we have made public our report concerning the incident at the white house complex on the evening of march 4. our objective was to conduct a factual inquiry and assess the reasonableness of the actions of those involved. we conducted the investigation from march 12 until april 30. this inquiry was centered this inquiry was centered around two senior secret service services, mark connolly. deputy special agent in charge of the presidential protective division, a position he's held for the last two years. connolly's duties include all aspects of white house security. george ogilvie is the assistant to the officer in charge. at the washington field office. he's previously worked in the presidential protection division. the report that we wrote is a summary of the investigation. it is attached to my written testimony. the materials of our investigation that we produced are reports of interviews, the physical evidence, and the documents we found, have been turned over to the secret service in accordance with our regular procedures.

the inspector general's office does not make recommendations as to whether or what personnel action should be taken, but leaves that to the secret service. rain shower duties in this instance are purely investigative. the report makes conclusions based on the evidence that we found. for example, it is more likely than not that their judgment was impaired by alcohol. the two agents displayed poor judgment and a lack of situational awareness driving into the scene. while during their interviews, each denied drinking to excess, we must assess those denials in light of uniform position officers' observations, the agent's behavior, the fact they spent the five previous hours in a restaurant bar and that two highly experienced supervisors drove into a crime scene inches from where the rest of the secret service was treating a potential explosive device, which, under different

circumstances, could have endangered their own lives and those of the uniform division officers who responded. moreover, both agents were required to report their conduct up the chain of command but failed to do so. each told us they did not believe that what they had done amounted to a reportable incident. their failure to report reflects either poor judgment on their part or an affirmative desire to hide their conduct. with regard to the actions of the uniformed division that evening, we found that they reacted to the suspicious package generally in accordance with operational procedures. however, the establishment of a perimeter should have been better executed. while there is often confusion inherent in a fast-moving and factually fluid situation, a number of vehicles and pedestrians came within close proximity to the object after the uniform division had established the safety perimeter.

the uniform division officers made reasonable attempts while they were securing the scene to canvass the area for the suspect. but an early partial description of the suspect's vehicle foiled the ability to apprehend the suspect. however, the secret service investigative agents reacted quickly to identify the suspect and determine the nature of the threat. it was the watch commander's sole decision to allow connolly and ogilvie to pass without further inquiry into their -- as to their sew bright. the watch commander made this decision on his own 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, the watch commander actions must be considered in light of the vast disparity in rank between the watch commander and connolly. who is in the watch commander's chain of command. the viewing and insufficient secret service policy regarding

drinking alcohol and government vehicles and the secret service reputation for punishing or ignoring those who would further investigate or report such violations. the watch commander reported the facts as he understood them 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 uniform division chief 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 publicly acknowledge the hard work of the agents of the office of inspector general who conducted this investigation. they displayed the dedication and professionalism that does me proud and i am grateful for their efforts. additionally 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. mr. chairman, that concludes my testimony. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i recognize myself for live -- five minutes. mr. roth, there was an email about the incident forwarded up the chain of command on march 4. can you tell me a little bit more about that email, what you found? mr. roth: certainly. what we found was that -- let me get to the page of the report that has that. mr. chaffetz: the version i have is page 15. mr. roth: thank you, sir. correct. there was an email that was sent really up the chain of command all the way to the sac of the presidential protection division that described sort of in very vague terms what had occurred at the entrance of the

e street. mr. chaffetz: why do you think the email was forwarded by deputy chief dyson to mr. connolly himself? mr. roth: i think it was to let mr. connolly know that in fact word was getting out of the incident and that he had the necessity to self-report. mr. chaffetz: how did mr. connolly respond to that email? mr. roth: during the night when he was driving home, he called deputy chief dyson and expressed concerns at the fact that this was getting out. mr. chaffetz: if deputy chief dyson denied he was aware of the email was about the vehicle containing mr. connolly, would you find that denial credible? mr. roth: not knowing the other facts, it would raise some additional questions. i'd have to ask deputy chief dyson. the evidence we have derived indicates that mr. connolly and deputy chief dyson had a conversation as connolly was driving home expressing

concerns about that email itself. mr. 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 of deputy chief dyson, he indicated that it sounded like connolly was in the car as they were having that discussion. mr. chaffetz: did your investigators asked questions about the video cameras being directed away from the area where brawn was questioning connolly and ogilvie? that is something that our whistleblowers had concerns about, that the video cameras were moved away so they could 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. unless it is somehow burned to removal of media. what we found in the course of our investigation was the actual what i would call a barrel incident.

ogilvy moving and striking the barrel and moving it out of the way was burned at the request of the uniform division folks who were on the scene who wanted to figure out exactly was how that barrel was moved. we of course had no other video so there was nothing else to review except that snippet that got burned. mr. chaffetz: that is one of our deep concerns long-term. a, why the policy? when you require an airport to retain video for 30 days, and yet they only retain this for hours, there were a couple potential crimes going on. you had two people that were trying to detain this woman from driving away. they claimed to be injured and assaulted. that video is not necessarily all captured from start to finish. the bundling of how we were going to apprehend this person who had left a potential bomb. let me ask you, were there any officers that night who

outranked brawn do you -- braun, do you know? mr. roth: that outranked braun? there was an assistant to the s.a.c. i think in the presidential protection division who was there. so in other words, an investigative agent, i think gs-14 level. i'm assuming that outranks braun but i'm not 100% sure. mr. chaffetz: one of the concerns is about when director clancy knew. this thing was evidently spreading like wildfires. there are telephone discussions. there are people who are asking to have videotape preserved because they were upset and irate about what was going on. you had former agents you had retired agents. you had a newspaper reporter, you had members of congress all heard about this before director clancy. is that possible? mr. roth: apparently that's what the facts show.

mr. chaffetz: so who is responsible? where did it stop? where did it not continue up the chain of command so that director clancy knew about it? 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. so the s.a.c. of the presidential protection 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. i think 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 when we interviewed said the reason they did not do it is because connolly said that he would self-report, so i didn't want to do it. i'd rather have connolly do it.

mr. chaffetz: technically, both should have happened, right? they should have self-reported and they knew that misconduct had happened. mr. roth: correct. mr. chaffetz: so why didn't they do it? mr. roth: i think it was a failure on those individuals' parts to do what it was they were supposed to do. mr. chaffetz: anybody else who should have reported? mr. roth: those are the four individuals that i believed had primary responsibility. obviously there were other vicks, in the joint operation center who knew what went on, including the special agent supervisor who was at the j.o.c. that evening who could have reported it up, probably should have reported it up. there are the uniform division individuals themselves who could have reported as well. mr. 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 itself. with that i yield back and now

recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: picking up exactly where the gentleman left off. mr. roth i noticed at the beginning of your report, you mentioned that -- that you're deferring specific conclusions about potential 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. mr. cummings: what form is that going to take? in other words, it seems like we have a culture of secrecy, a culture of complacency, a culture of fear of retaliation. i mean, how do you -- i mean, what do you see -- where are you going with that? do you follow me? mr. roth: yes, i do. where we see our office is 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 d.h.s. rules to talk to us. so what we intend to do is very similar to what we did with the bush residence alarm report that was issued a few weeks ago. we're going to find a lot of facts and we're going to see exactly what it is we find. we're going to use the disinfectent of sunlight. we are going to publish reports, report them both to the secretary, to the director of the secret service. and obviously to the committees whom we report. 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'll do -- we're doing -- we're in the process of doing an investigation into the 24th incident at the c.d.c. 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

again to this committee as well as the other committees of jurisdiction, to the secretary and to the director. mr. cummings: it sounds similar to when d.o.j. comes into a police department and is looking at patterns of practice, is that similar, you think? mr. roth: i think that is a good analogy. the only difference is we are going to do this serially. we are not going to wait until the end. we think it is important to get the information out as quickly as possible. mr. cummings: now, i want to ask you about the agency's policies regarding alcohol what your report calls, and i quote, vague and insufficient. mr. roth: correct. mr. cummings: let me ask you details about the retirement party. according to your report, it started about 5:30 and lasted until about 7:30. your report says there was an open bar. afterwards, mr. connelly and mr. ogilvie stayed at the bar with two other colleagues and according to your report, mr. ogilvie opened a new bar tab at 7:44 p.m. and closed it three hours later. is that right?

