at systemic rules and policies, both rules and policies are only as good as the commitment that people at every level within the secret service have for change. what are you doing within the secret service to build capacity for people to be the adult in the room, to stop this at the source and say this is not what we do in the secret service? >> thank you, senator. the discipline system we have in place now is relatively new. it is proximally two years old. which includes a table of penalties. in the past, discipline was handled at a local level. now, everything is funneled up to our office of integrity. >> i only to interrupt but i am not talking of discipline i am talking about culture. consequences are part of changing the culture but what about the integrity at every level? basically saying we don't do this, we don't know to hotels and higher -- hire people to

service us. we'll drive into the white house and disrupt a major investigation. we don't access a congressman secrets record. we don't do that. who is the person and how are we training people at every level to stand up and stop this behavior because i don't think we can do it just having hearings like this. i think we have got to restore this priceless commodity you were talking about which is the integrity element of the men and women at every level knowing it ibilityr respons to maintain the integrity of the secret service. >> i agree. we can have all the training exercises and all the online training -- for example, i have been to 10 of the field offices. i speak personally to our agents. i walk around the white house talking to officers. i meet all the recruits prior to their graduation.

i tell them what they represent, what is expected of them, but i have to do more of that as well as our staff. we have to keep communicating to our people. again, what the congress is doing today is a help to us and our agency because, again, the seriousness of what we've done in this particular case resonates by these types of hearings. mrs. watson coleman: this is what we've been experiencing, mr. director. i want to talk about the panel's recommendation. one of the things i think was noted in the panel was that -- that we needed new leadership.

we needed leadership from outside of this organization that didn't have the long-term relationships that might be somehow influenced by the relationships they did have and seeing it in sort of an insular way. you have a 27-year record or experience with the agency. clearly you are an insider. there was a removal of a number of deputies and they were replaced, and the majority of the deputies that were replaced were also from within the agency with long service records. my question is, how do we change the culture of the organization if the very top leadership has been a part of that culture and perhaps only sees this organization from within?

would we have not been better served had you identified the capacity to go to the outside and find people with certain skills, leadership abilities, accountabilities that would -- that would have transcended the relationships that individuals may have had, could that possibly have helped us become more efficient, more effective and more accountable as an agency? mr. clancy: thank you for that question. i tell you that this position, the director's position should have been someone from the outside. there's good reason for that. i understand that. i consider the fact that i had left the service for three years, worked in private industry, has allowed me to bring me some outside views on how to run a business and how to run this agency. so what i did do is first of all, i brought in a chief operating officer, a civilian, from outside the agency. and that c.o.o., the chief operating officer, is equivalent to the deputy director. additionally, we created a lot of subject matter expert positions where traditionally they answer to agents.

you know, prior to me arriving here, all the top level security was run by agents, and some of them candidly were not subject matter experts. for example, finance. we now have a chief financial officer who does not answer directly to an assistant director. she is the chief financial officer. chief technology officer is an engineer, not an agent. the chief strategy officer is a lawyer who's not an agent. there's a few others as well. so we brought in -- we're trying to bring in this outside perspective to run this business but also move the agents into our core mission of protection and investigations. mrs. watson coleman: so talk to me about your ability to bring in not only new people into the

agency but more diverse people. because the information i read regarding the secret service is that it is predominantly white male, there are -- there's a small percentage of women and not very -- not consistent with agency but more diverse people. across the board in federal government. what are you doing to address the issue of lack of diversity in terms of race and ethnicity and gender in positions? and what are you doing to address the long-standing and outstanding issue with the civil rights complaints? that move beyond them as opposed to using this system to delay the implementation of the corrective actions that could be taking place? thank you. mr. clancy: in terms of diversity, i'd ask you to look at my executive staff. on that staff of approximately 12 people, we have five african-american, six females and -- but going down throughout the ranks, you're correct. we are not where we want to be with diversity. so we are targeting universities

that are -- provide diversity for us. we've shortened our hiring process where we can go to these universities and over a weekend period of time do a testing, an interview and polygraph if the first two steps are met. but we are targeting specific areas of the country to really work on this diversity. because we are deficient in that area. certainly with females as well. we are working diligently to try to improve that diversity. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. i yield back for another -- >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. johnson. senator johnson: in your written testimony you state that, quote, information access by secret service employees on approximately 60 occasions between march 26 and april 2 of this year and you went on to say that we concluded that the vast majority who accessed this information did so in violation of the privacy act of 1974.

what are the pants for violating the privacy act of 1974? mr. roth: there's civil penalties for the agency if there is a widespread sort of gross negligence standard. for individuals who accessed the system and to -- improperly, knowing it was protected under the privacy act. that's a misdemeanor which has a fine as a penalty but no custodial sentence. senator johnson: is there any department of justice investigation undertaken right now to determine whether those misdemeanors were being to be -- are they going to be prosecuted? mr. roth: no. during the course of our investigation, we presented a case of the most compelling case we had and it was declined by the u.s. attorney's office. senator johnson: why would that be? mr. roth: there's several reasons.

first of all, each individual agent has a fifth amendment right to not speak to us if in fact he's under criminal jeopardy so we could not interview individuals compel their interview which we ultimately had to do in this case for a lack of voluntary cooperation. so the level of evidence that the department of justice had was not sufficient for them to move forward. additionally, when one looks at the penalty it was simply a matter of competing resources. senator johnson: director clancy, i got involved in looking into the culture problems with the secret service back in early 2012 after events in cartagena. this is not why i ran for the united states senate was to look into the secret service. it's an agency that we all want to have a high deal of credibility and, you know, as you stated in your testimony, the culture in many respects is almost, you know, beyond rapprochement.

it's a fabulous agency. they're doing great work, but the other hand, there's a real cultural problem. what are you going to do about it? i mean, i hear communication. i understand communication, but actions speak far louder than words. and when we're just talking about a disciplinary process, when there are violations of the privacy act and there are no prosecutions of it, nobody is held to the misdemeanor penalties, there's nothing more corrosive in an organization that has a cultural problem when misdeeds go unpunished. so what actions are going to be taken? this is three years now. you know, cartagena occurred in april of 2012. we had 2013 and 2014 and 2015. three years later, we have a number of members of the secret

service violating the privacy act. >> thank you for the question. we have removed people from the secret service. several were removed. in theoday, we are process of proposing a removal for an individual on related to this. people are removed in the secret service. this penalty that we have used -- we have benchmarked that with other agencies. so we are we want to be consistent with what's being done across the board. and just recently i published for the first time to our entire work force our integrity, the discipline over the past year.

so they can see what types of cases are out there, are supervisors being disciplined equal to the workforce? we are trying to be transparent. that communication is critical here, but we are trying to be more transparent and driving home the point people will be held accountable. in this case they will be held accountable. mr. johnson: there are a lot of protection force the employees, the actual agents, again it's hard to see the accountability. do you find that to be a problem? are you constrained in what actions you would like to take based on all the protections for the agents? should we have -- should we be looking at the law there and making sure the agencies have enough power to actually hold people accountable? director clancy: i think the accepted service would allow us to speed up the proposals and the discipline process. i know sometimes we are delayed in the process as we move forward. senator johnson: you would like some ability to take stronger action quicker? director clancy: yes. senator johnson: we need to take that into account. thank you. mr. perry: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr.

thompson. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. almost to the member before me the conversation has been about the culture, the organization. and i think it speaks to whether or not internally we can fix it or do we just cover it up? and i'll get to a specific shortly. inspector roth, in your review of the secret service, how would you describe the culture within the service, especially at the executive level? mr. roth: as we noted in the report on the access to chairman chaffetz's employment record, we found a number of supervisors who, in fact, themselves had access to m.c.i.

to me that was a very troubling incident. additionally, few people then elevated their concerns or the fact that this was being used to a high enough level of management for something to be done. so that was sort of certainly troubling behavior that we identified. mr. thompson: let me -- so we had senior level people accessing information. then we had that information being it noted by people above those individuals, and is your testimony that nothing happened? mr. roth: that's correct. i'll give two examples, if i may. the first was the special agent in charge of the washington field office came to understand some of her employees were accessing the m.c.i. to

understand whether or not that rumor existed. she ordered her individual, her subordinates, to cut it out, i think her exact words were knock it off or quit fooling around with the m.c.i. database. in fact that's what occurred in the washington field office. unfortunately throughout the country other individuals were doing that. so that would be one example. the second example is the special agent in charge of the indianapolis field division who was, frankly, curious why it was, in his view, chairman chaffetz was so hard on director clancy. and he just out of idle curiosity accessed the database himself to discover, in fact, that chairman chaffetz was a prior applicant. he did nothing with that information. did not elevate it up or do any other kind of conduct. there are a number of examples like that. mr. thompson: thank you very much. so director clancy, i hope you sense the membership's concern about the culture.

and i would hope that going forward you would take this hearing, as you said, as a moment of instruction to try to fix it. the men and women deserve it. they do wonderful job. and -- it's about leadership. and i think it's absolutely important. as you know, i have been talking to you since the summer. a little small issue to some. it's relative to the fact that we found out that there was 643 employees assigned to duty that

require a security clearance and they were working for the department without the completion of the clearances. and i had asked you for the demographics of those individuals. and as of this date i don't have the information. i know you have been busy, but can you give me some indication when i can expect to receive the demographics of those 643 employees? director clancy: yes, sir. first of all my apologies you have not received that information. 640 individuals i'm assuming may be department wide. i think within the secret service we did have people working that did not have their security clearances. i think it was much less than that. we'll get you an answer in the coming days on that -- mr. thompson: it was department wide over a five-year period.

my point is some of us run into men and women around the country who indicate that i'm trying to get employed with the secret service, but they tell me i can't get considered for employment because i haven't been cleared. i can't go to training. i can't do a lot of things. but it troubles some of us when we already employing people whose job require clearance on the other hand. so i don't know if that's favoritism or what, but it's real concerning. director clancy: i'll follow up on that, sir. i can tell you that we don't look at that diversity in terms of who gets a security clearance, who does not. in this case the one that you referenced, i'll speak for the secret service, we were

delinquent as we went through this hiring process. we did not get people their security clearances in a timely manner. and they were assigned to positions outside of washington for the most part. but what we have done now is we brought in some contractors, additional 14 contractors, who ensure this never happens again where someone goes through our training when they get their graduation, when they graduate, they should have their clearance. that has been resolved now within the secret service. mr. thompson: thank you. so is your testimony that nobody working for the secret service right now without a security clearance? director clancy: that's correct. to the best of my knowledge that is correct. mr. thompson: can you verify that for the committee? director clancy: yes, sir. mr. thompson: yield back, mr. chair. mr. perry: the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk. mr. loudermilk: that you, mr. chairman. and thank you-all for being here. this is especially troubling for me as we look back over the history of this incredible agency, this service.

it's an icon of what i think is american exceptionalism. and the action that is we have seen take place of course it tarnishes the reputation of the service. but more so i think it really tarnishes the image the american people have of what they have always elevated as the exceptional service. not just in the nation but in the world. and i think it's imperative that we address these issues not just in hindsight but going forward to make sure we restore the trust of the american people, the trust of congress, and the trust of the protectees. mr. roth, you said something in your written statement that really struck me here. the secret service has certainly

taken steps to address these challenges. but not always successfully. these persistent challenges may not be easy to resolve through actions such as suspending employees and issuing new guidance. they may require more fundamental change that addresses the root of the misconduct. i think that's what we need to focus. what is the root, in your opinion, what's the root of the problem? mr. roth: when you look at guidance with regard to creating a ethical culture, they say it comes in three dimensions. one is tone at the top, not just the very top but all through leadership of an organization. the leaders have to set the exact right tone. the second is to have a code of conduct and ethics that is truly meaningful. the third is to enforce that code of conduct in a way that expresses to the rank and file that you mean what you say with regard to that tone at the top. you have to look at all three of those things. as director clancy said, i think the middle part, code of conduct, was not there until

cartagena. there have been steps they have taken since then to establish a more rigorous policy. that's certainly an improvement we think is well deserved or a positive step in the right direction. again, it has to be tone all the way through the organization, as well as a meaningful enforcement of that code of conduct. mr. loudermilk: i have a timeline of misconduct that went back to cartagena, but it goes back to 2011. up until that time -- there is misconduct in any organization. was there a history like we are seeing now, mr. roth, that you are aware of, prior to the last four or five years? mr. roth: i'm not aware of it. i don't have any insight into it. certainly we are only as good as the audits we do and the

investigations we do. we didn't have anything before that. mr. loudermilk: thank you. mr. clancy, i applaud your efforts. you have a difficult task. you have been in the agency for quite a while. do you recall there was the level or consistency of misconduct previously in the agency, or is this something new? director clancy: i think agency has always had misconduct. the secret service has had misconduct in the past. i think it has more -- more attention has been brought to this misconduct in the last several years, and that's a good thing. i applaud the inspector general's office for that. this has to be brought out in the open. these misconduct episodes, otherwise we won't correct it. mr. loudermilk: make sure i understood it right. you're trying to benchmark your disciplinary actions of other agencies, is that what you're referring to?

looking at other agencies? director clancy: yes. my understanding when the table of penalties was built out, our legal team worked with other agencies to see what they were doing from a discipline standpoint, what their table penalties were. and we took their best ideas, best practices and built ours. mr. loudermilk: i would suggest, you guys have to be a little stronger, little better. the nature of the work that you do is so important to this nation. one last thing. we talked a lot about culture in here, and that is true. i think what you're getting at is the culture of the agency, it's the espirit de corps. you're in the secret service. you have an obligation to the integrity, the honor, and the dignity to uphold this agency. and i think that may be what's missing somewhere, just real quickly, i was going over this timeline, and there seems to be

a common element with a lot of these. i look at cartagena, alcohol was involved. june, 2013, alcohol. november, 2013, abuse of alcohol. december, 2013, alcohol. march, alcohol. june, 2014, alcohol. there seems to be this continual cycle of alcohol abuse associated with this which, from my experience in the military, usually indicates that there's a morale issue. i'll let you comment and i'll yield back after that. director clancy: you're correct, congressman. we do have a morale issue. a lot of it is because of our staffing. that's one of the things we need to do work is our staffing so we can build up the staffing level we can get more training which our people want, give them a better quality of life, which will help their morale as well. again, to your point here today, the accountability and discipline matters also helps that morale.

are we going to hold people accountable? i will tell you the episodes since i have been here, you mentioned the march 4 incident where an individual -- two individuals after retirement party drove on to the white house. i can tell you that retirement parties now are -- i don't know of any taking place. people got that message. what we are talking about today, p.i.i., people are getting the message. unfortunately it takes these significant errors, misconduct to resonate sometimes with our people. i do want to also say one thing. less than 1% of our people are involved in this misconduct. 99%, some of you mentioned, are doing the right thing. but we have to focus on that less than 1% because we are held to a very high and rightfully so, we are held at a high level. mr. loudermilk: i hope you can get the service back to the point where people aren't doing the right thing because they are afraid of the discipline, but they are doing the right thing because they are dedicated to their job, to the service, to

the spirit of the service, and their oath to the constitution. thank you, sir. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california, mrs. torres. mrs. torres: thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, just to be -- to have some statistics here on the record, according to the partnership for public service the agency is 74% male, is that correct? director clancy: 75% -- let me just check that real quick. that sounds correct. mrs. torres: 72% white. leaving it severely out of step with other agencies. women make up 25% of the

agency's work force, but only about 11% of the agents and uniform officers. director clancy: you're correct, yes. mrs. torres: you talked about your outreach efforts with universities and targeting certain areas of the nation. have you engaged an employment agency to help you or to advise you in finding a more diverse work force? director clancy: i'm not aware we have done -- taken that step yet. it's an excellent suggestion that we may look into. i will tell you that when we go to these different areas of the country, we have a very diverse group recruiting group that goes out to try to encourage females to apply, as well as across the board in diversity. mrs. torres: are you targeting also the military or law

enforcement agencies looking for -- there's great people working -- director clancy: we go to military bases. again we run what we call these entry level assessment centers, so that, for example, the military base, if you want to apply for a job with the secret service, we can do a testing initially. if you pass the test, that very day we can do a super interview of you. if it looks like you're a good candidate, then we move you right to a polygraph all within a weekend to speed up that process. absolutely. the military bases, we found personally that people that have had military background serve us very well. mrs. torres: they have a high work ethic. they understand the pecking order. they understand the need to serve. i am disturbed by the incidents.

