, the gentleman has 45 seconds. mr. smilt: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. it is truly astonishing that in 2015, the united states continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, who have been judged not to pose a threat to the

united states. continuing to hold these people without trial is a rebuke to our notion of liberty. some of these people are terrorist bus some are not they have been judged not to be a threat to the united states. some of them may be victim of the fact that we give bounties to people who say they turn in terrorists. the hatfields turned in the mccoys because why not? we were giving them a few thousand dollars. we have supermax prisons in the united states from which no one has ever escaped. there's no reason to spend the money in guantanamo and have this continuing shame on the reputation of the united states. i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. -- agreed to. mrs. walorski: i request a vorded -- a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-12, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: this amendment would take out of the bill all of the things that are in it that make it impossible to close guantanamo bay prison.

this is a debate we've had many times, the provisions are typically banning any transfers to the u.s., banning any construction in the u.s., of any facilities to house the folks being housed right now in guantanamo. it strips out those two and it also asks the president to give us a detailed plan on how he would go about closing guantanamo and what he would do with the inmates that are there now and requires a 90-day notice period to congress before any action could be take on that. and it is basically the same argument that i just made as to why we should close guantanamo. it was opened in the first place as a way to try to get around the u.s. constitution. basically the thought was since it wasn't in the continental u.s. habeas corpus and other protections wouldn't apply. but the supreme court a number of years ago said it is effectively under u.s. control so no, all the same rules apply system of one argument that's

frequently frot out is that somehow if they're brought to the u.s. they would suddenly have constitutional rights they don't have in guantanamo. the supreme court has already ruled on that. they have ruled that it is effectively under u.s. control and the exact same rights, the habeas corpus and other rights that a criminal or prisoner of war would have. so bringing -- bringing them to the united states would not be a problem. we have an alternative to guantanamo. it's not like there's no option. there are now, i believe 122 inmates, i forget the exact number, who have been cleared for transfer back to another country. but it's somewhere roughly half that amount. we'd be looking at between 50 and 60 inmates to transfer to the united states. we have the facilities here. as i said, we already house some of the most dangerous terrorists who have ever arrested and convicted. we have the facilities, we have the ability to hold them safety leer. -- here system of there is an alternative.

the current situation in guantanamo bay has a number of negatives. the high costs, as i mentioned, several times almost $3 million an inmate. then the international eyesore that guantanamo bay is. not just to terrorists. i don't care about them or care what they say or how they feel about us holding people at guantanamo. but to our allies in europe, to people in the ashe world who want to help us defeat the -- in the arab world who want to help us defeat the scourge of islamic ex-timism. this is an eye shore we should tissue eyesore we should close and we should make that happen as soon as possible. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to oppose the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thorn brother: i yield one -- mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to mr. zinke.