mr. roth: that's correct. mr. cummings: as part of your investigation, you obtained the actual bar tab, did you not? mr. cummings: we did. cum -- mr. roth: we did. mr. cummings: i would like to put it up on the screen. your report says they purchased "eight glasses of scotch, two vodka drinks, one glass of wine, and three glasses of beer." they were on a roll. looking at this tab -- the first three items are beers, then a glass of wine, then eight johnny walker reds, then two vodka drinks. so 14 alcoholic drinks in all, is that right? mr. roth: that's correct. mr. cummings: the agents claim they did not have all of these drinks. mr. ogilvy told your investigators that five glasses of scotch, the glass of wine and three beers were, and i quote, given away to others, end of quote, but he could not remember to whom is that correct? mr. roth: that's correct. mr. cummings: ok, but at a

minimum, mr. ogilvie admitted to drinking two scotches and one beer. mr. connelly admitted to drinking two beers. both mr. connolly and mr. ogilvie admitted that they drove the government vehicle that same evening on their way home. is that right? mr. roth: that is correct. mr. cummings: as of march 4, the secret service has 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 like mr. connolly or mr. ogilvie. this seems a bit ridiculous to me. do you know why that's the case? 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 and patchwork fashion but we don't have a good speculation as to why it only applied to the uniform division but not to the special agents. mr. cummings: the secret service is also part of the homeland security -- department of homeland security, which has

its own policy prohibiting all employees from drinking alcohol within eight hours of operating a government vehicle. so even if we take the agents at their word in terms of how much they drank that night, it seems they violated the existing d.h.s. policy but your report says you found, "no evidence that anyone in the secret service was aware of this policy." is that right? mr. roth: that's correct. mr. cummings: that's a problem. mr. roth: yes. mr. cummings: 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 on march 4 the secret service prohibited a new rule of prohibiting them drinking any alcohol within 10 hours of driving a government vehicle. this rule is even more strict than the d.h.s. policy. is that right? mr. roth: that is correct. mr. 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 that is something we're certainly interested in. mr. cummings: i'm certain this committee will take up. lastly, mr. roth, there's clearly significant problems regarding alcohol within the agency. we've seen that in the past 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 critical mission and once again become the elite of the elite. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, just a matter of personal -- mr. connolly: mr. chairman, just a matter of personal privilege, mr. connolly is not related to me nor do i like scotch.

thank you. mr. 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 violation and that interests me because before your tenure, the d.h.s. office of inspector general released a 2013 report which did not find evidence in the secret service that misconduct or inappropriate behavior is widespread or that leadership has fostered an environment that tolerates inappropriate conduct. mr. desantis: given your tenure and this report, what are your thoughts about the 2013 d.h.s. report? is that an accurate reflection of what's going on in the culture of the secret service right now? mr. roth: certainly right now it is not. one of the things that you reference, there are fascinating findings within it. for example, they did a survey

an elect tronic survey in which 86% indicated they did not report such behavior. the report also indicated that of the 2,500-some electronic survey respondents 44% of them felt they could not report misconduct without fear of retaliation if they in fact reported that. so within that report itself, there are some very, very disturbing trends and i think given of the nature we have seen since then, i believe there is a serious problem within the secret service. mr. 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 haven't done any work on that but it wouldn't surprise me if that is still the case.

mr. desantis: is there any indication that the process for discipline within the secret service has improved since the 2013 report? mr. roth: it certainly has improved since cartagena. the secret service has taken steps -- they have an office of integrity, for example that's the one that imposes discipline. as a result of the 2013 inspection, we made a number of different recommendations, including a table of penalties which they adopted so i think the secret service is moving in the right direction in this area after cartagena. mr. desantis: it's safe to say, though, that the conclusions reached in the 2013 report that there's a conflict between the conclusions you reached in your report? mr. roth: i would agree with that. mr. desantis: the question is then how to correct what has led to the cultural problems that your report identifies and then i agree with you that i think underlying the 2013 report, you saw evidence of that from the people who

responded to the survey. so as people who are doing oversight, what do we need to be doing or what does the agency need to be doing, in your judgment? mr. roth: candidly, i think director clancy is moving in the right direction. as i said, they put together a table of penalties. they have an office of integrity. i think they're doing increasing training on this. i think they've treated violations of this very seriously, for example. the auto accident in florida involving some of the uniform division that was alcohol-related. i think the discipline that was imposed there was appropriate. so i won't expect that a problem that took years to create will be fixed overnight but i do think they are moving in the right direction. mr. desantis: amongst your

experience with the other components of the d.h.s., 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. mr. 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. mr. desantis: do other d.h.s. components have a similar gs reputation who someone was trying to do the right thing would be punished or marginalized? mr. roth: again, we haven't looked at that so it's difficult for me to opine on that. mr. desantis: but you could say that not a lot has been brought to your attention during your tenure, is that correct? mr. roth: that hasn't been brought to my attention. mr. desantis: thank you for your report. i think it was timely and had a lot of good information. we want to see with some of the other incidents, we are looking forward to those results as well. thank you and i yield back. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i now recognize ms. norton from the district of columbia. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your hearing. you've been pretty busy, mr. chairman, today. mr. roth we appreciate your

report. you, of course, see some congressional impatience, that impatience, i suppose, of this committee is paid to be impatient. particularly, though in light of the repetitive incidents. i'm trying to be as objective as i can and to put this in perspective. i can do that because i ran an agency that was a lot more troubled at the time than the secret service. huge backlog and the rest and someone said to me within a couple of months get it in order, i would have been in bad shape. it took me a little time to get rid of that backlog, so i'm trying to keep in mind what it is what mr. clancy found and what he has done. i note -- 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? of what is required of an agent on and off duty?

these agents have been under huge duress, according to the special panel. to quote them, "for years the 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 and fewer days off. days off. if you step back and look at it they've obviously been subject to the sequester and the rest of it. the panel said that they needed, at best, 200 officers and 85 agents. and said that they were down 500. essentially, you had some overworked, overburdened agents. you imagine people even that high in command -- in the chain

of command had been overworked that way that they might go out and drink too much. is there any clarification? if you're an officer of something like the secret service and you are off-duty but subject, perhaps, to being called on-duty but bearing in mind that everyone is entitled to a private life, is that -- is there enough clarification about what is required on and off-duty so 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's certainly one we wrestled with with regard to what does it mean to be on duty? because most of these special agents are subject to recall at anytime. does that mean that they can never consume alcohol? it would seem to be an irrational policy if that is the case. but i agree that there probably

is room for clarification with regard to that. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i would ask -- because i think this is a very murky area. we asked director clancy to bring some clarification. for example, certain number of hours before being required to report for duty. some clarification might be fair in light of what you expect. mr. 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. i think that's one of the fixes we need to work with the agency. ms. norton: or a higher standard for a secret service agent. mr. chaffetz: amen. let's recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, for five minutes. mr. walker: 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 any other atentees drove government-owned vehicles after consuming the alcohol? mr. roth: we did not. we interviewed some of the individuals who were at the sort of farewell party in which the alcohol was served. some of them had alcohol and then for example, went back to the office to continue to work. we didn't really press that. my point with regard to that is that the d.h.s. policy was 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. government cars. it was not a place in which you would naturally look to see a policy like that. so it's difficult for us to blame somebody for violating a policy that, one, they did not