i am happy to hear that it's a reflection on less than 1% of the work force, but by no means does it make me feel better or safer. so would you say you have an agent problem or do you have a management problem? director clancy: management problem. it starts with me. there's no question. it's a management problem, leadership problem that i have to find an answer to. mrs. torres: have you taken steps to ensure that when we are climbing down on agents that tougher disciplinary actions are taken upon the people who supervise them? director clancy: supervisors are held accountable. again, we put this out, again, trying to be transparent, to show our work force how -- mrs. torres: are there policies in place to ensure that whistle blowers are protected? director clancy: everyone in the service knows that whistle blowers perform a vital function and they cannot be -- there is no retaliation, there is no --

you have to let them go. mrs. torres: so, there are disciplinary steps that the agency takes when the department rules are violated? director clancy: yes. mrs. torres: and there are disciplinary steps that the department takes when our laws are broken? director clancy: yes. mrs. torres: the agents are read miranda rights, is that what you were referring to an earlier question? director clancy: no, they are not read miranda rights. they are read others. let the inspector general correct me here. but that's what they are read, yes. mrs. torres: i come from the civilian part of law enforcement. so criminal charges are filed whether they are felony charges or misdemeanor charges. what are your steps?

what steps do you take during that process? director clancy: if criminal charges are filed, we typically immediately move to removing the security clearance. so that this individual can no longer have access to any of the protected facilities, any access to any of our protectees or any of our -- mrs. torres: what happens to the rest of that immediate department that are working with that employee now in the process of a criminal investigation and their supervisors? director clancy: if it's -- at that point we don't have -- we remove all their badges. we remove their equipment. and then it goes through the normal course of criminal justice system.

mrs. torres: my time is out, but what i'm trying to figure out is if you have a rotten apple, how do you ensure that the whole bowl isn't bad? director clancy: we can remove them very quickly in that case when there is criminal charges. mr. chairman, if i could just correct the record for one item. ranking member thompson asked me about the security clearances. our agents and officers, some of them in training now, have not had their clearances settled. they will by graduation. so anyone who graduates from our academy will have security clearance. while they are going through training some of them may not have. mr. thompson: as of this summer when we talked, that was not the case. the speaker pro tempore: that's correct. that was not the case. you're correct, yes mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentlelady. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. clawson. mr. clawson: sorry to hear about your dad. director clancy: thank you, sir. mr. clawson: greatest generation. i know many here lost their fathers from that generation and i think we learned from them.

was your dad a vet? director clancy: he was. mr. clawson: i know all about this. i just lost my mom. it's the generation that the class is halfful. put the team first. work hard and go to church on sunday and the rest answers itself, right? director clancy: yes, sir. absolutely. mr. clawson: we were lucky to have those kind of folks. director clancy: yes, sir. thank you. mr. clawson: although we do a little bit for our country now, without ever saying it that remind us compared to what they did we don't do much. director clancy: yes, sir. mr. clawson: i have full respect and admiration for you and your dad. i walls thought organizational culture being performance and how your agent and employees think of themselves is dependent on those because they see it. when that bad behavior is not dealt with quickly, it impacts that culture and how we view each other. because it discourages good performers that they are doing their job every day.

everything tells me that these incidents of bad behavior ought to be isolated, put up in lights for everyone to see, and that action needs to be taken quickly. therefore -- and that that really is the responsibility of leadership. therefore, when it drags on and on, when it drags on and on, it really sends a bad message to this corporate culture that you referred to earlier. why so slow? i mean systematic, you're the chief and you got the head of homeland security. let's go. let's take some action so you can do what's right and preserve the culture for all your great performers. am i missing something on that? why so slow? director clancy: you're correct. again certainly if there is any criminal activity, it's quicker.

we can remove security clearance right away. with other types of misconduct, it does take time for the full investigation. and again in transparency we had the o.i.g. handle this investigation to do a very thorough investigation and then once the investigation was completed, then we could move forward with that discipline. under title 5, the employees, federal employees are given certain rights and we follow that process. but eventually we get to where we need to be. eventually we do get to where we need to be. mr. clawson: it's going slow for my pace. typical folks that run large organizations don't understand this kind of length of time for -- it just festers because you don't put it behind you. my point is let's get going. i have found in organizational change, if you don't change a third of your people in positions of responsibility, you

won't change the culture. because they are going to outwait you. they always out wait you. if you change more than 50% then you may have a problem with the institutional memory that you discussed earlier. i'm really glad you brought diversity and experience into your direct reports, but they'll outwait you below that. no rule of thumb is 100% for sure, but film' sitting in your chair and not changing a third of my managers, and you're thinking you're going to change your organization, good luck. don't believe it. don't know if you thought of it in numeric terms, but let's get a performance culture going without washing away the memory of the successes of the past. i'm all for having both and i don't think if you implied this in your early comments, i don't

think it's one or the other. change your culture and preserve the successes of the past. does that make sense? director clancy: it does, yes, sir. mr. clawson: anything i said you would disagree with? director clancy: i wouldn't, sir. mr. clawson: we want you to succeed. we can talk all day about whether you should be in the job or not but you're in the job. we need you to be successful. anything can i do and our group, we want you to succeed. i really like the tone at the top. so let's get them. thank you. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. thank all of you for being here. mr. clancy, how many times -- when did you get -- become the acting director? director clancy: october 6, i believe. of 2014. mr. carter: how many times have you appeared before congress in

-- congress. or not but you're in the job. we need you to be successful. anything can i do and our group, we want you to succeed. i really like the tone at the top. so let's get them. director clancy: this may be my sixth or seventh. mr. carter: i have been here since january 6, i think this is the fourth time i've seen you. obviously we got concerns here. and there seems to be an ongoing problem. as you might know i'm very fortunate to have the federal law enforcement training center in my district. and i'm familiar with the training that takes place with the secret service agents down there, and i think they do an excellent job. i also want to remind you of the protective mission panel that came out and actually said that the amount of training that the secret service agents were getting was far below what it should be. in fact, i think at one time they said it was equaled only to 25 minutes for each 1,300 uniformed officers? what are we doing to change that? director clancy: you're

absolutely correct. i have been down to your federal law enforcement training center. they do a great job down there and they help us as we try to build our staffing levels. in terms of what we have done, uniform division, 99% have gone through a building defense exercise training mission. 10-hour block. additionally, approximately 700 of our uniformed officers have gone through a three-day training period where they do their firearms, emergency medicine, control tactics. number of things. the agents on the president's detail, we have increased the number of agents on the president's detail. by the second quarter, early january, we went out have increased the numbers there by 85, which is what was recommended by the blue ribbon panel, and that will help their training. so we have increased training. by 85% on the president's detail in the past year. mr. carter: specifically, let's get to what we are here about today and that is chairman chaffetz and that situation. inspector roth has stated that several of the agents that violated the secret service and the homeland security policies, when they accessed his records, this is a criminal offense, don't you think?

director clancy: it's on the books as a criminal offense. mr. carter: tell me what you have done. have these people been fired? have they been disciplined at all? a criminal offense by an agency that we hold to the highest standard. earlier, i'm a little frustrated by some of the things i heard here. keep in mind that we up here are experts at spin and pivoting. my campaign manager, that was his favorite word. all of a sudden i heard about the data. give me a break. if they wanted to see this they were going to see it i don't care how the data was protected. how can you let this go on? why didn't you fire these people? don't you agree? they do this was wrong. director clancy: i do agree. certainly there's misconduct here. the discipline has been proposed for those 15 and below. but the data is also important.

it's a sidestep. mr. carter: i understand that. i respect that and i acknowledge it is important that it be protected. but still the basic premise here is that they knew what they were doing was wrong. director clancy: the o.i.g. report they should have known what they were doing was wrong. some of them i think will acknowledge -- mr. carter: should have known? to an agency that we consider to be -- to hold at the highest level? i just can't go along with that. even you yourself said it was inexcusable and unacceptable. and it is. it deserves discipline. i'm a small business man. i have employees as well. i can tell you when something like this happens -- i'm not trying to tell how to run your business, you know as well as i do that when you got a cancer, you got to get rid of t otherwise it will destroy your

whole business. you have to get rid of this cancer here. you have to set an example. and you have an opportunity right here to set an example because what they did was wrong. they knew it was wng. and they deserve discipline. they deserve to be let go. director clancy: we do look at the whole picture here, too. the whole person. some of these people have spent 28 years with no discipline in their history. some of them self-report it. some of them, they are all obviously very remorseful. it was wrong, yes. we do look at the whole picture. the whole person of their career. mr. carter: i get that. i want to make sure that the punishment befits the crime. i understand that. and you should look at their whole career. at the same time, again, you have been here six times since you took office. we don't -- we want you to succeed. we don't want to see you fail. we don't want to see you here anymore is essentially it. we want you to do this.

we want you to do well. but we got to have you help. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. -- senator lankford. senator lankford: thank you. let me state a couple things i picked up from a lot of the conversation here today. i want to walkthrough multiple questions. there are a lot of issues with secret service. that's been well documented. i want to talk about that a little bit. i would say to you, i do disagree with one of the findings of the panel, do i think someone from the inside needs to be there to fix it. someone from the outside that doesn't have the same law enforcement backgrounds or doesn't have the same sense of corporate identity with secret service walks in as an outsider and has a different opinion on it. someone on the inside can say i'm one of us and can turn things around. i appreciate you there. i'll come back that. mr. roth, let me ask you a question, is it your sense for these individuals that accessed

this database it was the first time for them to access this database like this? did anyone ever ask them, gosh, did you just happen to think, gosh, maybe i should look at jason chaffetz' records? someone said i think i could get access to that. or did this look like a pattern of behavior if they are interested in someone they can pull it? mr. roth: i think it ran the gamut depending on the agent. some didn't think it was wrong at all. it was our database. it was a secret service database unlike n.c.i.c. or one of the other larger criminal databases. this was one by the secret service and saw nothing wrong with it. others didn't understand it was wrong until after they did it. then they realized, gee, i probably should not have done it. senator lankford: there is training that happens multiple times a year both orally and electronically. your computer when it starts it up there it says for official use only. still your perception some individuals ignored that and said it's our database, we can do what we want?

mr. roth: that's correct. senator lankford: the problem is if they can pull a member of congress, an individual there, that also means the new neighbor down the street, i can check my records and see if there is something on the new neighbor down the street. when their daughter starts dating some new guy they can pull his family and pull the records on it. if this is someone they don't like, they can pull their records. what we saw from the v.a. and talk about this for g.a.o. in just a moment, but the v.a. became a whistleblower there and we found other employees that were pulling records that were medical records on someone they didn't like as a whistleblower in the process. the challenge that we have here is access to data and it's official and nonofficial and how do we direct this? based on your perception of walking through this, with secret service, is it your perception this has been an ongoing issue for some employees just to be able to use that database as just, i can go look at it, whether it's official, nonofficial, and they blur those lines? mr. roth: that's the sense we got from.

so agents we interviewed who accessed the database. mr. willemssen, how do we identify this. also during the year had something toes to information for unofficial purposes and looked people up. v.a. has this issue we can talk about with someone grabbing information that's a whistleblower. how many agencies have good systems in place to be able to audit at least how individuals access these sensitive databases? mr. willemssen: this is probably the most common issue we see when we are doing detailed information security audits. too many people have access to things they don't need access to. it's not part of their job description. they don't have a need to know. yet they are given access. access is a real issue. it's one that we -- i would say that's probably the most frequent one we come up with. another issue that's interesting

in this case is when you're collecting p.i.i., one of the things you do is end up scheduling a records notice with national archives and records administration to among other things tell them how long you'll keep the files before you dispose of it. i was curious about why an application filed from 2003 would be kept 12 years later. those kinds of things should be disposed of fairly quickly. hopefully that's part of what this service will be doing going forward. you're supposed to schedule those records out and dispose of them at a certain date. sometimes one year, sometimes five years -- senator lankford: can you pause on that. mr. clancy, the electronic records that are not applicable, and paper records, it's my understanding there are still some offices though the access point has been changed electronically, if you go into a file room, those old application files may still be there in

paper form as well. has that been dealt with? director clancy: yes. we are moving forward to, for example, applicants, every two years those files will be purged. now, right now there's an investigation going on with the inspector general so some of that will be delayed slightly until they are through the investigation. but that is the plan forward. and also with the applicants in mind, 95% of the people that had access before no longer will have access because of the new system. senator lankford: both paper and electronic for those officers around the country? do they still have access to paper records in a filing cabinet? director clancy: i have to get back to you with a good solid answer on that. i think we moved away from paper. senator lankford: that would be something wise to evaluate. and the paper version to make sure that that's also purged. it may be just if you have access to that room you also have access to those files and it's part of the challenge here. let me come back. which agency would you identify

and say this agency is a good model example of how to handle personal identifiable information, they are auditing well, tracking well. mr. willemssen: don't have one. senator lankford: that's depressing. mr. willemssen: the more optimistic note, since the o.p.m. cyberdisaster, this has become a major priority. definitely elevated its priority. agency heads recognize this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. when we first announced the information security areas as high risk, first few years i was told, you're chicken little, the sky is falling. i don't hear that. senator lankford: the sky fell. the challenge that we have here is dealing -- let me give you one example of v.a., this is something g.a.o. has for years and years identified issues with v.a., how does this get better? how do we prevent unauthorized access of medical information and private information for our veterans? mr. willemssen: veterans' affairs has a significantly high percentage of systems that are considered high impact systems.

that is the disclosure of data or modification of the data because of the medical records is considered to be very severe in terms of its possible impact if it's lost, stolen, or reviewed by others. given that you have to put much stricter controls in place, including monitoring users and what they are doing and if they have any atypical patterns and use -- senator lankford: is this an audit or algorithm. mr. willemssen: it's both. it's contained in national institute of standards and technology guidance for high impact systems. like i say v.a. has a significant percentage of high impact systems where you've got to put these kind of controls in place to try to prevent the kind of situations that you described. mr. lankford: mr. chairman, i would like -- i don't know if we have a second round of questions but i do have additional questions for director clancy as well. mr. perry: i recognize mrs. watson coleman for a second round. mrs. watson coleman: thank you,

mr. chairman. you know, i know we were here, i know that my colleagues wanted us to sort of focus on what happened to chairman chaffetz, i think if i were he, i probably would want this to go away now. take care of the business that needs to be taken care of. discipline the people that need to be disciplined. learn the lessons that you need to learn. i don't think he needs to have this or wants to have this as a continuing story.