know about and, two, no one made an effort to tell them about. mr. walker: grant it. i understand being ignoreant of certain aspects and ethics and so forth even as a new member of congress. but let me ask this. were any of the party attendees of the secret service part of the executive staff and if not should 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 in place 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. mr. walker: there is no ambiguity. you proved the fact that they did know at least that part of it. is that correct? most secret service agents, if

you've 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. mr. walker: you mentioned that some employees returned to work after consuming the alcoholic beverages. is that correct? mr. roth: correct. mr. walker: what has been done or said or recommended? give me a little bit of background what happened after

that was found out? 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. mr. 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 won't, by the way. mr. walker: we talk about the culture of the secret service and i appreciate some words that you talked about. you feel like there's been a little bit of improvement or change or 30,000-foot of expectation of raising 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 don't want to speculate or create some kind of hypothesis but is it a fair statement to get the level, the bar raised? mr. roth: yes, i share your concern with exactly that. we don't know the degree of the

problem but it certainly seems like there's some issues here. mr. walker: i will tell you this on a personal note, mr. roth, seeing you here on the department of homeland security, you always do exemplary work and i know the american people your thoroughness. with that i yield back. mr. chaffetz: now recognize mr. clay from missouri for five minutes. mr. clay: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. roth, i want to ask about an email exchange that your investigators obtained between the two agents who had been drinking in the bar, mr. connolly and mr. ogilvie. first, let me walk through some facts. the incident happened on the night of march 4. your report found that mr. connolly and mr. ogilvie should have reported this incident but neither did so, is that right? mr. roth: that's correct. mr. clay: based on their failure to report, 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, robert buster. but according to your report he never mentioned anything involving this incident. your report says this, and i quote, connolly met with his supervisor saic buster, on march 6 and discussed the u.d. officer's handling of the confrontation with the suspect in the suspicious package. he did not -- he just kept his mouth shut and not tell his supervisor what happen, is that correct? mr. roth: that's correct.

mr. clay: and wee have learned at that meeting that no one would have reported the incident either. and so here's what i want to ask you about. the very next day on march 7, mr. ogilvie and mr. connolly had an email exchange. i'd like to put it up on the screen. there we go. ok. mr. ogilvie, this is an email exchange. mr. ogilvie at 8:24 said all good. mr. connolly at 8:30 muy bueno. and then mr. ogilvie, you are an angel. one interpretation of this exchange is that mr. ogilvie was asking, hey, are we going to get in trouble for this or are we all good.

then, mr. connolly who just met with his boss today and determined nobody else reported the incident assured him that everything would be fine. mr. roth, your investigators interviewed mr. ogilvie, according to the interview notes, mr. ogilvie admitted that the context of this email was to check in with mr. connolly about the march 4 incident, is that correct? mr. roth: yes, sir. mr. clay: in contrast, mr. connolly told your investigators, this email had nothing to do with the march 4 incident. he claimed that he had no idea what this email was about no clue, he told your investigators and i quote, he did not know what the intent was behind it. it was open-ended and he did not know if it was in reference to march 4 or the busy day that he was having.

mr. roth i have one last question for you. do you -- do you buy that? mr. roth: no, i don't. i believe that 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. mr. clay: what usually happens when a witness like that so -- is being so dishonest? are there any follow-up to a person being dishonest? i guess if this was a deposition or questioning? mr. roth: it was an interview that took place as part of an investigation that we were doing. he has the obligation, obviously, to be -- to tell the truth. i think there are penalties as a result from not telling the truth. mr. clay: all right. well, thank you so much for your responses and, mr. chairman, i yield back.

mr. chaffetz: thank you. i now recognize mr. hice of georgia for five minutes. mr. hice: thank you, mr. chairman. you've already stated, mr. roth, that it was a failure on the part of dyson and simpson not to report the incident. and their excuse was that they thought this would be self-reported. do you believe that allowing individuals to self-report is acceptable? mr. roth: no, i do not. i think every -- particularly in the supervisory chain that they had an independent duty to report this, either to me or to the secret service office of professional responsibility or up the chain. i would note that the uniform division chief said he didn't think it was his job to report misconduct that happened. mr. hice: so is this a policy problem or a communication problem? mr. roth: a communication problem. mr. hice: so what does the policy say?

mr. roth: individuals have the responsibility to report suspiciouses of violation of law or regulation, either to the inspector general or, for example, here to the office of professional responsibility. mr. hice: does the policy state that individuals must self-report? mr. roth: there's a secret service policy that requires individuals to self-report, yes. mr. hice: but you don't believe that that is effective? mr. roth: i think it's effective if you have the integrity to do so. obviously if -- mr. hice: but you just said that it's an acceptable practice and yet it's policy so can we expect the policy to change? mr. roth: i think it's a question you should direct to the secret service. mr. hice: do you believe that dyson and simpson should be punished? mr. roth: we are not in the business of determining what the appropriate punishment

should be. mr. hice: i'm asking do you believe they should be? mr. roth: i think their behavior was troubling. mr. hice: do you believe they should be punished? mr. roth: there should be consequences for these actions, yes. mr. hice: do you believe that any personnel be it with d.h.s. or whatever should be able to retire in order to avoid punishment from misconduct? mr. roth: again, that gets into areas of personnel law that i'm -- mr. hice: i'm asking your opinion. mr. roth: personally, i've been in 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. mr. hice: but in order to avoid punishment from misconduct -- we're seeing it these days. it's disgusting to me personally it's a way of dodging consequences for personal behavior. it enables people to behave anyway they want to and when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar they just retire and there are no consequences. do you believe that's ok? mr. roth: i certainly

understand the frustration with this. the maximum consequence that could be faced here is termination from the service. leaving the service which is functionally what retirement will do. mr. hice: without punishment, though, for misconduct. we have to deal with the problem of misconduct. at this point there seems to be nothing and if anyone's caught they just retire and there's no consequences and that's an entirely unacceptable policy when all is said and done. at some point misconduct has to be dealt with because 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 do you believe the root cause is? mr. roth: i think it is a lack of accountability. mr. hice: how do we correct it? mr. roth: again, what the

secret service has done and, again, this is probably addressed to the secret service, is instituted series of reforms, for example, a table of penalties, a more uniform way of administering discipline, better communication, those kinds of things. mr. hice: there's actually a reputation and i know you know this from the report that there's punishment for those who report. mr. roth: correct. mr. hice: misconduct. have you ever considered rewarding people for reporting misconduct? mr. roth: financially? mr. hice: in any way? would that help bring accountability? mr. roth: i think that's something that's worthy of some discussion. certainly one of the things that we try to do for example, what i did when we came -- when i came onboard is i sent an email to all 7,000 email addresses in the secret service indicating that we were interested in finding sort of misconduct waste, fraud within

the secret service, reminding them of the protections that they have sort of within the whistleblower protection act as well as the inspector general's act. as a result of that, we have gotten some work, some, you know reports. the report on the bush residence that had an alarm that had been out for 13 months was as a result of the whistleblower. somebody came forward and said, look, this is unacceptable thing. you should see what's happened here. we were able to investigate it. we were able to write a report. we brought it to light and we fixed the problem. so what i'm hopeful of as we move down the road people will understand that in fact they do have some redress, that, you know, reporting something up the chain won't simply be ignored but they'll actually fix the problem but it's going to take some time. mr. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. roth, for your good work here. you did a bangup job on this investigation.

you got to the bottom of it and we appreciate it. i want to talk to you a bit about the videotape procedure there at the white house. now, we had a chance, a bunch of the members chairman chaffetz and i and the ranking member, mr. cummings, went over to the command post for the secret service and they had a full spectrum situation there where maybe they have a dozen different cameras, different angles. they got a pretty good view of the white house. the problem is that 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 i think for 72 hours. and they did not -- they did not -- they did not tell director clancy for five days. so by the time they told him

about what had happened, the tapes -- most of the tapes had already been destroyed -- they hadn't been destroyed. they were taped over. they retape over. that's every 72 hours. we also had an incident back in -- november, 2011, where we had an individual -- i believe his name was ortega. oscar ortega hernandez who took a semiautomatic rifle and shot up the white house and yet the secret service completely missed it. capitol police missed it. housekeeper happened to find some shell fragments and then reported it and then the f.b.i. did an investigation. but meanwhile those tapes were destroyed. those tapes were destroyed. but for the fact this fellow after he left had a car accident down by the 14th street bridge, we would not have known about that. we would not have, you know, been able to connect that

incident to the shots fired at the white house. so what i'm getting at is the airports everybody uses a 30-day cycle on these -- on these tapes. the technology today allows us to do that and i know you had some inquiry into the reasons why they collapse that time. why would -- why would the secret service want to tape over the tapes when we had these repeated incidents where a longer preservation of those tapes, say, for 30 days, would help us to make the white house more secure and, you know -- and the second example i gave, the president and his mother-in-law was in washington at the time. one of the daughters was at home. we're talking about pretty square consequences here in sort of whistling to the

graveyard here and allowing this practice to go on. so what i'd like to try to do is to change the protocol, the security protocol at the white house to stop doing things in way that makes the president and his family safer because you obviously have people jumping over the fence, helicopters landing and drones. you have people shooting up the white house. i'm starting to lose faith. i'm starting to lose faith in the secret service. i really am. and the level we have in protecting the president and his family. this is pretty basic stuff. so after having rinquired about -- inquired about the taping practice 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 because it was only a 24-hour retention policy and they only changed that

after the incident in which there were these functionally gate crashers at the state dinner in 2011. then they moved it to 72 hours. it's a combination of digital and analogue. it was stood up in 2007 and really in some ways this is very similar to what we saw in the bush residence where they 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, you know a former president. they didn't have a system in place to update these things. there wasn't a -- for example, a ticket system where something needed to be repaired that there was a record that you requested these repairs so a lot of their fundamental business practices simply have not kept up with the dwevert. i think the good news is --

kept up with the 21st century. i think the good news is with regard to the white house system there will be repairs to occur in the future. mr. lynch: is there a time line? mr. roth: there is. i don't know if it's public information. mr. lynch: ok. mr. chaffetz: we'll get close to a vote series. we'll recognize mr. hice from georgia for five minutes. sorry. mr. carter. mr. carter for five minutes. secretary carter: mr. roth, thank you for being here -- mr. carter: mr. roth, thank you for being here. this is something that has bothered me on the series of hearings. it seems to be the culture, if you will, of the secret service about reporting. we've been told and it's been alleged that watch commander actually said that he did not want to report this, he didn't want to ask for a field sew bright test because it would have been a career killer. is that true? mr. roth: that is what one of

the uniform division officers told us, yes, that the watch commander said -- that the watch commander subsequently denied that. secretary carter: when he says -- mr. carter: when he says a career killer, is he referring to his career or 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 because he thought there may be retaliation against him. in other words, it would be a career killer for him. certainly consistent to some of the things that we found in the 2013 report with regard to a high percentage of people failing to report misconduct believing either nobody would listen or you would in fact be affirmativelyry taliated against. mr. carter: what is the policy of the secret service when someone does recognize this or when someone is faced with this

situation? are they, you're required to report or is it, you better just keep it quiet? mr. roth: well it's certainly not the latter. in fact, it's a d.h.s. policy. it's d.h.s.wide that they're required to report it to either the secret service office of professional responsibility or to the inspector general. mr. carter: if you don't report what is the punishment? mr. roth: i don't know. mr. carter: it would appear that's an important component. mr. roth: correct. as i said, the inspector general office's not involved in specific discipline cases. that's the secret service's responsibility. so what we do is we engage in the fact finding and then hand it over to the secret service to do exactly what you suggest. mr. carter: ok. i'm still a little disappointed -- not in you but in that -- it would appear to me that would be cut and dry. mr. roth: sure. mr. carter: sure. let me ask you about the two agents that were involved.

when they arrived at the white house complex and the officers stopped them asked them where they're coming from and their answer was -- mr. roth: secret service headquarters. mr. carter: and that turns out to be a blatant lie? mr. roth: that is not in fact true correct. mr. carter: what is the consequence of that? we teach our children, there are consequences to actions. this is the action, what is the consequence? mr. roth: sure. there is a secret service table of penalties that talks about a range of consequences about specific things and i can go through the specific ones with regard to the example. mr. carter: and i appreciate that and i understand what you're trying to do. let me ask you this, what is going to happen to them? mr. roth: there is a process that's in place that office of integrity for secret service runs which is the deputy of the office of integrity will write up i assume, take a look at our report and the supporting materiality that we have

produced and determine whether or not discipline is warranted. if he does he'll write up what's functionually a charging letter and give that to the individuals who are involved here, connolly and ogilvie. they have due process rights under the law. they have the ability to appeal it to the integrity officer as well as if consequences are severe enough to the merit systems protection. mr. carter: within those written laws 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 somebody leaves the federal service, then there's no discipline to oppose because the most discipline to impose is to throw them out of the federal service. mr. carter: does it go on their permanent record? mr. roth: yes, it would. mr. carter: is that shared with a prospective employer in the future? if somebody goes to the private sector do you tell them what happens? mr. roth: i'm not -- mr. carter: or do you say they

were employed from this day to this day? mr. roth: i think a google search will take care of that. mr. carter: obviously in this. mr. roth: right. i'm not sure that's an area of the employment law. mr. carter: ok. i understand. my point is the concern that i have is just with the general culture that exists in the secret service at this time. mr. roth: i certainly share that concern. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. mr. chaffetz: glad i see mr. carter coming under line. i appreciate it. i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, for five minutes. mr. cartwright: mr. chaffetz, i want to talk about the valor that's shown by the -- especially a young man you mentioned from scranton, pennsylvania in my district today, the u.s. secret service is proud to note that its own

sergeant technician william ewer from scranton was presented by d.h.s. secretary jae johnson the secretary's award for valor which is awarded for displays of exceptional courage, of course, as the chairman mentioned, young mr. uher actually pulled an accident victim from the baltimore-washington parkway, an accident. pulled the victim from a burning vehicle and it was later determined that victim would have been unable to extraindicate himself without william's help. so we're exceptionally proud of william in pennsylvania today. we're also proud of him for coming in 30th in the scranton half marathon last month covering 13.1 miles in less than an hour and a half. i wish i could do that. mr. roth we're here to talk about failures of the secret service, though, and it's a

dower duty that you have to talk about some of the downsides of things we've seen in the secret service. your report concludes, and i quote, both connolly and ogilvie to both report the 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. mr. cartwright: can you explain the policy? mr. roth: sure. i'm simply reading from the manual that secret service has and it says "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 employee's supervisor. the range of incidents so great it is not possible to enumerate them. each employee must judge when in his or her opinion the matter may or could be given publicity in the newspaper or other media or maybe the subject of inquiry."