but it does speak to other issues that were identified and does speak to a culture or way of thinking or way of doing business or the way we -- we perceive ourselves on the inside that needs to be addressed. i know you have expectations for that changing. i'd like to know any steps that you're actually taking to change the culture in the form of action? what happens with your executive level? what happens with the level beneath that? the supervisory level? what happens with the rank and file level? how are you addressing the need to get our agency to think more differently about how we come to work, what we do at work, we don't sleep at work, we don't sext under any circumstances. we don't look into files that we don't have a responsibility or

need to look into. is there going to be some sort of a fail-safe mechanism that shows when the file is being accessed by someone who shouldn't be or has a reason to be? i would like to know some steps that you're taking. thank you. director clancy: you just think in terms of the overall culture here, one of the things we are doing is we are trying to have our work force take ownership of this agency. it's their agency. and let me just give you one example. just three or four weeks ago we started a new program, it's a crowd sourcing type of service on our internet where our agents and our officers and all of our employees, professional staff, can send in ideas, suggestions. what we should be doing better, what we should be looking at. and they get other people from the work force looking at that. they can like that for a better term, and then it forces the executive staff to look at that. we have seen this as a very positive already within a few weeks.

we have had close to 200 hits what we call spark, where people have taken ownership of their agency. i think that's where we got to get to that point. it is management. it's my leadership. but additionally it's the individuals who have to take ownership of this agency. i will say again, 99% of our people do have that ownership. mrs. watson coleman: mr. clancy, i have been on the executive branch of government and i know it takes that kind of expectation, but it takes a plan of action and it takes whether or not you're hiring people from the outside who look at these issues and work through groups and you work down through the organizations. so at some point i'd like to know if you're planning to do those kinds of action steps. then the last question is, i really do want to know, is there some sort of way that there is a notification of accessing

information when you're not -- when it's out of order for what you're doing, it's not related to your case. your identification number to get into it signals whether or not you are or are not the right person to be accessing this information. as a follow-up to senator lankford's concerns. director clancy: my understanding is and the her gentlemen may be able to answer better, it requires constant monitoring and auditing. there is no automatic notice that someone has accessed someone's data inappropriately. it has to be constant monitoring. there's an administrator for each of these buckets of information. that administrator has to control who has access, who has the need to know that information. it's up to the administrator. with our human resources we have approximately 260 who have access to our applicant data with this new system. that administrator would have to ensure that anyone else who enters -- has access they have

approved. it mr. roth: if i may, just as an example the d.h.s. text system is one in which, for example, if director clancy had created a record there and i accessed that record, director clancy would get an email that i was the one who accessed the record. not only what director clancy was talking about, which is you can run reports by the system administrator, but there are real time controls on modern i.t. systems that weren't present in the m.c.i. system. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. perry: the chair recognizes the gentleman from, mr. lankford. senator lankford: thank you. i think the audit system will be the key.

whatever percentage that that is to be able to have for this computer at this spot, here's everything that you ran, and that they know at some point someone's going to just spot audit. you can't go through all of it. no need. just a simple accountability that sits out there someone to know there is an algorithm that's running there is a search for files that don't seem to be consistent with official records. there's a spot audit saying you pulled records from your neighbor down the street or someone you don't like. all of those things i think become important. we have a tremendous number of people that work in the federal work force that are great people. that generally love the country and love to be able to do what their job is.

the problem is these small, as mr. clancy you mentioned, the 1%. i had to smile as we were working through some of the conversation about secret service and picking on secret service today, i hope we are really not picking on you. this has become the latest example of multiple examples whether it be v.a. or social security or others, a visual example again. as i listened to some of the conversation about challenges with public relations nightmares and employees not doing their job and alcohol abuse and everything else, we could flip the tables and you could hold a hearing on members of congress and have the same accusation. i will assure you it's more than 1% of the members of congress have some of these same issues. this issue is a human behavior issue, it's also a professionalism issue. i have taken the task seriously. mr. clancy, i'm going to give you an unfair list and just to be able to walkthrough a few things and aim going to tell you this in advance. as -- i'm going to tell you this in advance. as i have walked through the issues and some of the recommendations, the oldest general law enforcement institute in our country, it's an incredibly val usual resource

to our nation. but my fear is some changes that have been put in place over the past several decades, not on your watch, have brought around some morale -- how do we shift morale back and get on top of this? otherwise it's whack a mole with inch issues. overtime rules seem to come up over and over again. getting some sort of standard practice with their counterpart agencies. accountability of leadership so if there is a bad actor everyone knows that's not tolerable in our agency. when you actually confront issues, everyone knows that's the standard we are going to live up to it. if there is a bad apple that's been stated, everyone works down to that level. prior of new equipment and technology i find secret service is not getting the top priority for some of the newest technology and newest equipment among our d.h.s. law enforcement. and i think that's demeaning. that sends a false message to secret service they are not as valuable as some of the other aspects of d.h.s. the responsibilities seem to be getting cluttered instead of a clarity where it has been historically for protection and for counterfeit duties. there seems to be other duties that seem to be creeping into it that distract from the core mission here. the consistent career track, a consistent theme that i have heard over and over again. career track seems to change. and so no one knows what path they are on here. am i off on any of these? director clancy: no.

you're correct. i'll comment on your last, the career track. we did bring in a work force of agents at different levels to try to look at the best career track moving forward. we have just announced a couple months ago a new career track for our agents so that they can plan their future. that's been one of the problems. you don't know if you're going to come to washington, or go to texas. again, listening to our work force trying to find solutions. senator lankford: that's one thing you can do on the inside. but i encourage in the career track, you examined this, the possibility that individuals on the previous career track still could finish that out. they could be grandfathered into that. or if they choose to shift to the other one they could choose that as well.

that gives then the option, doesn't feel like the new guy has the new stuff. also i started on this and complete this and i feel like the rules are changing on me again. this corporate identity is extremely important and valuable. and what i fear is that there is a growing sense of lack of importance of people that run credibly important to our nation. i never want secret service hopes to feel like they guard doors for the living. they don't have an incredibly valuable role and the morale and role and standard you set will be incredibly important for years to come. if there is a silver lining in this, historically, secret service have had a really bad time when a president was shot. no one's been shot. there are just some things that are messed up. this is a unique moment for the secret service to re-evaluate again and go who are we? where are we going? what's our clear task? i would encourage you if there are issues in working with d.h.s. and in the scheme of things, these committees need to know it. because we want to make sure that all of the d.h.s. families, all feel equal levels of

importance. your secret service transition pretty quickly, i guess, from working in the treasury to d.h.s., and all the restructuring, and you're now one of many rather than the big dog at treasury. that has both benefits and challenges. and we need to know and have some way to be able to help communicate in that so we can help engage in this because we are not only advocates but accountability in the process. today probably feels more like accountability but also the desire to be advocates on these roles. we'll need to know that. is that fair? director clancy: that's fair. if i could comment on one thing there.

just to give you some comfort. i know it's given me comfort. i went through this papal visit as well as the u.n. i traveled with the pope and i can tell you as i talk to our agents, our officers, and our professional staff, this was a defining moment for our agency. as i talked to these people and looked in their eyes, they wanted to be successful. they know the issues that have been highlighted, and rightfully so, over the past several years. this was an unprecedented time in our history. our people were determined to make this successful. we did this for them without incident. our people felt proud about that and i'm very proud of our work force. having said that we have to correct these other things, too, and we will. we've got people that are working very hard for the american people. senator lankford: we acknowledge that and understand that. we also don't want anything to distract it. mr. willemssen, let me ask you this, databases and access points, is there any independent agency or agency that's an executive agency that you think has a higher risk or has no system of tracking this? old or new, that you look at it and say these are the high risk, these are the highest risk, and

part of my question are the independent agencies, do we know for certain that they have auditing process because they handle incredibly sensitive financial data on americans? mr. willemssen: i would point to those agencies who have the most p.i.i., personally identifiable information as reason to make sure that they are doing everything they can to protect that. you start with social security administration who has p.i. on almost every citizen. v.a. you already mentioned definitely an issue. independent agencies, do we know for certain that they have department of education probably somewhat overlooked because they have a tremendous amount of p.i.i. because of the student loans not only on the student but sometimes the parents. i would be most concerned about where the p.i.i. is most significant. senator lankford: let me ask you about things like f.c.c. or cfpb, they have a tremendous amount of data. do we know on their employees how they have access anti-limitations they have? mr. willemssen: we know that they have at least three sets of data collection that includes p.i.i., maybe more. arbitration case records, bank account and transaction level data, and storefront payday

loans. senator lankford: we did make a recommendation in terms of the -- we previously had done work and made a recommendation related to their privacy impact assessment. whenever you correct p.i.i., you have to do a privacy impact assessment that lets everyone know what are we collecting, why are we collecting it, how are we going to use it, how are we not going to use it, and when are we going to dispose of it? they had not fully done those when we did our work that we maimed a recommendation on that. that's something i can follow up on. senator lankford: i know cfpb has requested again another incredibly large jump of information they are gathering on americans and databases. that seems to exceed even what was originally designed in dodd-frank. mr. willemssen: it may be more than what we had mentioned in

our report then. they may have further expanded t senator lankford: it's a fairly recent expansion. what we are trying to figure out who has access to that and how often. mr. willemssen: we can follow up for you on that. senator lankford: that would be helpful. gentlemen, i thank you for your participation today. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman from oklahoma. before i close out i have a couple of questions. mr. willemssen, you are from the government accountability office, i read through your information. i'm just wondering if you can provide any clarity on other agencies regarding penalties, regarding accountability for actions that have been -- that they have engaged in regarding security clearances. that might be out of your wheelhouse

mr. willemssen: i can talk about numerous -- some of the major incidents over time. probably the first major incident we had with inappropriate browsing was at the i.r.s. in the mid 1990's. several employees decided to start browsing celebrity's tax returns, as a result of that there was an act passed that taxpayer browsing protection act, 1997, and that among other things has the penalties of up to $1,000 fine and imprisonment of not more than one year. mr. perry: do you know if anybody was prosecuted under that and subjected to those penalties at all? mr. willemssen: do not know that, sir. but i can -- we can follow up on that with i.r.s. mr. perry: i actually wish you would just so we know. director, you also mentioned that i think you had -- there are limitations, right, what you can do regarding accountability, punishment for actions that are beneath the standard, is that correct? director clancy: yes. we are not able to fire at will.

mr. perry: so we need to know, the members of this board and congress in general, needs to know what you need us to do for you to be successful, for you to manage it for us. we need your direct recommendations. that's as said so many times in the room, we want you to be successful. if we are standing in the way, you need to let us know what we can do, what we should do, so you can be successful. i have served for over 30 years in the united states military, if you're familiar with the army, i can guarantee you if there is a question of your security clearance and activities regarding the security clearance, that is suspended on an interim basis pending an investigation. if you're found to have been at fault and have breached, it's serious. incredibly serious for the most minor infractions. it's not meant to be a culture of punishment and fear, but it's meant to keep honest people honest.

and to raise the level of importance of those things that should be important. i would just suggest that maybe that would be something you might want to look at for suspension of security clearances, which i would imagine in your business a suspension of a security clearance, certainly on an interim basis, but -- maybe on an interim basis but absolutely on a permanent basis means loss of employment because you can't be employed without it, right? director clancy: that's correct. mr. perry: that gets to where we want to be. you are the top dog, and you are in charge, but i will tell you this -- whether it's in my family or my military or running my business, bad information does not get better with time. there must be a culture of something happened, who needs to know, and we get the information to the top of the chain as quickly as possible. if your subordinates don't know that is your expectation, we are going to have a continuation of this, which none of us want.

you are sitting in front of us and defending your agency and agents, as you should. you probably also know 95% of your time will be spent on a 5% of your people. director, i've been out to your operation, and i've been impressed. all of us want to hold up the secret service as the standard. americans desperately want that. these things are incredibly hurtful when we hear them in the news. there's a bigger picture. i think your employees need to understand, it is not their system. ,t is the taxpayers database and it is not their information. it is the individuals information. you don't own it. to use it willy-nilly is reprehensible in an age when, as the senator talked about, the information the government has gathered, the private sector is

gathering, what happens to it, and the force of law under the aca, which says you must submit your information, to think and wonder somebody might be using that for their personal whatever, that's a problem for the american citizen trusting their government, and your employees have a direct connection. they must understand that. you've been questioned a couple times on diversity and filling your ranks and keeping your people employed and keeping them in sent defies. we understand you have challenges in complying with the law. i would say from this person's perspective, i want you to get the best. you get the best to do the job. finally, i noticed a couple times you said, you are trying to be consistent with other agencies. i understand where you want to be, but this is the secret

service, the premier organization of your type in the united states government, in the world. how about if you lead? whoou can't find somebody meets the standards you want set in government agencies, go outside. if you need help from us, ask for it. thank you very much for your time. gentlemen, i think you, the witnesses, all for your valuable testimony and for the members and their questions. members may have additional question is -- questions come and we ask you respond to those in writing. without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.

> sunday on "q&a" -- >> on the first woman to reach the rank of four stars in the united states navy.

i had only been a three-star 10 the sena waswhen traveling through time. he asked to see me i. presumed it was about the next job i was going to, and that is when he talked to me about, we are looking at you for being a four-star. here are couple different opportunities where we think you would do well and benefit the navy. navale chief of operations admiral michelle howard. admiral howard talks about becoming the first female four-star admiral in the navy. she also discusses her career in the navy, including leading the navy's mission to capture captain richard phillips who was kidnapped by pirates in 2009. >> i became head of the counter piracy task force, and a few days on the job, captain phillips was kidnapped.

it was our responsibility as a task force to get him back safely, and that was obviously a surprise kind of omission and a challenge. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates, and most importantly, questions.this year, we are taking our coverage into classrooms across the country with our student can contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most. follow c-span's student can contest and road to the white house coverage on tv, on the radio, and online at c-span.org. >> today in the house, members spoke out against the terrorist attacks in paris.

later this week, they will vote on a formal resolution condemning the attacks this part of the floor session begins with foreign affairs chair ed royce. . it's 40 minutes. i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 524, condemning the series of terrorist attacks in france carried out by islamist extremists last week. it was just after 9:00 p.m. on friday, november 13, when a night of terror fell over paris, france. that's when isis launched three waves of terrorist attacks on the french capital, killing at least 129 people and wounding more than 350 others. at least one american, noemi gonzalez of long beach, was

killed in the attacks while several more were injured. the first wave involved three at the state de france, where thousands including the french president were watching soccer. other attacks were in an area known for the night life of paris. a suicide bomber blew himself up on a nearby street. and the third wave involved a bataclan ing at the musicic hall where an american rock band was playing music. the attackers took theater attendees hostage and started to systematically shoot members of the audience and they detonated suicide vests as the police launched an assault on the theater. this is where most of the killing that night took place.