and it goes on. but that gives the gist. mr. cartwright: you found that other officials within the agency knew about the incident and failed to alert senior leadership. in particular, you found, and i quote, both uniform division deputy chief dyson and uniform division chief 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, unquote. is that correct? mr. roth: that's correct. mr. cartwright: why didn't they report that incident? mr. roth: we asked that question. their answer was two-fold, at least for deputy chief dyson it was that he had spoken to connolly twice and connolly had said that he would self-report. dyson believed that it was better for connolly to self-report than for him to report. with regard to the chief, he said, one, that he believed connolly would report and, two, he said it was not his job to report misconduct on behalf of

agents but rather just misconduct on behalf of uniform division officers. mr. cartwright: who should deputy chief dyson and chief simpson have reported to? mr. roth: the special agent in charge of the presidential protection division or the office of professional responsibility or the inspector general. mr. cartwright: according to your report, chief simpson is the most senior secret service official who was aware that mr. connolly had been drinking when he and mr. ogilvie drove into the evacuated area. what was his explanation for chief simpson failing to report this information to anyone else? mr. roth: again, what he said was he did not report the incident because he did not believe it was his job to do so and assume that connolly was going to self-report. mr. 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 right up the chain of command. mr. roth, i thank you for your important work on this matter and i yield back, mr. chairman. . mr. chaffetz: now recognize mr. meadows of north carolina for five minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. roth, for your work and thanks to your staff as well. it was timely and quick. i appreciate your frank and direct answers. i especially that because that's not always the case. and so i want to give credit where credit is due. i want to follow up a little bit on the some of the questions that have been asked with regards to the alcohol policy that is either known or unknown. in your testimony, you said most people are not aware of the d.h.s. policy, is that correct?

mr. rothfus: at the time they -- mr. roth: at the time they were not aware. mr. meadows: that doesn't jive with what whistleblowers have told us and you can find it on your website and maybe you have to look for it a little bit. why would not know about that? is it just willful ignorance or is the eighth floor not stressing the policy? why would they not know about that? mr. roth: it is a matter of publicizing and educating individuals about it. we interviewed ogilvie's supervisor who didn't know what the policy was. mr. meadows: there is a policy that everyone is aware of and called the 10-hour rule. and we have this receipt that there were a number of people that were drinking and possibly reporting, would they not have been violating if they reported

that 10-hour rule? mr. roth: we looked at that issue with respect to ogilvie and the bar tab was closed out at 10:47 and entered the e street gates before 1 1:00 p.m. their duty hours started at 9:00 a.m. the next day. mr. meadows: what about others? obviously, it was a pretty big party. mr. roth: correct. what we found in spite of the preponderance of the evidence, the last four individuals were the last to leave. mr. meadows: let me tell you the reason why i ask is on the way here, i've got two calls from random agents that i couldn't name because they are afraid to divulge who they are, but within an hour of this hearing letting me know of all kinds of problems of the expectation of

secret service agents to actually put liquor in the rooms of supervisors as they travel, that if they don't do that, it's frowned upon. g. s-15 that have been caught with females and still leaving ammo and guns behind. i'm hearing all kinds of things. are you hearing the same kind of things who are should we report them to you so you could investigate? we have this culture of -- from the most elite protective service in the world and yet it seems like i'm getting calls almost daily from different people. mr. roth: by all means you should encourage them to contact us. and we will take it seriously as we have with the bush residence incidents and the other look-backs on the security

issues that we are continuing to look at. and the only way that the culture is going to change is if we can prove that we are going to take these things seriously. mr. meadows: i have your commitment here today that you not only are going to take this incident, but you are going to look forward and if we give you additional things or if other agents give you a number of other potential things to look at, that you will take them seriously and you are 100% committed to rooting out the problems we have within the agency? mr. roth: absolutely. mr. meadows: i know we are about to have votes. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i recognize ms. watson coleman from new jersey. mrs. watson coleman: i want to ask you a question, the secret division is a component of drment h.s.? mr. roth: correct. mrs. watson coleman: do you think it makes better sense that there are department-wide

policies regarding such important things? -- as opposed to a component-wide policies? mr. roth: it's not an issue that i looked at or thought about. there is certainly a validity to have uniformity across d.h.s. which there clearly is not right now. mrs. watson coleman: we hear that in the other committees i'm on. according to the memorandum of understanding between the secret service and your office, certain misconducts must be referred to you. mr. roth: correct. mrs. watson coleman: did it constitute something of that level? mr. roth: yes, it did. mrs. watson coleman: in youres estimation who should have reported it? how many people or what level, what are those titles? this doesn't fall on one person's responsibility, right? mr. roth: correct. correct. and the duty to report it to us, the office of inspector general

is the office of professional responsibility within secret service. in other words, if they get a complaint that talks about somebody who is a gs-15 or above and other categories of incidents, they have a duty to report it to us. they must report it to us and we make some decisions as to whether we will take it or not. independent of that is the duty that all d.h.s. employees have of reporting suspicions of wrongdoing. mrs. watson coleman: i may have missed some of this because some of this is go -- getting confusing to me. office of professional responsibility. how soon after the march 4th incident did you know of it? mr. roth: they knew about it on march 9. mrs. watson coleman: and you were informed of it on -- mr. roth: march 9. mrs. watson coleman: mr. clancy was informed of this on march 9?

mr. roth: correct. mrs. watson coleman: he didn't start an investigate at the same time you were going to take that on? mr. roth: that's correct. mrs. watson coleman: the agency isn't going to conduct? mr. roth: only one group can conduct an investigation otherwise you have people tripping over each other. once a decision is made for us to take it everyone has to step back. mrs. watson coleman: if we were going to focus in on who or what level we believe is the biggest problem here, other than the self-reporting up the chain of command, where would that be? mr. roth: i think the point of failure was the senior management within the uniform division, who knew of it and did not report it to for example, director clancy or the office of professional responsibility.

mrs. watson coleman: is that the watch commander? mr. roth: no. the watch commander reported up to his chain of command, to the deputy chief of the uniform division. additionally there was a special agent in the joint operations center, who was aware what went on. she could have certainly and had a duty to report that as well. mrs. watson coleman: i'm going to close off because i know we are running late i want to associate myself to what was said, i agree -- i don't care how long you work in public service, it could be five years it could be 15 years or 20 years, but if you are found to have done something as egregious as this is, you shouldn't walk away with the benefits you had associated with being a good public servant. there needs to be some consequences and don't walk away and say i retire, because you

can. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: i now recognize mr. russell for five minutes. mr. russell: thank you, mr. roth for your investigations in trying to make our department of homeland security better. it is appreciated. there's a lot of discussion back and forth on this incident about vague secret service policy about alcohol and driving. i guess my take on it is a little more simple. would driving through a marked potential crime scene be acceptable performance off-duty either sober or drunk? mr. roth: neither. mr. russell: would entering the white house complex buzzed be acceptable off-duty behavior? mr. roth: no. mr. russell: the second in command who was involved, what

kind of public confidence does it instill when that occurs that we can protect the president of the united states? mr. roth: i share your concern particularly given the fact that he was responsible for all the operations within the white house complex. mr. russell: what kind of example do you think that that sets to the agents and also the seriousness of the duties that ought to be performed, whether on duty or off knowing that any of them at any moment could be called upon to protect the leader of the free world? mr. roth: that's something we wrestled with with regard to the fact that special agents are subject to recall at a moment's notice. that is one of the reasons that they have government cars that they can drive home at night because at any moment they could be called out. to give you a good example of that is the two philly agents who at 2:00 in the morning had to respond about the home of the

woman who dropped the package. they didn't know they were going to get that call and have to drive in the pouring rain to this woman's house. so it is troubling. mr. russell: given that sense of duty and the selection process to elevate an agent to this level of duty, this is the highest performance level that secret service agents can perform, what discipline has agent connolly and agent ogilvie have received? mr. roth: there is an investigation that is done, which is now completed. as of last week we transmitted all of our materials to the secret service to their office of professional responsibility and office of integrity which then manages that program and what happens i understand it there would be the deputy within the office of office of integrity would assess the materials and basically write a charging document, if that's the