in claiming responsibility for the attacks, isis called them, the first storm. the paris attacks came a day after isis carried out a double suicide bombing in beirut, lebanon, and two weeks after they claimed responsibility for downing a russian passenger jet in egypt's sinai penslasm indeed, u.s. officials, including the c.i.a. director, have warned that these three attacks demonstrate a commitment by isis to conduct attacks outside of syria and iraq, reaching further and further from their home base. and yesterday, isis released a video threatening attacks here on washington, d.c. which u.s. counterterrorism officials are taking seriously. mr. speaker, there are no words we can say today that will comfort the families and friends of the 129 people murdered in

these terrorist attacks. the victims included parisians from every walk of life. and there are no words strong enough to condemn these terrorists and their radical ideology. isis is waging war on anyone who disagrees with their violent world view and frankly, they view everyone else as apostates to be killed. alarmingly, they're fighting -- their fighting force continues to grow, thanks in part to a steady stream of foreign recruits, more than 30,000 fight verse made it to syria and iraq from more than 100 countries. of those, it is estimated that more than 4,000 -- more than 4,500 hold western passports with more than 250 americans among them. diaspora is a

plane ride from europe and the united states. this resolution put the house on record as condemning in the strongest terms possible the paris attack and extends the sympathy of every american to those affected by this tragedy. it reaffirms our support for france, america's sister republic, our oldest ally, this is a time to not just express sorrow for those killed but also a time to show resolve in this fight. our intelligence sharing with allies, already strong, will need to get sharper. border checks will need to be improved. online recruitment of terrorists need to be checked. and coalition efforts to destroy isis will need to be stepped up. i urge all members to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i rise in support of this measure and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i first of all would like to associate myself with the remarks of our chairman, chairman royce. i think that all of us share the horror of what happened in paris just a few short days ago. like so many around the world, we're heart broken, we're outraged, we're stunned. the perpetrators of these brutal and brazen attacks in paris are our enemies, just as they are the enemies of the people of france. we must remain vigilant in the face of this challenge. terrorists, mr. speaker, want to make their enemies live their lives in fear and retreat from the freedom which underpins our society but i think the fanatic responsible for this attack underestimate the french people. across the centuries, paris and france have seen far worse a bloody revolution, the darkest

kays of two world wars, a nazi occupation that marched columns german trumes beneath the rche de triompe. they emerged stronger and more committed to the values of freedom, equality and fraternity. the people of france will endure and the city of light will shine even brighter. last week's attack were an atrocity but they won't break the spirit of the french people. as france grieves and moves forward, the united states will be standing shoulder to shoulder alongside our oldest ally in friendship and solidarity. but let's be clear. friendship and solidarity aren't all that's needed in the wake of these attacks. what's needed is clarity, resolve, and action. clearly isis is an enemy that must be defeated system of we need to ramp up our information sharing and intelligence efforts with our allies and partners to

figure out how isis orchestrated this plot a tond prevent future attacks. we need to keep pushing for a resolution to syria's civil war which has created the conditions for isis to flourish. we need to increase our support for those on the ground in syria and iraq that are already fighting isis so that they can keep building on their recent successes. we need to stem the flow of foreign fighters traveling to the middle east to join the ranks of isis and figure out how to counter the radicalization of vulnerable populations. and we need to bring to justice those responsible for the paris attacks to send a clear, strong message that murder and terrorism will never go unanswered. these terrorists, they're not religious people. they're fascists. they think they can use terror to further their political ends. they won't succeed. this resolution conveys our

deepest condolences to the french people, just as importantly, it shows that the united states stands ready to assist france in its time of need and to respond to the growing threat of isis. i urge all my colleagues to la, t this measure, viva -- la france. mr. royce: i yield to mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rohrabacher: i thank chairman royce and ranking member engel for the great leadership they are providing in this great moment in our history. what we are witnessing is an attack on western civilization. radical islamic terrorists are seeking to terrorize the west into a retreat. we fought and defeated an evil ideology that would have

implanted a dictatorship on the world not that long ago. we defeated that evil force, communism, just as we defeated naziism. today the west again is confronted with an evil force that would threaten the world. again, america must stand tall and we must provide the leadership to save mankind from this evil threat. we will defeat radical islamic terrorism. we are americans. we will lead the way. we say to the people of france at this moment of suffering, lafayette, we are here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, ranking member of the house intelligence committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: as co-chair of the house's-france caucus.

i rise with a heavy heart. the terrorist attacks were a savage attempt to shake the foundations of the civilized world, the victims, families and loved ones are in our thoughts and in our hearts and we send them our deepest condolences in this enormously difficult time. the indiscriminate brutality has shocked the con -- conscience of people around the world. the forces of isil cannot extinguish the city of lights and not reap the panic acknowledge and fear they are attempting to sow. we stand with france today as a partner, friend and an ally. we will confront this evil together and in the names of all of those who suffered at the hands of isil, we will defeat it. violence, intolerance and epression are no match for

liberte. i stand today in solidarity with the people of france and the people of all nations who would choose freedom over tyranny. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. latta: mr. speaker, as co-chairman of the congressional french caucus, i extend my heartfelt condolences to the victims in paris to their entire as we mourn the loss of innocent lives. we are unified in our dedication to the protection and dedication of liberty and committed to ensuring those who perpetrated these attacks are brought to justice. isis poses a clear and present danger to the united states and to our allies across the world.

there are threats to all those who promote freedom. our strength is in our solidarity. the united states and our allies including those in nato must stand together to defeat this threat and ensure the security of freedom to freedom-loving people across the world. i urge passage of the resolution. i thank the chairman. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, a very well-respected member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. connellly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i rise today to condemn the november 13 attacks in paris. this is a time of mourning for families who lost their loved ones. let's reflect on the lives that was -- were cut throat and bring to justice those responsible.

the extremists who carried out those attacks wounded a great nation and ally. from the liberation of paris, our countries have a special bond forged in the darkest hours. the full measure of our creation is owed to the people of france and we must come to their aid and must act not out of fear but the ence but we have the safety and those societies are worth preserving. it is in this manner that a liberated paris will endure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from mississippi. >> our prayers go out to the families whose loved ones were murdered in the violent acts. these are attacks on innocent

people by islamic terrorists, recruited, trained equipped by people known as isis. these are our enemies. they may be difficult to know but not impossible to defeat. we will defeat them. i commend the french president for calling this what it is, an act of war. this is indeed a war, declared on western civilization and in fact all of civilization by islamic terrorists who were consumed with pure evil that they pleeved the slaughter of innocence is the path to paradise. we will never give up on this war. france is the oldest ally of the united states. in fact, a portrait of lafayette whose assistance was intgral to the birth of this nation is in this chamber. if france is at war, the united states must be at war as well. i condemn islamic terrorists around the world and pledge

commitment to our french brothers and sisters. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from new york and the gentleman from california. and i think many of us will come to the floor and emphasize that we stand with both mr. royce and very gel for -- their strong statement to stand with the people of france. my heart cried, my soul was disturbed as the video began to unfold, the most heinous acts of attacking innocent persons, persons who had gone to a stadium to be with friends and relatives, maybe fathers with

young sons, maybe families with two or three or four children, maybe brothers and sisters, as was noted by one of the soccer players, whose sister was lost, would come to see him play. maybe as the beautiful young woman from california experiencing her dreams, a beautiful designer. i pay tribute to her courage and inspiration, just was enjoying the culture of france in the beautiful outdoor cafes that many travel to france just to experience. she lost her life. a beautiful flower of someone that america can be proud of who was going to be a young lady who would attain her dreams. they didn't care about that. all they cared about was the vial violence of killing. and so i am very much in solidarity as we move forward to isis to and tolerate

continue their violent ways. i want peace, mr. speaker. all of us want peace, but isil must be eliminated. and we must do things differently here in this country. we have been vigilant. we have changed our ways since 9/11. do some things, say something. we must act not out of fear but of rational thought and we must deal with the radicalization of young people and in the efforts of the administration countering violent terrorism, extreme has been leading communities letting them know if they see something, they must say something. we must question vulnerabilities in airports and large venues, not be shameful of enhancing

security but recognizing our values of democracy, freedom and access are very important. and i think we can do that. we did it after 9/11 with the u.s.a. patriot act and we continue to do it. it is our heritage to be free and have a democratic process and our friends who first established democracy that we follow here in the united states. so to the people of france, we know that you will act, but we ask you to be mindful of the wonderful leadership that you have given of democracy and freedom and the tenets of liberty. it is not free. but it is important to acknowledge the horrible and outrageous and heinous acts. i rise in support of h.res. 524 nd i call upon america to be diligent and vigilant but not to act in fear. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mrs. wagner: mr. speaker, i rise to support house resolution 524. like all americans, i was shocked and saddened by the terrorist attacks in paris, france. as americans, we must stand united with the people of france. the stories of innocent civilians being slaughtered on the streets of paris serve stark remind rs that we must do everything in our power to prevent this type of attack from occurring in the united states of america. investigations reveal that one of the terrorists entered europe with migrants fleeing the civil war. in light of these reports, it is essential that we pause the process of refugees coming into the united states. mr. speaker, the attacks in paris show the danger of open borders policy and the united states must not allow them in

our country without exhaustive security screening. my district have a long and admirable track record of refugees fleeing war and turmoil. the safety and security of the american people must always be our number one priority. we mourn with our brothers and sisters of france. [speaking french] . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield to mr. messer. mr. messer: i rise today to express my prayers and deepest sympathies to the people of paris. as americans, we share in the shock, the horror and the tremendous sense of loss you now feel following the ruthless, unprovoked terrorist attack

against your great country. we stand with you against isis and in defense of our shared values of freedom, liberty and equality under the law. mr. speaker, the world needs america toe lead with clarity and resolve in the fight against terror. contrary to the president's assertion that isis is contained. the world now knows they are not. hope is not a strategy in defeating terror. isis has openly declared war on america, france and our very way of life. we must respond. this is a war. and america needs to lead defeating isis before it's too late. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield one minute to

the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoho: mr. speaker, i want to express mine, my family's and country's thoughts and sympathies in your loss and in your pain. i'm here to stand in solidarity with the french people, france and all the people and families around the world who lost loved ones. this is not just an act or an attack on france and innocent people, but people in the western and all of societies that love peace, liberty, freedom and value human life. people who believe that the rights come from a creator, that we are free to determine the life we choose to live in a civil society, not forced to choose a life from the dark ages at the barrel of a gun or live in the threat of terrorism. i applaud french president hollande in his rapid response

and support his words that this will be a merslyless response. may the terrorists and reistl isil's presence on this earth be hort and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: all right, then, mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: for the purpose of closing. thank you. make no mistake, as we've heard from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that the united states grieves with france after these horrible attacks. the united states stands ready to assist france in its time of need. but we must look toward the root causes of the atrocity and direct our resolve toward defeating the growing threat i have sis. this includes -- of eye sills.

this includes -- of isis. this includes intelligence and communication collaboration with our allies and partners. this includes finding a diplomatic solution to the syrian civil war. this includes addressing the refugee crisis and the separate grievances and risks that this humanitarian crisis breeds. and this includes stemming isis' recruitment and radicalization efforts of disillusioned westerners to join their ranks. we must address the complex and multifaceted layers that contribute to the paris attacks, all while bringing those responsible to justice. we must send a clear and very loud message that international terrorism will not go unanswered. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves his time to close? mr. royce: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you.

it's my pleasure now to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, our democratic whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i want to thank the chairman. and the ranking member. for bringing this resolution to the floor. it is sad that we bring this resolution to the floor and it is sad that too often we see the results of terrorism around the world. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support, as i think all members will, of this resolution expressing congress' solidarity with the people of paris. and all of france after friday's terror attacks. america knows that paris is the city of light. very day evening, 129

bright, vibrant lights were suddenly extinguished. leaving a dark void in the heart of the city and in the hearts of millions across france, america and the world. our flag on this capitol stands at half-staff in memory of those 129 souls. as we mourn them, pray for their families and offer our aid to the wounded, we stand ith a firm resolve to deny the perpetrators a chance to instill in us that which they seek, fear. these attacks were carried out by individuals who follow a hopeless ideology, who look with awe to a twisted image of the past, because they are blind to the better future the

rest of us can envision. without a belief in tomorrow, there is only fear and the acts of coward ist it inspires -- cowardice it inspires. but the french republic and the american republic were neither born in fear nor do we live in fear. we were born in hope and in courage. we were born looking forward and both our nations were founded upon the same ideals of liberty, democracy, individual rights espoused by jefferson nd others. the markey -- marquee is the only substantial painting other an the father of our nation,

george washington, to be pictured in this hall of democracy. in this hall of free people. , as france ench stood with us for freedom, for equality, and yes, for fraternity, brotherhood between us and them. mr. engel: i yield the gentleman another minute. mr. hoyer: behind me -- and across the river from the eiffel tower, in the middle of a major traffic circle in paris, one could see a majestic statue of his brother in harms -- arms, george washington. raising his sword high in a triumphant absolute. -- salute. they suffered hunger and cold at valley forge to help secure for the american people our freedom.

generations later, american rangers scaled the cliffs to help the people of france regain thrares. our history -- theirs. our history binds us together. so does our future. and that's because we believe in tomorrow. ever hopeful, we believe that the unknown, which lies ahead, can shape our hands into a better world than one we know today. that's what sets us apart from our enemies. that's why those who perpetrated friday's attack will never, never, never win. it is why no matter what historians in the future call isis or isil or dash -- one minute. i thank the gentleman. it's why no matter what historians in the future call us -- call isis or isil or dash , they will surely be using

only the past tense. and it's why the people of france and america and all who cherish the freedom to think, to speak, to worship, and to strive for a better tomorrow .ust stand together as we have before. and shine the bright light of our values and our principles nto the darkins we confront. we are all french today. it will not be quick. it will not be easy. it will test our resolve. and it will test our will. but with lafayette watching over us in this house, and with george washington standing

guard over the city of paris, and with lady liberty holding her torch high, surely france and america and all those who love liberty and justice throughout the world will continue to cast the light of hope and strength and freedom for our world. may god bless our french brothers and sisters. we send them our sympathy and we pledge them our resolve. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i'll reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just say in closing, we've heard empationed -- impassioned speeches from all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. this is certainly something with which we agree. certainly something that the congress needs to send a very,

very strong message, that terrorism will never triumph, that we have a resolve here in america to join with our friends around the world, to stop the scourge of terrorism. we stand with the people of france in these very, very troubling times. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, our hearts go out to the people of paris. i want to thank my colleague, mr. engel, who worked to make sure that we brought this resolution to the floor today, working together so that we in this congress speak with one voice, speak with one voice , the the attack on france foundation, the heart of europe, the heart of the enlightenment, the heart of the concept of freedom and liberty

and equality under the law, which animated so much of the thinking of civilization itself. and indeed it's an attack on that civilization. it is an attack on those freedoms, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, that the freedom of assembly and democracy that are so closely held by us here in the united states and by our original ally, france, in our own effort to achieve the dream of that freedom. it is that freedom that is under assault. and the unfortunate reality is that these attacks in paris are indicative of a resurgent to orism that is continuing build. i mentioned that there were some 30,000 fighters, well, those fighters, my friends,

came from all over the world. came from across the globe on a virtual caliphate called the internet. in order to join islamic state, in order to join what they call their caliphate. and the intent of their caliphate is to put an end to the freedom that is enjoyed by those that they consider apostates, the freedom enjoyed by civilization itself. and the great sorrow that we express here today on this floor is over the fact that of those young people murdered and maimed in this attack, the vast majority of them are under 30 years of age. they had their whole life live -- lives ahead of them. when they were targeted. civil yabs -- civilians targeted for this kind of mayhem. and the resolve we show with our brothers and sisters in france is a resolve that

freedom will be the rallying cry, civilization will be the test, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly under democracy, those are the rights of civilized people. and those who bring mr. barrow:ism -- bring barbarism and attack the institutions and attack the civilians are the threat to that civilization. and we reaffirm our support for france and we reaffirm our support for the french government and the words and the actions that they have taken in the wake of this attack. and, yes, here in this chamber we have lafayette's portrait. and he said at the end of that war of independence, and this

is why his portrait is here, he said to us, humanity has now won its battle. liberty has a country. and after we achieved our freedom, france went on to achieve their freedom. but now liberty is under assault. and that's why today we bring this resolution to the floor of this house to say that america must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the french in their fight against tyranny, in their fight against this terror , and in the hope that this will give an example to the rest of the world in standing up to isis and to make certain that our basic liberties are protected around this world. david g to quote petrino who recently gave -- petreus who recently gave us

these remarks. he said, syria is a geopolitical chernobyl. he said, it's like a nuclear disaster. the fallout from the meltdown of syria threatens to be with us for decades. and the longer it is permitted to continue, the more severe the damage will be. you know, we've had this relationship tested many times. france has had its relationship with us tested many times. tonight, we stand together with france in our commitment to see this through and to make certain that isis is not merely contained, to make certain that isis is ultimately destroyed. . >> we look at how congress is