right word proposing certain discipline. mr. russell: when i was a commander in the military, we would receive recommendations of courses of action. what would you recommend? mr. roth: they have a table of penalties. mr. russell: i read through it. what would you recommend sir? mr. roth: i think this is a very very serious conduct. the fact that it has caused the -- me to expend these resources and caused the director of the secret service to distract himself from important business to have to testify here, appropriately so. i think it is detrimental to the functioning of the secret service. mr. russell: i think america would agree. should the american public have more confidence or less in our government's ability to protect our president? mr. roth: i'm hoping that this process will create a situation in which people will have more confidence and we're able to

acknowledge our problems and fix our problems. if it doesn't get resolved, i would say there would be less confidence. mr. russell: so we had a similar answer after cartagena, after drones after barricades, after after, after. we are talking about the president of the united states. at what point do you see and what is your estimation -- you have been handling investigations a long time -- are they taking it serious and make the necessary changes that the american public demands? mr. roth: i have had a number of conversations with director clancy and he is committed to doing it. i have to say they didn't get into this situation overnight or out of it overnight. do i think he is making the right moves, i absolutely do. mr. russell: i hope so. and i think the director can exhibit that leadership and even reach down into organizations

that are going awry and i hope the director would do that and we would see a shakeup rather quickly because should we have the president harmed, all of america would not be able to forgive itself. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i'm going to recognize myself for five more minutes. you mentioned that others had been drinking that evening that went back to -- where did they go? did they go to the white house or operations center? mr. roth: i think secret service headquarters. i'm not sure who that would have been but i do recall in some of the interviews the fact that is they would have a beer and a sandwich, say good-bye and back to work. mr. chaffetz: this incident of the night we are talking about, in addition to ogilvie and connolly went back to work, correct? how many people do you know? mr. roth: i don't have that

information. mr. chaffetz: isn't one person making a rock -- rookie mistake you have two people, mr. connolly with 27 years and mr. ogilvie -- 46 years of experience, are you telling me they didn't know that it's wrong to drink and not right to drink and work the french fry machine at mcdonald's and not to go and drink and go into the white house compound or drive a vehicle when you are there to protect the president and the first family. these people have guns. they have trust. they can blow pass and say look i'm supervisor, you are letting me through and that is happening here. and you have officers there that are trying to do the right thing and it is your testimony that these very senior people with badges, guns and alcohol on their breath, told them, oh, i

just came from headquarters. they didn't mention they had come from the bar, did they? mr. roth: no. mr. chaffetz: was that a lie? mr. roth: it would appear to be that way. mr. chaffetz: it is a lie. they are lying to themselves because they did take a government vehicle and should know after 46 years' of experience that the reason they are doing it on taxpayers' dollars that they are to respond at a moment's notice and we never know when something is going to happen. these are the senior most people in charge of protecting the white house. they are always supposed to be ready to go at a moment's notice. that's why they had government vehicles. they were taking advantage of the situation and making taxpayers pay for their rise to the bar. that bar is solo. the only thing that is raising on the bar is the bar tab and it has to change. i appreciate the good work infer eting this out. how long has homeland security

and secret report? when did they get your first draft? mr. roth: they received my first draft or this draft may 6. we supplied the underlying materials either in the middle or late last week. mr. chaffetz: there has been no consequence yet. maybe one person is going to retire and who knows when that's going to be. what discretion does director clancy have in revoking that security clearance? mr. roth: i don't have that information. mr. chaffetz: he could do it right now, correct? mr. roth: i know there is a process involved but i don't know what it is. mr. chaffetz: could be put on nonpaid leave correct? mr. roth: that's correct. mr. chaffetz: do you think this is an aggravating situation? mr. roth: unfortunately

congress, you are getting into areas of employment law that are beyond my competence. i apologize. mr. chaffetz: i think that's a fair situation. but as mr. russell just aptly pointed out, even if they weren't drunk and they interrupted a potential bomb scene, that's totally unacceptable. if they lied to somebody who also works for the secret service, that is unacceptable behavior. and if you look at what happened in the email chain trying to protect themselves and making sure the word didn't get out. this is a pivotal moment for the secret service. this is the time that we find out that director clancy and secretary johnson have the guts that do what needs to be done. they should be fired and lose and have their security clearances revoked. that should have happened a long time ago. i have a lit of people who at some degree or another have violated policy that could lead

to their potential removal. that is connolly, ogilvie simpson and dyson and perhaps michael brown. at the very lease, they need to be taken to the wood shed and should lose their job. and if i was the president of the united states, i wouldn't want to see them again. we got thousands of people like the gentleman who was recognized for his valor that should be protecting the president of the united states. but if you are going to go consume alcohol and show up at the white house and disturb a crime scene, get out of here, go home. find another job. you wouldn't work at my mcdonald's or the french fry and you are not going to show up and drink and work for the secret service. and they can continue to investigate -- your report was conclusive and independent in its nature and time for this director and this secretary to

take some definitive conclusive action and fix the problem and send a message to the rest of the work force we aren't going to put up with anybody who is showing up drunk, lying, trying to cover up, not reporting. how many things went wrong here? but that's my opinion. i yield to the ranking member mr. couplings. mr. cummings: i thank you mr. roth. i didn't want them to think he was talking to you. and you have done a great job. we really spreesht your staff and you had to pull together a lot of people and a little bit of time. and i agree with the chairman. somebody just asked me a few minutes ago how are we going to straighten this out and i said we have to keep the press pressure up but not without the kind of information that you have all provided us. and i'm sure -- and i'm hopeful mr. chairman, when mr. clancy

comes before us, he'll have a report letting us know what disciplinary actions he has taken. i want to thank you and appreciate everything you have done. and we appreciate you working with us, from the very beginning. you have just been great and your staff, so thank you. mr. chaffetz: totally concur. my frustration is not with you mr. roth or the inspector general's office. without that information, we would be left in the dark. what you and your staff have done good investigative work, we are appreciative on both sides of the aisle and we do appreciate it. it's now our responsibility to hold the administration accountable and make sure they fix the problem so we can stop having hearings like these. we do wish you god speed and thank you for this work and look forward to the other reports you are still working on. this committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> today here in washington, d.c.,, the 34th annual national peace officers' memorial service was held in front of the capitol

honoring police officers killed in the line of duty. president obama spoke at the event and expressed thanks for those who gave their lives. here's more from the president. president obama: we cannot waste every darkness or danger from the duty you have chosen. we can offer you the support you need to be safe. we can make the communities you care about and protect as well. we can make sure that you have the resources you need to do your job. we can do everything we have to do to combat the poverty that plagues too many communities in which you have to serve. we can work harder as a nation to heal the rift that exists between law enforcement and the people you risk your lives to

protect. we owe it to all of you who wear the badge with honor. and we owe it to your fellow officers who gave their last full measure of devotion. most of all we can say thank you. we can say we appreciate you. and we're grateful for the work that you do each and every day. >> that was a portion of what the president had to say earlier at the 34th annual national peace officers' memorial service. you can see the president's entire remarks tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. on tomorrow's "washington journal," the aclu legislative council and steven bradbury will

be discussing the patriot act. also amy from the "wall street journal" look at the administration to allow shell oil to begin drilling for oil and gas off the alaskan coast. and take your phone calls comments and tweets. live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend.