reacting to the syrian crisis, then a discussion about ptsd with psychologist every vital. washington journal is live with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook comments on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> a signature feature of c-span2's book tv is the cover to book fairs and festivals from across the country with nonfiction author talks, interviews, and viewer call-in segments. they will be live from the miami book fair, our coverage starts on saturday come authors include john lewis, discussing his book "march, book two." and taking union it talks about her book "the time of our lives." ted koppel joins of his book "lights out" all on sunday speak with the

authors live. first, pg overworked take your calls on his book. then msnbc's joy and read will take calls about her book "fract ure." join us live from miami. ussure to follow and tweet questions. >> today, british prime minister david cameron spoke about friday's terrorist attacks in paris and his government's efforts to improve national security. efugee crisis. >> i would like to make a statement on the paris attacks. the home secretary gave the

house the chilling statistics yesterday and we know among the victims was a 36-year-old britain, i know the thoughts and prayers of the whole house will be with the families and friends by all those affected. i spoke to president hollande to express the condolences and our commitment to help in whatever way we can. mr. speaker, after our horror and anger must come our resolve and determination to rid our world of this evil. the steps we are taking to deal with this terrorist threat. the more we learned about what happened in paris, it justifies the full spectrum approach that we have discussed before. we are dealing with radicalized european muslims, links to isil in syria and poisonous narrative of this. military power, counterterrorism

expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative. let me take each in turn. first, we should be clear that this murderous violence requires a strong security response. that means continuing our efforts to degrade and destroy isil in syria and iraq and working with our allies to strike against those who poast a direct threat to the safety of british people around the world. together, coalition forces have damaged 13,500 targets and helped the local forces to regain territory in iraq and retask and push isil back and on friday, kurdish forces retook a territory. the u.k. is training local forces, striking targets in iraq and providing vital intelligence support. last thursday, the united states and d out an air strike,

this was a result of months where we stopped to vicious murderer. mr. speaker, it is important that the whole house understands the reality of the situation we are in. there is no government in syria we can work with, particularly not in that part of syria. no rigorous police investigations or independent courts upholding justice. we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots against our people. in this situation, we do not protect the british people by sitting back and wishing things are different. we have to act to keep our people safe and that is what this government will always do. counterterrorism here in the u.k., over the past year alone our police services have foiled no fewer than seven terrorist plots. the people in our security services work incredibly hard

and they are a credit to our nation and we should pay tribute to them. we must do more to help them in their vital work. in next week's strategic and defense review, we will make an additional investment. this will include 1,900 additional security and intelligence staff and more money to increase our network of counterterrorism experts in the middle east, in north africa, south asian subsahar and south africa. at the g-20, we agreed to better steps to better protect ourselves by sharing intelligence and stopping them from traveling. we agreed for the first time to work together to strengthen global aviation security. we need robust and consistent standards of aviation security at every airport in the world and the u.k. would double its spending in this area. third, to defeat this terrorist threat we must understand and

understand its root causes. that means confronting the poisonous ideology. as i have argued before, going after violent and nonviolent extremists. those that sow the poison but stop short, they are part of the problem. will improve integration by shutting down institutions and encourage reform to speak up and challenge the extremists. mr. speaker, enough cannot be said that the extremist ideology is not true islam. but it doesn't work to deny any connection between the religion of islam and the extremists not least because the extremists themselves self-identify as muslims. there is no point in denying that. what we need to do is take apart their arguments and demonstrate how wrong they are and we need the continued help of muslim

communities and scholars. they are playing a powerful role and i commend them for their essential work. we cannot stand neutral in this battle of ideas. we have to back those who share our values, practical help, funding, campaigns, protection and political representation. this is a fundamental part of how we can defeat this terrorism both at home and abroad. mr. speaker, turning to the g-20 summit and there are were important discussions on syria and threats such as climate change. on syria, we discussed how we do more to help all those in need and how to find a political solution to the conflict. britain as has been said is providing 1.1 billion pounds. that makes us the second largest donor in the world. last week we committed 275 million pounds to be spent in turkey, a country that is

hosting over 2 million refugees and will raise significant new funding by co-hosting a donors' conference with germany, norway, kuwait and united nations. none of this is a substitute. to find a political solution that brings peace to syria and enables refugees to return home. i held talks with president putin. we reviewed the progress made by our foreign ministers to deliver a transition in syria. there are still big gaps between us but there is progress. i also met with president obama and european leaders at the g-20 and we agreed on important steps forward including aircraft along side other aircraft if that is the decision of the north atlantic council. these would be in a role to support turkey at this difficult time.

we agreed to the importance of stepping up our joint effort to deal with isil in iraq, syria and wherever it manifests itself. this raises important questions for our country. we must ask ourselves if we are doing all we can be doing and should be doing to deal with the threat of isil and the threat it poses to us directly, not just through the measures we are taking at home but dealing with isil on the ground in the territory it controls. we are taking part in air strikes. we have struck 350 targets and significant action has been taken in the recent hours. but isil isn't just present in iraq but operates in syria, a border that is meaningless to it. as far as isil is concerned, this is all one space and it is n syria and iraq and that some of the main threats are planned

and/or contest traited. the head of the snake. over syria, while supporting our allies with intelligence, with surveillance, but i believe as i said many times before, we should be doing more. we face a direct and growing threat to our country and we need to deal with it not just in iraq but in syria, too. i have said there is a strong case for doing so. our allies are asking us to do this and the case for doing so has only grown stronger after the paris attacks. we cannot expect and should not expect others to carry the burdens and risks for protecting our country. i recognize there are concerns in this house, what difference ould action by the u.k. really make. could it make the situation worse? how above all, how would a decision by britain to join

strikes fit into a comprehensive strategy for dealing with isil and diplomatic strategy to bring the war to an end. i understand these concerns and i believe these concerns can be answered. many of them were expressed in the recent report on the foreign affairs select committee. we need to act against isil in syria. there is a compelling case for doing so. it is for the government to make this case to the house and country. first important step to do so. i will respond personally to the report of the foreign affairs select committee and set out a comprehensive strategy with dealing with isil, our vision for peaceful middle east and this strategy should include taking the action in syria i have spoken about. and i hope in setting out the arguments in this way, i can help build support right across this house for the action that i believe is necessary to take. that is what i'm going to be

putting in place over the coming days and i hope colleagues across the house would agree with that so we can have a strong vote in this house of commons and do the right thing for our country. now finally, the g-20 addressed other longer term threats to global security. we will gather in paris to agree on a global climate change deal. this time, it will include the u.s.a. and china. here at the summit, i urge leaders to keep the image to less than 2 degrees. every country needs to put program for reducing carbon emissions and we need to do more to provide the financing that is needed to help poorer countries from around the world switch to greener forms of energy and adapt to effects of climate change and we should wipe out the corruption that chokes off velopment and deal with anty

microbial resistance. corrupt governments undermining our efforts on global policy by preventing people to get the revenues and services that are rightfully theirs. the resistance issue millions of people will die unnecessarily. these are vital issues that the united kingdom is taking a real lead. here in the u.k., the threat level is already severe, which means an attack is highly likely and will remain so. we encourage the public to remain vigilant. i will do all we can to work with our police and intelligence agencies. it is to divide us and destroy our way of life. now more than ever we must come together and stand united

carrying on with the way of life that we know and love. england will play france. this match is going ahead. our people stand together and as they have done so many times throughout history when faced with evil. and once again together, we will prevail. and i commend this statement to the house. >> i thank the prime minister for his statement which he sent e a statement earlier. >> in the face of such tragic events and horror and anxiety and sorrow that caused the british public to stand up in solidarity, it is why we take an approach of solidarity. the prime minister talked about

achieving consensus and achieve a common objective in trying to defeat isil. we are ready to work with him and the government. and can i thank him for arranging the national security adviser to advise. the opposition other parties will continue to be brifed by on developments as they emerge. on behalf of these statements, i express my condolences with the people of paris in the wake of unjustified attacks and the people. that solidarity shows terrorism and conflict whether paris, beirut or syria. absolutely nothing can justify the deliberate targeting of civilians by anyone anywhere ever. these attacks were an attempt to divide muslims, christians,

jews, hindus, people of all faiths. as they tried in london several years ago, they will fail. wish to praise the efforts of emergency workers who sprang tore action in these difficult situations. it is easy to forget the extraordinary heroism in going to work not knowing what will happen. not easy to drive an ambulance not knowing what you are going to find when you arrive at the scene. i said that we stand united with france in expressing our condemnation of those involved in planning, and carrying out these atrocities. the shocking events in paris -- a reminder to all fert ever present threat. we have a duty to keep our

people safe. esterday, my member from lee praised the support. while we welcome the sensible measures to make more funding available to gather intelligence and expose and prevent plots, these will be balanced with the need to protect our civil liberties which were so hard won in this country. they are part of what distinguishes us from other regimes around the world. my honorable friend from lee said yesterday there should be protection in the forth coming spending review of the policing services that are playing a vital role on the ground and ensuring our communities are safe. can the prime minister now confirm that he is willing to work with us to prevent cuts to

our police force and make sure they are able to continue with the protective work they have to do? does he agree with the metro police commissioner lord blair that it would be disastrous to ask police officers as they bring inviteal intelligence to help prevent attacks. another member of parliament, i fully understand and appreciate the great work that community policing teams do. we have seen in the past after atrocities like this there can be a back lash against muslim communities. far right racism have no place in our society, our thinking and

i hope there will be no increase in that intolerance as a result of what happened in paris. will the prime minister set out in more detail the steps his government is taking to work with representative organizations of all of our faith communities to achieve that we strengthen community cohesion at these very difficult times? we must ensure that those entering our country, whether they are refugees are appropriately screened. the home office will provide the border staff necessary to do this. it's also important in these circumstances that we maintain our humanitarian duty towards refugees. fleing n refugees are and it is our duty to protect them and our obligation under the 1951 geneva convention. i hope the prime minister will confirm our obligation to maintain support for that

convention and the rights of that convention will be un diminished. it is vital at a time not to be drawn into responses which feed a cycle of violence and hatred. president obama has said that isis grew out of our invasion of iraq and one of its unintended consequences. will the prime minister consider this as one of the very careful responses that president obama has made recently on this matter. that makes it essential any military response that will be considered and the support of the community and the legality from the you united nations. can i welcome the prime minister's comments at the g-20 yesterday when he said i think people want to know there is a whole plan for the future of syria and the future of our region and a few bombs and missiles won't transform the

situation. can i welcome his commitment to respond to the foreign affairs committee report and carefully present to the house and to the country. will he confirm before bringing any motion to the house he will provide full answers to the seven questions raised by the select committee report? would he also say more about the particular contribution that britain has made to the vienna talks on the future of syria? they provide possibly some carbous optimism that could be a political future in syria that involves a ceasefire and the ability of people to return home. would he also say and this is the final point i want to make on this, what more can be done to cut off supplies of weapons and external markets to isil? weapons are being supplied to some of the most repressive

regimes in the region. what is being done to ensure that they do not end up in even worst hands including hands of isil and the extremist jihadist groups in syria? what can be done to bring to account those governments or organizations or banks that have funded these extremists or turned a blind eye to them? we need to know that the national trail which isil gets its funding and sells its oil.

they are very important indeed and i welcome his commitment epidemics and the problems created by the lack of resistance from anti-bikes. would he also consider that cuts are made to renewable energy run directly counter to everything he said and everything his government said they want to achieve at the climate change talks. we have to combat climate change here, internationally and grite britain. >> i thank the gentleman for his remarks and the tone he is aking. a briefing on national security issues that is something that is available to all. and if it's not offered, please do ask. the national security to help

and particularly important in hese times of heightened alert and right to phrase the emergency services in france and they have done an amazing job. and the secretary did this yesterday, ever since the mumbai attacks and the intelligence we had about the firearm attacks, a lot of work has been done in britain to make sure we would be ready for any such attack. i thank him for his support for the security services. he right to mention the civil liberties and fighting to defend that. on policing, we have protected budgets in the last parliament and do it through this parliament, which i think is vital and see the uplift we are giving to our intelligence and security services and do what is necessary to keep our country safe. he is right to condemn

anti-semitism. all of those issues are addressed in our counterextremism paper and we should be working with local communities as he suggests and we do to make sure they lead in these debates. some of the things that have been said by muslim clerics and muslim leaders have made a huge difference in recent weeks. he asked about borders. we have the opportunity to carry out screening and checks in our borders because we didn't share the border system and we're not going to do do that and importance of having those border controls. terms of the syrian migrant program, we are taking 20,000 syrian refugees from the camps rather than those who already arrived in europe. there are two levels of screening to make sure that we

are getting people who are again inly fleeing persecution and would not pose a risk to our country. you asked about the again he cyst of isil, and what i would say one of the branches of this extremism is what we have seen in our world for most, there is boko haram, al qaeda and the first manifestations of this violent extremism, not least the twin towers attack, that happened before the invasion before iraq. and we don't try to seek excuses or what is -- they have been killing british citizens for many years. he rightly asked about the process in vienna and we were a key part of that where the foreign secretary has been talk binge that and secretary kerry commended me. he mentioned about additional

bombs and missiles only going to be so far in syria. i think britain can do more and because of our expertise and targeting can cut the number of civilian casualties when the action is taken. it would make a difference but i believe yes, along side that, we also need a process that delivers a government in syria that represent all of the syrian people. you can't defeat isil by a campaign from the air. you need to have a government in iraq and government in syria that can be your partner in delivering good government and obliterating the death toll that threatens us and them. that's the point i'm making. he asked about cutting the supply of weapons and we are a key part that is working on that. a large of the money comes from oil that it sells not least to

the syrian regime. another thing they failed to address if we are taking part of the action in syria. i met the new canadian prime minister and coming to london very shortly to see the queen and i will have a meeting with him and we will work together. in terms of the economic slowdown, he is right the forecasts for global growth are lower than what they are. britain and america stand out in the advanced world of having more rapid economic growth and we ask others to take the steps to deliver that growth. and finally he asked about renewables and climate change. i would say to the house that the summit on climate change was disappointing. there is quite a lot of opposition from some countries to put in place the things that are needed for a good deal in

paris. britain can say we played an important role and in terms of renewable energy and look at what has happened. nothing short of a revolution in britain. >> the continued reach and activity of isis represents a monumental international security challenge. the aim was degrade and con them. can i think my right honorable friend about the need to cut off the financial supply and deal with the narrative over values and what he has said today about joining our allies in taking action over syria and iraq. and no military campaign of this nature has ever been won from the air alone. can i say to him we may require an international coalition on

the ground top remove saddam from kuwait and rule nothing out and give no comfort to isis. they hate us not because of what we do but because of who we are. >> i thank him for his support and we can do and what would make the difference rather than what we can't do. it's my contention in the end, the best partner we can have for defeating isil in iraq is having a reformed government in syria that could credibly represent the syrian people. >> my thanks to the prime minister for his statement and we welcome a commitment by all parties in the house. can i associate with the shock

and sadness with the people of france and all families and friends who were killed. will the prime minister confirm that intelligence information is being shared with our allies in france? the u.k. we are indebted to all of those in our police and security services that work to keep us safe. we welcome the commitment to provide necessary funding and personnel to do this type of work. given the scale of the disaster in syria we welcome the talks at the g-20. for the first time there appears to be momentum building to have a ceasefire and combat the terrorism. can the prime minister update the house on the next steps towards a potential ceasefire and political transition in syria? in recent weeks and months there have been large-scale bombing operations in syria and bombing

by the united states of america and bombing by russia and bombing by france and many other countries and bombs dropped by drones, bombs dropped by fast jets and naval vessels. president obama has reiterated his opposition to providing boots on the ground. given these facts is the long-term solution to syria is the end of the civil war and supporting kurds? today we have seen the arrival f refugees from syria in glasgow. does the prime minister agree that the welcome we agree to these reef few geese is the true mark of decency and compassion, in short the complete opposite which was visited on paris by terrorists last friday? >> i thank the gentleman for his remarks and questions. on the issue of briefings, he is

a member of the intelligence and committee if he feels he isn't giving enough briefings, ask my team. he asked about intelligence sharing. we have strong intelligence sharing with the french government and with others in europe. there is more we can do. i spoke to the belgian prime minister yesterday to talk about increasing our intelligence sharing and i think that's vital important agenda for us to move on. on vienna, there is momentum behind these talks. the foreign ministers are meeting again in the coming weeks. the envoy will bring the different parties together. it is a complex piece of work and vital that some of the opposition groups are involved in this dialogue. we want a future syria where they are all represented and that means that the russians should stop bombing the free

syrian army and should be part of the sirenian future. how much can be done from the air. we need an end to the civil war. we need to support the kurds and some of that support can be delivered from the air. they need our help to bring this conflict to an end and his remarks and commend glasgow taking in refuse. and i know they will be looked after. the s acknowledgement that defeat of isil requires a transition out of the syrian civil war. and the progress is beginning to clear the path towards an international plan that would enable that military defeat of isil. will he continue to put our full plementic effort into making

that plan sufficiently clear, politically, militarily and legally and seek an endorsement of the role of our armed forces that will lead to the defeat of isil in syria and iraq sooner rather than later. >> i thank my right honorable friend for his support what he is saying. yes, i can confirm our full plementic effort is bringing everyone together. itting around the table in arabia, all the key players, russia, all the key players are there. in terms of the legal basis for any action that we might take, i believe we can answer that question comprehensively as we have on other issues and i'm happy to put that in front of the house as part of my response to the foreign affairs of that committee. >> isil wants to exploit the

refugee crisis and poison europe's attitudes that we have seen on the streets of paris. britain is supporting proper registration in greece. i'm concerned that that is not happening. will he look again you are gently of what more britain and europe can do to support proper registration not just in greece but in internal borders throughout europe so we can make sure that we provide security and humanitarian aid so britain and europe can have security and solidarity to your refugees. >> she is absolutely right as the external border of europe, greece has played a vital role and the registration of migrants is vital that that takes place properly. my understanding, when it comes

to european asylum support, we have given more than any other country in europe. we are putting the resources. greece is not our external border. the external border is at calais. and we are doing what we can. but she's right, making sure people are properly documented is going to be a vital part of our security. >> sir william cash. >> the carnage paris shows the danger of allowing declared jihaddists from returning to their country of origin. will my friend review legislation to prevent declared u.k. jihaddists from returning the united kingdom whatever the fundamental human rights say. we must put the people of this country first.

>> i thank the gentleman for his point and i have sympathy with it and in the counterterrorism legislation that we passed we took further steps to confiscate passports. we can strip them. if we think they are no longer a citizen of this country. we have the temporary power which was controversial but the home secretary and i pushed it forward to exclude british nationals from returning to the u.k. i'm looking at options for going further on these measures to make sure we are safe. but it was very contentious at the time. we are right to stick to our guns. >> i thank the prime minister for his statement and join him and colleagues on all sides here today and expressing sympathy to the people of paris, beirut and the injured and those who have lost their lives and the families of them and to condemn

the terrorists who seek to attack us. they did he test our diversity, our freedom and our generosity of spirit and they win if we compromise. it is critical any u.k. military involvement should be on civilian protection along side pushing isil otherwise we repeat the mistakes of the iraq war. does the prime minister agree that the long-term stability in syria must be part of the structure against isil and will he confirm that any plan brought to parliament to use our armed forces there will specifically address this? >> let me say i think you are absolutely right to mention the bombing in beirut because some people want to possible it and somehow the clash of civilization, the islamic world against the rest. the beirut bombs as many bombs before it proves that these

people, isil are killing muslims in their hundreds and thousands and it is very important to demonstrate to muslim communities in our our countries we take this violence as seriously. he asked whether what we would do in syria would be about civilian protection. yes, it would be about civilian protection in the obvious way that if we can take out the murderers of isil, we are helping to protect the syrian people but also because britain has precision munitions like the brimstone missiles which are most effective than what the americans have, would mean a better targeting of the people ho should be targeted and fear civilian casualties. >> my right honorable friend is

absolutely right to focus on the political track in the syrian negotiations, building in part on the anan proposal from sometime and but the significant progress that has been made in vienna last week. if those negotiations are successful, that will of itself remove a huge barrier to the widespread military coalition that all of us want to see and which britain, as he said today, would have the ability and indeed a number of unique assets to play a very significant part. if those negotiations in vienna are successful, i have no doubt that the prime minister coming back to this house will get a huge majority of members from both sides in britain's full participation in it. >> what i would say to my right honorable friend and he makes

some very good points. as i have said, to defeat isil in syria, two things are required. first of all, we do need to make sure that the international community, arab states and others are taking the military action to degrade and defeat isil but we need an effective ally in syria that could unite the country. those two things go together. if he is arguing that military action should only follow after some political agreement has been absolutely nailed down, we might be waiting a long time for that to happen and i would caution against that approach and i want to be clear what i'm proposing here. what i'm saying the government will bring together all of its arguments about how we succeed in iraq, how we succeed in syria, what a political process should achieve, how we degrade and defeat isil. the role that britain will play.

but all those arguments together in response to the foreign affairs select committee, it will be for members of this house to see if they want to come forward and asent to that idea. if that happens we can take the action so we are playing a part with others in defense of our own national security. >> could i say to the house, i'm very conscious there are many colleagues here who cannot be accused of underestimating their expertise. there are 60 people still wishing to attribute. and they will need to follow the brevity. breffity -- >> i welcome the prime minister's commitment how isis can be defeated and his insistence it has to be done with our allies.

defense. put a hat is the implication of that on the part of great britain. >> so we are looking carefully at what it would involve. but standing back from the legalities of it. the french are our friends and allies and brothers and sisters and we should be with them if there are things to help them, i think we should. >> given the extreme circumstances of a paris-type attack in london does my right honorable friend did he priving the police the right to shoot to kill would make the public safer? >> i don't. and i hope the leader of the opposition will review his remarks because when you are combatting a terrorist attack

and look what happened in paris. it wasn't a siege or taking hostages or setting out demands. it was mr. allen: attempt to kill as many people as possible. when the police are confronted, they must be absolutely clear if they have to take out a terrorist to save lives, they should go right ahead and do so. expanding air strikes to syria have no less hatred for the mass murderers ho have carried out attacks in paris? [indiscernible] >> the internal politics of the labour party. the committee has concluded there doesn't seem to be a strong case that will achieve little or nothing instead making us feel good and that we are

doing something as a result of the atrocities. >> i don't agree with that view. it is for the government to bring forward the argument to make the case and persuade as many members of this house that is the right thing to do. the people who oppose this have to answer the question, was it right to take out isil in iraq but wrong to take out isil in syria particular len when the headquarters are. and the attacks on this country have been planned and for all we know continue to be planned. that's the question that colleagues will have to answer after reading my response to the foreign affairs select committee ffment we can get to the situation where it looks like britain as one can come together. i'm not asking for an overwhelming majority, but the majority to come forward and say this is right to take this action. >> the prime minister is well aware that given the nature of those returning from serving in

syria, who served with isil and the danger that they have to our society, what measures is the government taking to persuade those who can to speak out against what has happened? because they are more likely to influence young muslims than any of us. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right. there are obviously huge numbers in britain's muslim communities who absolutely made clear that what is being done by isil is not in their name and not representatives of islam, per version of islam. and that is powerful and i encourage people to go on doing that. those people who have been to syria, perhaps as part of an a convoy who have seen what has happened and come back and disillusiononned by their hatred, by the appalling people, women are sex slaves and throw

gay people off the top of buildings, they can be most of the powerful voices and say these are people we have to finish. >> may i ask my right honorable friends who have experienced over many years, the ravages of terrorism personally and express our full support of the prime minister in relation to these terrible events in paris and elsewhere and express our profound sympathies with the people affected. would the prime minister agree that the security services need the resources and i welcome what has been said, need the powers and look forward to working with the government to introduce more powers, the proper oversight and they need our support, the public support and the support of politicians, when they need to shoot to kill. and i welcome what the prime

minister has said of seeking to blame the terrorist victims for contributing to their own murders through saying that the foreign policy of this county is wrong. this is a shameful approach. terrorism has no excuses. it never had any excuses and the people who express them should be ashamed. >> has been the case in recent weeks, the honorable gentleman speaks with great power and great force and i agree with what he says. >> as well as action from our armed forces, the security forces, we need to tackle the ideology that lies behind the threat that we face. does the prime minister agree that as part of that we need to challenge the extremists and expose them and offer support to communities who feel vulnerable

at the spread of them in the u.k. and help stop people going into extremism? >> my right honorable friend is right. far too long, governments have felt that the way to handle community relations is to leave people in different silos and listen to self-appointed community leaders rather than engaging directly with people and when it comes to this battle, we shouldn't be neutral but be clear that we will engage with because they back the values we share and those we don't agree with and those that might be part of the problem. and it's not just necessary in britain but in other parts of europe, too.

>> does he agree with me that in order to protect and preserve that, we need to be very aggressive in our counter narrative, and that means the internet companies doing much more than they are currently doing, in order to take away the most important method of recruitment, and internationally it means working with europol and interpol, giving them the support they need as this is an international issue? mr. cameron: first of all, can i thank him for the support he gave to the indian prime minister's visit to our country last week. and what i said standing alongside the prime minister is that, while of course we still have to fight discrimination and racism in our country, i think we can lay some claim to being one of the most successful multiracial, multifaith, multiethnic democracies in our world. something india aspires to do as well. and it should be something that links us. he's right about this issue of working with internet companies. just as we've worked with them to try to take child

pornography off the internet, so there's more we can do to get this extremism off the internet as well. >> the prime minister is right to focus on the importance of a multifaceted approach. but may i suggest to him that when it comes to military intervention in syria, we must learn from previous errors. and try to ensure that we put together a proper strategy involving regional powers and allies, the powers including iran and russia, which might have to recognize that isil is the greater danger than president assad, because we also need to accept that that fact alone will not defeat this evil regime. mr. cameron: my honorable friend is vite. bringing together an international coalition for political change in syria is the right thing to do and that's exactly what we're doing. iran and saudi arabia and russia and america, britain, france, turkey and others are all in the room together negotiating this. and that is the way it should

be. but i also think we have to have a regard to our own national security. and every day that isil is active in iraq and syria, is a day that we are in some danger in our own country. >> the prime minister is right that the police and the security services need our full support at this time. but shouldn't it be immediately obvious to everyone, to everyone, that the police need the full and necessary powers, including the proportion at use of lethal force -- proproportion ath use of legal lethal force if need be to keep our community safe? mr. cameron: the gentleman is absolutely right. i think we can have a huge regard for our police in this country. the old saying, that the public are the public and the public are the police does ring true because they come from our communities. they're not seen as some occupying force. and it's absolutely right, when they're confronting murderers

and people with weapons, they have to be able on occasion to take lethal action. i hope that the leader of the opposition will think carefully about what he said because it's important we all support the police in the work they do, rather than undermine it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can my right honorable friend set out what plans the government is making to make airport security safer, given the belief that we have that the russian airline was brought down by a bomb? mr. cameron: what we've seen this morning are some reports that the russian security services are now making clear that they believe it was a bomb that brought down that aircraft tragically after it left the airport. this is an issue i discussed with president putin yesterday. what we need to do is to work with others to look at the most vulnerable locations around the world and work out how we can make them more safe. there's no 100% security you can deliver, even in the most advanced airport. but there are some basic things

around scanners, about the way luggage is handled, about the way passengers interact with their luggage, what happens at the gate, best practices that can be introduced right around the world and that's what we're going to work on. >> if a broad international coalition is not just possible, but necessary in syria, then what is the obstacle to a security council resolution? and on the financial flaws, account prime minister answer the question directly, what are the obstacles to disrupting and degrading the financial flaws and the financial institutions without whom they could not function? mr. cameron: first of all, the obstacles so far to a security council resolution has been the fact that one of the permanent members, russia, has threatened to veto meaningful security council resolutions that would perhaps provide that overarching permission for the action that we believe is

necessary in syria. but i'll answer the question very directly had in my response to the foreign affairs select committee, that the action i believe we should take is legal under international law. and i know that should be spelled out clearly and of course i will spell it out clearly. in terms of disrupting the financial flows, we are part of the committee that's looking at all of the action that can be taken, including against financial institutions. as i said, one of the most portion things we can do is stop the funding through the oil trade, some of which they're sending directly to assad. >> earlier this year the kingdom of morocco signed an agreement with france to train imams and preachers, including women, in the moderate mainstream tradition, to which my right honorable friend referred. would he congratulate morocco for the exceptional leadership that it has displayed in tackling extremism and commend its further efforts perhaps as far as the u.k.'s concerned

where we can learn some of the lessons that france is currently undergoing? mr. cameron: my right honorable friend is absolutely right. we can learn a lesson from morocco. there's also work the german government has been doing with turkish imam -- imams. there's work we've been doing with imams train to come into this country. one of the remarkable things about the g-20 is the conversation about fighting radicalization and extremism. the proposals made by, for instance, the indonesian president and the malaysian prime minister, both countries that pride themselves on being part of the moderate muslim world. were particularly powerful to listen to. >> perhaps we differ on details of how to ensure citizens are kept safe. i certainly agree that it is the overwhelming priority of the government to make sure that they are. and in that vain, can he assure us that as well as giving extra money to the security service, he'll make a significant investment in our diplomatic services, which are world class and are needed more than ever right now? it should not be hollowed out by cuts.

mr. cameron: the diplomatic post place a vital role in britain's soft power. we are derp ranked the other day as number one in the world for soft power. we've been opening embassies around the world rather than closing them. it's a good opportunity to thank all our hardworking staff from this. >> thank you, mr. speaker. to counter the appalling slaughter that was faced by all those in paris, we will need armed police on the spot within minutes. can the prime minister reassure the house that we have sufficient armed police in all our cities to do just that? mr. cameron: my honorable friend is absolutely right to raise this. and following the mumbai attacks and the intelligence we had offer that -- after that of potential attacks in this country and all the work was done to make sure that the armed response vehicles we have have sufficient amount of people to meet the challenge in any of our major urban areas. we keep this under review. we're studying what happened in paris. we're looking at the numbers

that we need. i think the idea of routinely arming all of the police in our country is not right approach. but certainly increasing the number of armed police that are available, that is something that we're looking at very carefully and something that, if necessary, we'll do. and also, while we don't talk about the role of our special forces, they're also available to help in these circumstances. and again, we'll do everything we can to make sure that they can be brought to bear at the right moment and can help with our overall effort dealing with what our extreme -- what are extremely challenging problems thrown up by what happened in paris. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in paris lies solely with the terrorists and that any attempt by any organization to somehow blame the west or france's military intervention in syria is not

only wrong, disgraceful, but lso should be condemned? mr. cameron: the response right across the house shows how right the honorable lady is. it's worth remembering as well that those who think that somehow this is all caused by iraq, france didn't take part in the iraq war. indeed, they condemned it. the fact is about these isil terrorists, they hate our way of life. they want to kill and maim as many people as possible. they also do this to muslims with whom they disagree. and that is why we have to confront and defeat and not compromise on excuse in any way this vial organization. >> can i welcome the prime minister's statement, particularly his commitment to come to the house with an argument for extending british military action to syria, but would he agree with me that the threat we face from isil is such a current threat to our national security, and it's timely, that he may have to take action as prime minister without coming back to this house in order to protect our

national security? mr. cameron: i'm grateful for the honorable gentleman for raising this question. i've always said very clearly at this dispatch box that in the case of premeditated action, for instance, against isil in syria, then it's right that we have a debate and a vote and i'm happy to repeat that. again. but i do reserve the right, taking action against an international interest, where you have to take action very quickly, very rapidly, and you need the confidentiality before you take it, as it were, i'm prepared to act. that's what i did in the case of hussein and the u.k. drone strike and where we were working hand in glove with the americans. i think then it was right to take that action and explain afterwards. but i'll try and stick to that clear demarcation. i think that's the right approach for our country. >> i welcome the prime minister's statement and i'm sure that sensible people on both sides of the house will support sensible members -- measures in the days and weeks

you a head. has the government given any consideration to the way in which the government of saudi arabia perhaps exports and funds and encourages radicalism? and is this something we should address with a view to making sure they don't radicalize young people in the u.k.? mr. cameron: i think the honorable gentleman makes an important point. i met with the king of saudi arabia at the g-20 and we discussed the situation in syria. i think it's fair to say the saudi arabia has actually quite a strong deradicalization program for its own citizens who have become extremists and it has been successful in that. but we do need to ask, as i've said more broadly, about how we stop people setting off down the path to extremism in the first place. and that is important in terms of what is taught in schools and how it's taught and how we make sure that in all our educational practices, right across the world, whether we're christians, jews, muslims or hindus, that we're teaching tolerance and understanding right from the very start.