>> my way trust fund is set to expire at the end of may. see the house live on c-span. the senate also returns monday with continued work on trade promotion authority with votes on a couple of amendments scheduled for 5:30 p.m. that authorizes president obama to enter into trade agreements by july of 2018 and would need congressional oversight and approval. senators could amend provisions of the patriot act. see the senate live on our companion network c-span2. coming up next, a discussion on current congressional issues including rail safety and the upcoming votes on transportation funding, the expiring patriot act.

host: talking about the ndaa. host: the overall budget. mr. welch: nothing to brag about. that is a deal that has no numbers behind it. the actual appropriation bills are what is going to be required for the governmental agencies whether it is the agricultural department those specific bills will have to be passed and we are not passing them.

guest: that's the blueprint document but the actual responsibility that we have is to pass appropriation bills and haven't come close to doing that. that's why i was puzzled because it's hard to take it seriously. host: what do you think about the budget process, reformed or eliminated? guest: it's broken and here's the heart of the problem. there is an ongoing huge ideological battle about the role of government and you always have to be focused to

keep spending to as little as it can be to get the job done. what you've got a situation here in congress where there are a lot of folks who are unwilling to make some judgments about well, should we spend more for instance at the national institutes of health, should we put more into basic scientific research, should we have a transportation bill that has long-term funding associated with it or should we use every opportunity when a budget question comes up that the best and only way to go is to cut. and you can't be a great and growing country if you don't make prudent investments and there is room for debate about what is the right priority and how much you can spend and has to fit in what we can afford. but having an across the board cutting, which the approach has been especially since we have

been in the sequester, that gets us in lockdown. we haven't passed a long-term transportation bill in six years. the last bill we passed for like 10 months and it was paid for by this gimmick called pension smoothing and next week we are about to take a two-month extension of the transportation bill and how would you as the transportation secretary in vermont plan a bridge project for two months' funding? you can't do it. this is an indication of how broken the budget process is. and another indication is we are locked into this sequester and a few years there was an effort to get a grand bargain which is the way we should be doing it. cuts in spending raise some receive news and getting balance, but we had this hammer of across-the-board cuts and

that was going to be so threatening to congress that we were going to enter into this grand bargain and failed to do it. we have these mindless cuts that are continuing to actually hollow out, even the military. host: let's put up the numbers. if you would like to talk to peter welch about some of the congressional issues, dial in and we will be taking those calls in just a minute. you talked about the ideological differences between the parties but the examiner here in washington says the rift is being exposed after years of g.o.p. infighting. had the president and the elizabeth warn -- that little conflict. is there an ideological rift in the democratic party? mr. welch: the rift is on trade. the president is a big promoter

of the transpacific partnership. and the democrats are skeptical if not opposed to it. on trade yes that is a debate. that is not uncommon because president savor. representatives look at trade from the perspective of how this is going to help folks in my district get a pay raise and that's where the divide is. there has been upbeat feeling about president obama even after the lacks election where we didn't do that well. he is really all in on immigration and that's important to us. he is for a much more sense of balance in our budget priorities. he has brought us home from iraq and coming home almost all together from afghanistan. there is a lot of enthusiasm about the president, even though there is a clear division between most of the democrats

and president on trade. host: mr. welch is a vermonter and a member of the progressive caucus. you endorsed your senior senator? mr. welch: i have not made an endorsement. and there is a lot of excitement in vermont. we know bernie and actually we like bernie. he is one of the most popular politicians in vermont and he has been speaking consistently to us throughout his political career what america knows is a big issue and that is inequality and inability of hardworking people to make ends meet. he is going to add a real voice to the campaign and hillary has a lot of support. she has enormous support and this is very very forceful contender for the nomination. they are both going to have their challenges. hillary has to bear the burden

of maybe 20 republican candidates whose mission in life is to tear her down and it's a big country that bernie has to introduce himself to. host: i want to ask you about john boehner's statement to a reporter yesterday about the amtrak issue and the fact that the republican or a committee voted to cut amtrak funding right after the amtrak -- is this an optics issue or something underneath it? guest: here's where it gets a little bit on the optics. you had this horrible tragic crash in the day after we are cutting amtrak funding and there are stories out that there was equipment made available that wasn't deployed to automatically slow down speeding trains.

there are things that could have been done to this tragedy to have been avoided. we shouldn't get into a suggestion that some vote one way or the other would have undone this tragedy. but what is very true? we haven't passed a transportation bill. our infrastructure is crumbling and that is true across the country. there are pot holes in red districts and blue districts and i find it astonishing they won't pass a long-term transportation bill. that used to be something republicans and democrats did together and amtrak is a service that is very important in the urban core. you have a lot of people that can be moved by train. other parts of the country louisiana, might be dredging ports, where that's really vital to their economy. but we have all got to come together and have a

comprehensive transportation bill. and that's on boehner. we haven't passed a transportation bill because he hasn't put on the table funding source that we can vote on and that goes back to some of this ideology where some of the republicans are just adamant against putting a nickel into anything. host: is there a deadline? guest: end of this week and coming up and looming and it's a short-term authorization for two months without any money behind it and using some money that is still in the trust fund. host: when it comes to infrastructure, this is the "wall street journal's" lead editorial. amtrak truth in politics. this is a little bit of their conclusion. the political class refuses to use the word infrastructure unless proceeded by crumbling, but the truth is current funding

is poorly targeted and congress won't set priorities, spinning off the northeast corridor from amtrak to build a high-feed track. guest: that's pretty ridiculous. let me first acknowledge, you do have to make priorities and in any area where we spend money should be vigilant to make sure it's not wasted and true in transportation and true in the pentagon and food stamp program. but what the "wall street journal" is failing to acknowledge is we haven't had a funding plan. we have a gas tax and that's our basic revenue for the highway trust fund and it's the same

level in 1994. we are doing 20th century receive news. if you get rid of all the bike paths that the writers apparently don't like and make a difference in quality of life. if you got rid of all the bike paths how would that bill a tunnel. that is a miniscule part of the budget. host: mike from georgia independent line. i have an offbeat question, i'm wanting to know why all the

management of the democrats and the democratic party and the management of the republicans and the whole republican party, seems like when you have a vote up there, every one of you vote one way and the other side votes the same on the other way. it's like you don't have an independent brain or something. i mean ain't there -- can't you all think for yourself? seems like someone ought to disagree with the party from time to time. and i know you all do from time to time. guest: you have a point here and one of the problems is that there has been an escalation in the partisanship because of the rules that we have here in congress and part because of the way the districts have been gerry me r mannedered. they are strongly democratic or strongly republican and those become very conservative or very liberal.

i think we should have nonpartisan commissions establishing the district lines and you would get more competitive elections and get people who want to solve problems more than be partisan advocates. but there are a lot of us here in congress on both sides of the aisle who are trying to find ways to work together and one of the things that is working -- i serve on the energy and commerce committee and fred upton is our republican chairman and he has reached out to get both sides so we can do the tradeoffs and do the negotiations together and it's a model i would like to see us use more in congress. host: linda from california, democrat. caller: i'm concerned about the shortfall in the social security disability fund which could result of a 27% cut to social

security disability. i'm on disability and i know that the republicans passed a house rule that won't let you transfer money from the social security fund to the disability [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. and i would like to know what's happening with this, what are you all going to do about it? guest: you described the situation exactly and that's where the majority, which as you pointed out is the republicans, has a new rule that doesn't allow those interfund transfers and that is to keep the equation balanced in disability. i support in maintaining the disability provisions for folks like you. you have to qualify legally in order to get the disability. but as far as how that's going to change, you have to address your question to mr. boehner. host: gary is in cleveland.

republican. caller: you hear so much about the sequester wasn't this bill signed by president obama? wasn't this more of his idea? how how did this bill come to be? what i heard about it is the fact that it was obama or the democrats was in favor of this bill and president obama signed it. mr. welch: you're right. the president did sign it. that was a big mistake on his part. this reflected a compromise between republican and democratic leadership. i thought it was a bad idea. but what happens, the history on this, there was a standoff on the budget negotiations and the result -- this was around the time that it was ping up or the

united states defaulting its debts. and this sequester idea was a way out of solving a problem but we took on long-term -- long-term disaster in my view. so the sequester was a compromise. senator mcconnell agreed to and other senate leadership. and the president did sign it. i thought it was a bad idea. everybody acknowledges that and people who agreed to the sequester didn't think it would go into effect because that committee was supposed to come up with a balance of cuts and revenues to achieve budgetary goals and that committee failed and we have to live with the consequences.

caller: i would like to see some sort of reliance between grayson, elizabeth warren and get these banks out of here and these right-wing republicans who seem to me or have their mental reviewed. karl guest: i'll take that as a comment. host: what about alan grayson? guest: he is considering whether he wants to stay in the house and run for the u.s. senate. host: and? guest: i don't know. caller: actually the republican

asked my questions but i have known -- well it was my memory that the sequester was due to the fact that the government was going to shut down in 24 hours or less, so we had to do the sequester. so you answered that question. another question -- follow-up question i gist is, i watch the congressional hearings all the time and i see maybe 10, 20 representatives there, where is everybody? if they don't show up and listen to the debate, how does anybody supposed to hear a different point of view? guest: we have to be in two three places at the same time. a lot of members are on a

committee and several subcommittees they serve on. and if you are a member of that committee, you don't decide when that hearing will be scheduled. so for instance, yesterday, there were a couple of times when i was on a couple of committees that were having hearings at the same time in different locations. so that's a major reason why members, republicans and democrats, oftentimes aren't -- if they are not in one committee, they are in another. that's the basic explanation. host: peter welch, you have been going in congress nine, 10 years, what's the importance of the floor debate? guest: it is diminished. as this caller was saying, during debate, there are immediate members who are involved in the actual bill. and it's relatively rare that the whole body is on the floor and it's for big bills and big

moments and generally you have the leaders on both sides making speeches and you have more time for the debate. so the actual debate is not one where i think it is persuasive and not the old days of webster and calhoun. the important work is in the committee and even before committee when you try to reach out to the other side. as a minority member i'm not going to get anywhere unless i get republican support. when we were in the majority there was effort to get consensus going into a committee. but the floor debate is not the factor that it might have been in days gone by. host: playing politics with defense, it says that the democratic leader nancy pelosi is urging her caucus to vote no

on the upcoming defense authorization bill. your role as chief deputy whip, whether or not you agree with democratic leader pelosi, do you have to whip your colleagues and get them to vote no? guest: whipping by the way is trying to persuade. and a lot of that discussion takes place in the caucus and there is one on one discussion with members. and on this defense question, the defense appropriation bill, to say playing politics is just to disregard what the fundamentally important issues are that at stake. the defense bill is subject to a sequester. but now what has happened there is a magic asterisk has been put in. and it is a slush fund to be used to get around the sequester

and break the agreement that was made in the sequester that we have a dollar for dollar equality between domestic and pentagon spending. so a lot of us want to get out of the sequester. we can't break this deal unilaterally. host: there will be several amendments today and then a final vote on the defense authorization. republican line from fairfax, virginia. caller: peter, i wrote a statement here basically and it's a question, america has a choice funding the old or putting america where it needs to be. shut down government, federal, state and local pensions and social security and medicare. only 18 brs of the people over 6

work. what do you think about that? guest: i'm not sure i understand the question. caller: we have a choice in america. if you look at the u.s. budget which you certainly know, how much of it goes to the people 65 and older and the pensions and everything else. when the millenals are unemployed we continue to use the old model of taking care of the old, the old is just draining every dime from the millenals as well as the u.s. budget. guest: we are all in it together. family work all their lives and get to social security retirement age i want to make sure they have a solid social security. but are making a good point. we have to invest in young people and in the future. young people now graduating from

college, they have a mountain of debt. the average debt is $30,000 and going up it's very tough for them to get started with a job. a lot of them start out with unpaid internships and then if after this debt, it's tough to borrow that money to buy that car they need or make a downpayment on a condo. wages have been flat for the past 20 years. it's an issue that we saw is related to this trade agreement. so there's got to be a lot more focus on opportunity for young people trying to get themselves into that work force and make their way in life. host: a year or two back, the governor of vermont made a state of the state address and dedicated the entire thing to the issue of drug abuse in vermont. what's the current situation? guest: the governor talked about

the heroin epidemic and prescription drug epidemic and what he said is what other people knew to be true. there has been an explosion on dependency on prescription drugs and a lot of people who develop that habit come by it honestly. they get a legitimate prescription and develop a dependence on it and start compromising their lives. the governor's focus is it mobilized the medical community our law enforcement folks and created a dialogue for parents who are struggling this with their kids or themselves. a lot of support for local treatment centers. and a way to try to deal with this as much as possible as a medical issue as opposed to a criminal issue. i think we have made progress in vermont and i think what the government did in focusing attention, allowed other states to start talking about this in a

better medical-oriented way. host: last call comes from richard from california on our independent line. caller: good morning, congressman. i would like to thank you for taking my call. host: we are listening and you have to turn down the volume on your tv. caller: and throughout your conversation, i don't hear one iota in regards to our debt problem. you talk about spending money on bike paths and this project and that project and yet our debt, we are debt broke, not a little broke, not slightly broke, $18 trillion in debt and growing and not one word comes out of your mouth about how we handle the debt, so what is your take on that?

guest: debt is a real issue. so let me acknowledge that's a real important concern. number two, i think you have to go about the debt in a balanced way. i have been an advocate in having the grand bargain or agreement and look at our spending and try to save, but we have to look at our revenue side. our tax system is a wreck. working families are paying a lot trying to get ahead and have inequality that is so rampant that you saw one painting was sold in new york city to one person for $171 million. that's telling you things are not just working in a way where the economy works for everybody. in my view to deal with the debt, number one, you do everything you can to control spending. number two, you do everything you can to have a fair and sustainable revenue side of the equation. and number three you do make

investments because investments actually can pay for themselves. we should be spending more on basic scientific research. we should be spending more on rebuilding our infrastructure. the process of building infrastructure means that people are going to work and we are going to have that investment for generations to come. host: how are you going to vote on final passage of the defense authorization bill? guest: no. this is really a dishonest deal in the sense that there is a sequester agreement and there is an end run by putting $38 billion in the o.c.o. account. this last caller who spoke about spending there has to be transparency in the budget. he has a good point. so what the majority can do because they don't like the restrictions of one part of an agreement they made is create a

separate slush fund and take money out of that to achieve all their goals. then that's going to lead to bad things happening. host: peter welch, democrat from vermont. we appreciate you coming over. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> "boston globe" reporting on the news that tsarnaev the surviving boston march thon bomber was convicted and sentenced to death. and murdering a police officer and killing three people. the jury, seven women five men took 14 1/2 hours to reach its decision. read more about those in the courtroom and which called for life in prison at bostonglobe.com. next 2016 authorization bill which passed the bill earlier today. this is from washington journal.

guest: i didn't see myself getting to congress as some goal in my future, but i saw a path after dr. coburn announced he was going to retire from the senate. james lankford, who i replaced in oklahoma's fifth district, he decided to run for that seat and i could see a path to get there. so i did it. and i thought win or lose, i'm going to give it a shot. host: what were you doing prior? guest: i run a small manufacturing business and i have been on the professional speaking circuit for over eight years with the speakers' bureau

out of tennessee and talk about the saddam capture and decision making and my book and other things. so i have gotten around an awful lot. i did serve in the state senate for four years from 2008 to 2012 but left after a term. i didn't feel that that was something i was going to do for a long time. host: did you leave voluntarilyly? guest: i did and i was getting demands for speaking around the country and i just felt it was time to pursue that. host: how long have you run two rivers arms and how is it you were in the military? guest: i started the company in 2010. it's called two rivers because land of the two rivers, i was upset i couldn't bring a

souvenir home from the war, so i decided we would make souvenirs for returning troops and it caught on. we have been in business five years this august. host: how long were you in the military? guest: 21 years in the united states army infantry and -- kosovo kuwait, afghanistan, and iraq. host: you put out a book called "we got him!" where were you? guest: i was inchoate, -- i was inchoate. i will -- i was in kuwait. i was not near the hole, but i did commit infantry during the hunt and the capture of