>> while i suspect many, both in this house and beyond, will find it unpalatable that we're talking with president putin at this time, i support the prime minister in having those discussions. just to pick up on a point that was made by the other gentleman, is it the case that the government is still trying to work towards getting a u.n. security council resolution on these matters? hand in glove with the other strategy to which he's referred? mr. cameron: we keep talking with security council partners about potential resolutions that we could put forward on any number of issues to do with this overall problem of isil and iraq and syria. but in terms of something that takes -- that backs the sort of military action we've spoken about in this house, that hasn't been possible up to now. because of the russian potential veto. and i think it is important for us to understand that it is possible to act within

international law, with the full backing of international law, without a security council resolution. obviously it's better in many ways to have a security council resolution as well. but we cannot outsource our national security to a russian veto or indeed a veto by nybody else. >> [inaudible] -- to reject the views that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the west do. does he agree with me that such an approach risks infant liesing terrorists and treating them as children, when the truth is they are adults, entirely responsible for what they do? no one forces them to kill innocent people in paris or beirut. and unless we are clear about that, we will fail even to be able to understand the threat that we face, let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it.

mr. cameron: it is that sort of moral and intellectual clarity that is necessary in dealing with terrorism. i know there's something deep in all of us to try and find an excuse or an explanation or an understanding, but sometimes the answer's there staring us in the face. and with isil, that is absolutely the case. > the people of north sussex mourned the loss of nick alexander. he gave pleasure to others, music. would my right honorable friend join me in paying tribute to nick and also reaffirming our resolve that we won't allow these murderous cowards to destroy our way of life? mr. cameron: i certainly join my honorable friend in paying tribute to nick and to say that our thoughts are with his family and his friends. what isil was trying to do was to destroy our way of life and our value systems and the things that people like to do

in their spare time. and one of the most portion things we can do, alongside all the security responses, is to go on living our lives. >> i thank the prime minister for his statement. on behalf of myself and my two colleagues, i would like to convey our sympathy and our outright opposition to terrorism, because coming from northern ireland, we all know what that was like for so many years. but in so doing, we note that the prime minister is coming back to the house with a full, comprehensive strategy. and in so doing, could he define the term that he referred to earlier, action that would be legal under international law? mr. cameron: what i said i would do is that, as part of the strategy that i will lay out in response to the foreign affairs select committee report, is set out as one part of that strategy, why i think we should be taking an action, taking action not just in iraq, but in syria too. and in doing so, we'll set out the legal advice for that.

i think it's very important that the house sees that. you can already see, with the action we're taking in iraq, that we're taking that action at the request of the legitimate iraqi government. you can see, with the action , that that so far was also on the base of -- basis of self-defense of the united kingdom. i canly a out -- lay -- i can lay out very clearly of these arguments why we should be doing it, why it's in our interest of national security, but i'll make sure that in this paper it addresses those legal arguments as well. >> with the second massacre in paris last weekend, our own and -- were murdered [inaudible] -- can i say that now is not the time for knee jerk reactions but a time to reflect and plan effectively?

can i ask my right honorable friend if he'll do everything in his power to stop and destroy this murderous regime that is dash, for the sake of our own national security? for which he has my 100% support, as no doubt he does for many members in thousand. mr. cameron:ky thank my honorable friend for his support. i don't believe in knee jerk reactions. rightly, though, when something like paris happens, it's worth asking every single question about our state of preparedness, about how we'd respond to this, about our intelligence cooperation. that's exactly what we're doing. i don't -- and i think it's right we do. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister's content and tone of his statement spoke not just for the government, but for the country. referred to the retaking of sindjar. on saturday, as a member of the old parliamentary party group

visit, i was with the kurds in the kurdistan region of iraq. on the front line, south of kircuke. those kurdish forces are brave, they're putting their lives on the line every day, they did so at sindjar, along with the syrian kurds. can we do more to provide material support for the peshmerga of iraqi kurdistan and also, pending a decision on whether we go into syria, give more support from the air to the kurds in iraq now? mr. cameron: very grateful to the honorable gentleman for what he said. the answer to his question is, yes, we're already, as he knows, providing training and support to the kurdish peshmerga forces. they're incredibly brave. they've done a great job of liberating people from isil dominance. we discussed yesterday with president obama and the french, germ and italian leaders ma more we can do. germ -- what more we can do.

germany is also doing a lot in that area. there's more we can do. >> i honor my friend's commitment. and his commitment to continue to make the case for this house and to the electorate. can i ask him to do so as part of a long-term vision for stability in the region? mr. cameron: i think my honorable friend is absolutely right. people want to know that our response is not driven by anger. but is driven by resolve and is thoughtful and thought through and will make us safe and the region more stable. i'm convinced we can answer all those questions in the document i'll put in front of the house. >> the comments on the right honorable friend, welcoming the refugees arriving in glasgow today. but can i ask the prime minister, with regard to the paris climate change talks, what further discussions were held at the g-20 and whether he personally wants to attend those talks in paris as an

active leadership -- of leadership -- an act of leadership and solidarity? mr. cameron: i'll be there at the start of the talks on monday. the discussions of the g 20r7 positive in that, again, everyone committed to having the aim of below two degrees. my concern is that some of the things that are necessary to make this agreement really meaningful, like five-year reviews and the rest of it, there's still some opposition from some countries to that and we still haven't had every country's independent proposal for how they reduce their own carbon emissions. there's important work to be done. we can use the commonwealth conference for part of that. britain is playing its part. there will be an agreement, i'm confident of that. it will involve russia and china. we're now battling for a good agreement rather than just a mediocre one. >> would my right honorable friend agree that an overriding priority must be the security of our country and its people?

and recognizing that the threat we face from terrorists today is not just about bullets and bomb, but it's also about cyberattacks, and will he ensure we have the right funding and organizations in place to deal with this threat? mr. cameron: my honorable friend is absolutely right. we do face cyberattacks. not just from states, but also from radical groups and individuals. i think we made a lot of progress in recent years at funding our cyberdefenses but it should be a major feature of the strategic defense review we discuss next week. >> first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. the prime minister has set out the steps with which to do that. could he say some more about what steps he will take to secure action against those who are buying goods of contraband from isil? such as the syrian government, but also individuals and companies. mr. cameron: i'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman for his remarks. there is the sale of

antiquities, of course, we i -- which he might be referring to, as well as the seam of oil. we're trying to crack down on all of those things and we're looking at what we might have to do in that area. >> i think it's reasonable to act beyond 2:00. >> along with the honorable , i join them on the -dash ine against isil last weekend where, indeed we saw the amazing work that the peshmerga is doing in taking back territory and communities from that evil existence. we also visited some refugee and displacement camps. and saw families affected. would my right honorable friend the prime minister agree with me that we need to ensure that

we are protecting those minorities in the middle east? mr. cameron: my honorable friend is absolutely right. finding -- making sure that both iraq and syria are countries and governments that represent all of their people, sunni, shi'a and kurd, is absolutely vital. >> the question perhaps. >> i agree with all the comments about the number one priority of this government being safeguarding the national security of those we represent. but actually that extends to every single member of this house. with regard to the use of lethal force by intelligence and police forces abroad and at home, of course it's important that they have the powers necessary to act. but it's also important they act within a clear legal framework. i welcome the prime minister agreing to publish the advice on which he intends to act in syria, could he also ensure that the basis on which police act ourn streets here is published and made known to those we represent?

mr. cameron: i thank the gentleman for his question. i want to clarify, i'm not saying i will publish the legal advice, because governments have never done that. what i did as prime minister in the last government and will do again in this, is provide a proper and full description of what that legal advice says. i know that sounds like splitting hairs but it is important. that's what i will do. as for the issue that he raises about the police, i'll ask the secretary to write to him directly about that. >> the prime minister heard anything about the possibility of partition as a settlement on the lines of cyprus, leaving a tribal area in the south and free syria in the north? mr. cameron: i don't think -- i have seen ideas put forward for these sorts of things. i don't think it's the right idea. i think the idea of trying to

carve up these countries into a sort of sunnistan and a shi'astan i think would be a great mistake. what we need to do is build a syria that can have a government that represents all of its people. as syrians. >> i have met a number of syrians over the last couple of weeks, including a very brave citizen journalist who is about to return to syria. they are unanimous in calling for a no-bombing zone in syria. to stop civilians being killed by assad's barrel bombs. can the prime minister reassure us that he will ensure that the views of syrian civilians are taken into account in relation to any u.k. military action? mr. cameron: the honorable gentleman's absolutery right. if we were to take action, it would be to save the lives of syrian civilians. of course we all support no-bombing zones in terms of assad stopping the practice of raining down barrel bomb, sometimes with chemical weapons, on his own people. and that is why while we should

be very focused on isil we cannot forget that president assad has been one of the recruiting sergeants for isil. his brutality keeps providing fresh recruits. the idea you can just take sides and team up with assad against isil is an entirely false perspective. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the prime minister for his statement. in light of the terrorist attacks in paris, i believe our police and security services you are jntly need the new powers set out in the bill now. could i therefore urge the prime minister to consider speeding up the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure and bring forward the date when this vital bill will reach statute form? mr. cameron: i thank my honorable friend for this question. we are looking at this issue. but i would reassure him that most of what the i.p. bill does is put onto an even clearer statutory footing those practices currently carried out

by our security and intelligence services. there's one element that is particularly important that is new, which relates to internet connection records, which is probably the most controversial part of the bill. and i don't want to jeopardize this bill by rushing it. but i hope he's reassured. we'll look at the timing but most of the powers are about being put on a clearer legal basis. >> arguably the more successful forces against dash on the ground in iraq and syria have been the peshmerga. what diplomatic pressure can the u.k. government put on allies undermining their capabilities? mr. cameron: what we're doing is everything to help their capabilities. training, ammunition, logistical support. that's coming from us. that's coming from the germans. that's coming from the americans. and obviously we need to work very hard with all of the countries in the region to recognize that the kurds are our allies in the fight, not least because they're taking it directly to isil and saving

civilian lives. >> mr. speaker, as chairman of the all party group for kurdistan, i join the prime minister in praising the peshmerga forces for retaining -- retaking sind jar. does the -- sindjar. does the prime minister agree with me that the kurdish forces need their fair share of oil revenues promised from the baghdad for them to be able to continue to this fight on the ground against the evil isil dash? mr. cameron: my friend has a lot of experience in working with and helping the kurds. there is an agreement in iraq about the sharing of oil revenues but it needs to be honored properly because the iraqi government needs to always make clear that it's there not just for the shi'a but for the sunnis and kurds as ell. >> account prime minister share his views on the creation of a safe zone for civilians within syria? mr. cameron: as i've said before, we're always happy to look at the suggestions. but when it comes to safe zones, you have to remember

that you can't declare them without making them fully safe. and in order to do that you might have to take very severe military action against syrian air defenses, syrian aircraft, syrian command and control, and all the rest of it. so -- and you might have to have troops to make that zone safe as well. so i think there are real problems with these suggestions. i look at them, i've discussed them with the turks, for instance, a huge amount. there's also another danger worth thinking about, which is that there are two million syrian refugees in turkey. if they felt a safe zone was being created in order to push them out of turkey and into syria, that actually might hasten their move to come to europe. so all these things have to be considered. but at the end of the day, safe zones are only proxies for what really needs to happen, which is the destruction of isil and the political transition in syria. >> -- [inaudible] -- the paris

atrocity came into europe in the guise of a refugee. can my friend give an assurance that as we welcome, and i emphasize the word welcome, genuine refugees into our country, that proper security checks will be carried out to ensure that isil supporters don't get in under the radar in a similar way? mr. cameron: my honorable friend makes a good point and he also puts his question absolutely in the right way. we musten confuse migration and terrorism. but we do need to be clear that proper border control checks are necessary to make sure the people who come to our country don't threaten us. and this is one of the reasons why we never joined, we wanted to control our own border checks. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is right. the greater powers are necessary to thwart terrorist internet below the plotts. the prime minister's also right to make available additional resources for our security services and our special forces.

does the prime minister, however, not agree that it would be the worst possible time now to proceed with the biggest cuts to any police service in europe, which will have a serious impact on neighborhood policing, vital to intelligence gathering, the eyes and ears of counterterrorism in local communities? mr. cameron: as i've said, we have protected counterterrorism policing budgets in the last parliament. we'll do the same in this parliament. i think the police have shown in the last five years how well they can do at finding efficiencies and actually increasing the number of neighborhood police officers that are on our streets. >> thank you, mr. speaker. terrorists and their weapons can enter the u.k. through any point of entry and the ports that mainly handle freight, are perhaps particularly vulnerable. can my right honorable friend assure me that staff levels for border force will be maintained and if necessary enhanced to combat this threat? mr. cameron: my honorable friend is vite to raise this

issue. what i can tell him is we're very foe kissed on preventing -- focused on preventing firearms fromenting our country. that's one of the best ways we can try and defend ourselves from these sorts of attacks. we have an intelligence-led mod where will we try and use intelligence to -- model where we try to use intelligence to make sure our border security is delivered at the right way at the right time. but all the time we're asking border force whether they have what they need. i discussed this with the head of border force who attended the cobra meeting on saturday morning when we discussed this. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i agreed with everything the prime minister said about syria and about terrorism. but does he agree with me that those who say that paris is reaping the whirl wind of western policy, or who want to say that britain's foreign policy has increased, not diminished, the threats to our own national security, are not just be a solving the terrorists of responsibility -- absolving the terrorists of responsibility, but risk fueling the sense of grieveance

and resentment which can develop into extremism and terrorism? mr. cameron: a moment when he very kindly said he agreed with me. i absolutely agree with him. we have to be very clear to those people who are at risk of being radicalized, in this sort of excuse culture is wrong. it's not only wrong for us to argue, for anyone to argue, that paris was brought about by western policy, it is also very damaging for young muslims growing up in britain to think that any reasonable person could have this view. so i agree with him 100%. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister believe that any individuals live in the united nations -- united kingdom now who have information about any activities of those who have become radicalized or are terrorists themselves, are silent accomplices to any carnage that might take place in this country?

and that they have a duty to pass on that information immediately in order to save the lives of so many innocent people? mr. cameron: my honorable friend makes an important point. it goes to this issue about the civil liberties that we have in our country. people who might suspect that a friend or a relative or someone they know has become radicalized or their mind has been poisoned, they should come forward, secure in the knowledge that everything we do in this country is done under the law. under the rule of law. and i think we can't send that message out clearly enough. >> in this age of terrorism, can the prime minister indicate to us how safe are the british people? mr. cameron: i don't set the alert levels. they're set independently. and that's right that it should be done by a group of experts. the level is currently set at severe. which means that they believe an attack is highly likely. the next step you would go to is critical. where you believe that a threat

is imminent. that wouldn't normally happen until you have some intelligence that would tell you that a threat was in some way imminent. so what i say to the british people is we should go about our lives, we should be vigilant and work with the police and intelligence services where we can, but never give in to the threat that the terrorists pose, because of course they want to us change our way of lives and to live in fear. that is what terrorism means. >> mr. speaker, does my right honorable friend agree that the terrorists pursue their evil trade most effectively, they require training and training requires territory. so action to reduce isil's territory, whether it be in iraq, or syria, or anywhere else, is a vital component to ridding the world of these evil people? mr. cameron: my honorable friend is absolutely right. it goes actually to the point the honorable member made which is so much of what our policy over previous years has been about, is to try and close down

the ungoverned spaces where terrorists are able to stay and are able to train. and that's why we cannot sit back for more -- from all these things. that's why we're engaged in trying to make somalia into a proper functioning country. it's why we took action in afghanistan to try and stop that country being a haven for terror. it's why we can't stand by while there fails to be a libyan government, who will work harder to bring about some rule of law and order in that country. we don't do this because somehow we believe in militaried a event tourism. we do this because we want to keep people safe in our own country. that's what it's about. >> i join the prime minister in expressing cautious optimism that the vienna process could advance the prospects for a sustainable peace in syria. something that's important given the huge numbers that have died there and the millions that have been displaced. but also the horrors in paris and beirut, reminders of its importance to defeating dash as

well. he comes back to the house with his response on the foreign affairs report, can i emphasize to him the importance of a strategy being in there? i understand they want to advance the case more military action, but what a lot of us will be looking at is how that fits into a strategy, including the involvement of regions in the area. mr. cameron: i hope i'll be able to assure the gentleman, there is a strategy and we need to lay it out more clearly. which is combining this political settlement with the military action that i think is important and the involvement of neighboring countries. but in the end, we have to decide whether to take this action as part of a strategy. but certainly that is my aim in this document i'll produce. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i fully welcome the prime minister's statement. the prime minister, president hollande has used the exact words, france is at war. john kerry said we have to defeat them.

they want to us call them isil, isil for legitimacy. can we use dash? mr. cameron: my friend is winning this battle. the use of the word dash is increasing. the point he makes about the evil we face is right. we know that this group, just as they carried out an attack in paris, they would be equally content to carry out an attack in belgium, sweden, denmark, or here in britain. they don't not do it because they feel we're somehow different. they just haven't yet managed it. e have to stop it.

mr. cameron: i absolutely agree with the honorable lady. and as we do so, we need to take everyone in our country with us. can i direct the prime minister back to the alarming news that 'tis reported that 450 violent jihadists returning from the middle east have been readmitted to the united kingdom. will he give a firm undertaking -- undertaking to the house that he will not rule out any action against these individuals? mr. cameron: my friend is right to make this point. what we have is a system for trying to examine everybody who returns in this way. some people, as i've said, will come home completely disillusioned with what we've seen. there are people that will have to keep a very close eye on and use all the powers that we have at our discretion. >> i congratulate the prime minister on his current and

leadership at this time. there's a need for a new strategy, quite clearly, it must come within this house. mr. cameron: the i hope this response will be something around which members of this house can rally. so that we can then move forward in a way that supports our allies and keeps our ountry safe. >> the prime minister is aware of one of the leading forces in the u.k. in fighting radicalization and terrorism. could he update the house as to what further steps can we take to ensure that our security services are not -- and our police forces cooperate fully with each other? mr. cameron: my honorable friend makes a good point. we've announced this additional funding for our security forces. i've said what i've said about counterterrorism policing. but of course there is a need to continue to work on the

prevent program and i'm sure that will be something that will be addressed by the home office in its spending review. >> mr. speaker, can i raise to the prime minister disturbing reports of the fire bomb attack in the early hours of this morning against a cultural center in bishop briggs used by muslim constituents of mine. can i also alert him to the racist attack faced by my colleague in social media. will he join me in condemning some some of the inflammatory statements in the press, attempting to link innocent muslims about ex -- with extremism? mr. cameron: i certainly join the gentleman in condemning these attacks. we should be equally clear that just as anti-semitism is wrong, islamaphobia is wrong, and right wing extremism, attacking people for their religion, is completely wrong. i think this is absolutely vital that we're equally vement about all of these things.

>> i'm sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we have had an hour and a half and i thank the prime minister for his privilege sifment can i gently say to colleagues who didn't get in, if you're colleagues who did -- your cl >> a discussion about treatment of ptsd. atshington journal" is live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday on "q&a," >> i am the first woman to reach the rank of four stars in the

united states navy. 10-11a three star for months. to be seen. he talked to me about, we are looking at your for being a four star. here are opportunities where you would do well and honor the navy. >> she talks about becoming the first female four star in the navy. she talks about the navy mission to rescue captain richard phillips in 2009. >> i became head of the task force. a few days on the job captain phillips was kidnapped. it was our responsibility to get

him back safely. was obviously, a surprise mission and a challenge. we got him back. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." called for a pause on the admittance of syrian refugees. a plan is being developed for syrian asylum seekers. come on in. what happened in paris is pure evil. and i simply want to say that our prayers and our condolences go out to the victims' families and to the french people. it's clear that this was an act of war and that the world needs american leadership. the national defense bill that i

will sign later today requires the president to come with a plan for defeating isis, not just containing, but defeating isis. a containment plan is not enough. that has failed. in addition, the majority leader and our committee chairs are develop plang to address the syrian refugee crisis. our nation has always been welcoming, but we cannot let terrorists take advantage of our compassion. this is a moment where it's better to be safe than to be sorry. so we think the prudent, the responsible thing is to take a pause in this particular aspect of this refugee program in order to verify that terrorists are not trying to infiltrate the refugee population. in the end, the ultimate solution to this crisis is a strategy to defeat isis. all of this rises above politics. this is not about politics. this is about national security. and so we will invite all of our colleagues, republicans and democrats, to work with us

quickly to address the urgent nature of this situation. mr. mccarthy: i would like to add to the condolences from the house to the innocent victims of paris. they were attacked because of their way of life. as we watch now around the world. the speaker's correct. this is not a time to find containment. it's a time to defeat isis. that's why when the speaker and spoke this weekend, we put together a task force. it is a task force made up of the chairmen on counterterrorism and homeland security. it's made up of armed service appropriations, intel, homeland, judiciary and foreign affairs. we've been coming up with short-term and long-term solutions. this is not something that we

can solve overnight. but there are issues right before us. when it comes to the refugees. we realize what has happened in paris, we realize we want our homeland to be secure. the speaker has challenged to us come up with legislation starting this week to deal with the issue as we go forward. we'll find a series of bills that not only in the ndaa ask the president to come up with a strategy to defeat isis, but a series of bills to protect our homeland as we move forward. mr. scalise: as the people of france are grieving, we stand with them in grief. they've seen attacks from terrorists on their soil, we've seen it on our soil. we grieve with the people of france. i think it underscores even more importantly how vigilant we have to be in establishing a real plan to go and root out and take on isis. in a broader way. i would like to see the president have a stronger plan

and a new plan to take on isis and to confront this threat as they are saying that they're going to exploit these refugee programs. we ought to take them seriously in that threat. as they're saying they want to attack america. we ought to take them seriously. that threat. i was in greece just a few months ago, meeting with some of our military leaders who were on the front lines. as they confirmed to us, as they're seeing thousands of refugees coming in, being distributed throughout europe, the plans to vet just don't exist. you're seeing the president say he wants to bring 10,000 more refugees into america. his own leaders are saying that there is no ability right now to vet that there are not terrorists infiltrating these refugee plans. so i think the american people are concerned as well as we are about making sure that these refugee programs are not exploited by terrorist organizations and the president ought to join with us and make

sure that does not happen. and until it's certified that it's not happening, discontinue this plan. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: last friday the world witnessed another unspeakable act against civilization and the people of paris. and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and their families. on behalf of the american people and our allies, we must finally rise to the challenge. working alongside our international partners, we must provide the leadership and the commitment necessary to destroy isis and halt al-assad's mass atrocities. these are the causes of the world's most serious terrorist threat and most significant refugee crisis since world war ii. it is time for a real commitment. and the courage and the resolve

from our president. it is time for leadership. we must be articulating that broader strategy to the nation and to our allies and then we must actually follow through on it. >> my thoughts and prayers are also with the people of paris and the families worldwide affected by this horrific tragedy. the united states must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with france and our allies in the face of this radical islamic terrorism. ms. jenkins: there is no important duty than protecting american lives at home and abroad. nations have always looked to america for leadership. america must lead. that is why congress passed the national defense authorization act with overwhelming bipartisan support. this defense bill will give our military the tools they need to combat the spread of terrorism.

we must act swiftly and effectively to help ensure the continued safety of americans everywhere. it's up to us in america to show a path forward as we fight for a safer world for our kids to grow up in. ms. mcsally: good morning. i serve on the armed services and the homeland security committee. prior to being in congress, i was in the military for 26 years. as our colleagues in leadership said, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of paris and france. for these horrific attacks that happened last week. but it could have happened here. i had the privilege to be appointed to a task force on combating the flow of foreign fighters and terrorist travel. for six months this bipartisan task force looked at this very threat. what we know of is 30,000 individuals that have traveled from over 100 countries to iraq and syria. we know over 4,000 are from western and visa waiver countries, 250 from america. those are the ones that we know of.

we realize there are so many that we don't know of. law enforcement has investigations in every single state right now. and we found 32 findings in our report that we released in september after six months. this administration needs to step up. we do not have a strategy. we do not have a focus. there are over 200,000 social media tweets and posts per day by isis in a very sophisticated social media campaign. they are acting as the speed of broadband while we are acting at the speed of bureaucracy. we need a strategy. that includes unleashing american air power in a way that can actually crush and defeat them in iraq and syria. a broader strategy diplomatically and militarily for the dozens of countries that we're seeing isis presence in, stopping the flow of foreign fighters and encountering the radical extremism that we're seeing happening in our own neighborhoods. we have less than two dozen people focused on countering this extremism in america. we have 10,000 i.r.s. agents make sugar that you don't take any -- making sure that you don't take an improper charity deduction. it's time for this

administration to step up its game, take this seriously, it is a generational conflict. and we must lead now more than ever. thank you. mr. ryan: questions? reporter: you said this is an act of war. [inaudible] -- are you talking about an actual declaration -- mr. ryan: i think isis showed that they're going to -- they are committing an act of war against the west. what else do you call what they did in paris? reporter: what should be the congressional response? i guess what you're talking about -- mr. ryan: if you're talking about aumf, that's a different question. we have the authority right now under the existing aumf and we'll revisit all of these issues later. look, the way we look at this issue is, number one, right in front of us is the fact that we have a refugee situation that we think requires a pause and a more comprehensive assessment on how to better guarantee that members of isis are not

infiltrating themselves among the refugee population. then -- but please know, this isn't just about refugees. this is what congresswoman mcsally said, this is about having a comprehensive strategy to deal with isis, by defeating isis. that's what we do not have. the bill we are sending to the white house today -- this week, the defense authorization bill, requires that the president have a comprehensive plan to defeat and eliminate isis. containing isis is not enough. defeating isis is what is necessary and we do not have that comprehensive plan in place. reporter: can you be clear on what you're calling for in the pause to the refugee program? the entire refugee program? mr. ryan: we're talking about -- let me say this. the american refugee laws are important laws. it's important that we have a refugee system in place. we respect that. but we think it's simply prudent that for this particular program, in this particular situation, that we be better guarded against any possible infiltration of isis coming through this program. that is why we think it's

necessary to have a pause and to have a more comprehensive strategy dealing with guaranteeing that we do not allow isis members coming here. so just to finish answering your question, this is what the majority leader's working group is coming up with. we've assembled a task force starting saturday to consider legislation as quickly as possible and we'll be back in touch as we make our conclusions this week. reporter: one of the ways in which isis is successful is they're able to hold ground. we've had limited success with man power on the ground and overtaking isis strong holds. do you think part of this comprehensive strategy should entertain the possibility of u.s. combat troops on the ground? mr. ryan: i do not think any option should be taken off the table. i think all options should be placed on the table and i think the commander in chief, this is his duty and responsibility, should come up with a plan that accomplishes the goal of defeating isis. reporter: you want to pause the program until you can verify -- mr. ryan: our task force is considering legislation while we speak, we're meeting every day

and we will bring legislation forward and we'll give you the answer to those questions when we have made our conclusions. reporter: \[inaudible] mr. ryan: we don't want to wait that long. we want to work and act on this faster than that. we will be having an intelligence briefing for our members this evening. the intelligence committee will be briefing all of the members of the house at 5:30 this evening so that members have the kinds of facts that we need as the situation unfolds.thank you. appreciate it. >> democratic leaders discussed immigration. they urged the house to take up immigration reform. this is 40 minutes.

>> why don't we go ahead and start? >> good morning, everyone. we just had a meeting with secretary of human services with secretary burwell and i am ,oined by leader nancy pelosi assistant leader jim clyburn, vice president joe crowley, and weirman ben ray lujan and are going to be joined shortly, i hope, by an individual who will discuss information shortly, miss isabel dominquez. it isime like this, important to convey to all of the people in france our and ourty with them

prayers and thoughts that we extend to the families and the , thems from this past week paris attack in paris, france -- terrorist attack in paris, france. workfrance, we hold up the that we do in this country to , cherishfreedom democracy, and we do every thing we can to make this the land of the free and make it a place , and people can find hope because we are a nation of immigrants, we make it very clear that if you come to work and build this country, you happy home. home. have a andn line with our history our principle, being a nation of immigrants, we look at the system that we have in place today for immigration and we see that our immigration system is broken in so many ways, and it is time to fix it.

at a time whenng our house republican colleagues have called for a fresh start and have a new speaker, a fresh start with a fresh, new speaker, paul ryan, that rather than give us the chance to begin a fresh start on something like immigration, which is operating under a broken system, that thattunately, we have word we are not going to do anything on the side, in the congress, in the house. it ignores the fact that immigration reform would not only be good for our national security, it would be good for our economy, it certainly good for all of our families here in the united states of america. we know that there would be more jobs created if we fix our broken system, and we know that we would improve state budgets by creating a system that would work, and we know it would strengthen our social security if we had an immigration system that worked. nation ofng a immigrants, we must underscore

that we respect and understand and be accepting of immigrants to our country, who, by definition as refugees, must show that they fear death and procyclical -- and persecution by coming to our country. 50,000 refugees have settled in america since 9/11 and not one has been arrested on domestic terrorism charges in the united states of america. we are a nation of immigrants. we are a nation of laws. we must understand that to make this system work for all, we must fix our system of immigration, which is severely broken. policy.eld to net to -- two nancy pelosi. -- to nancy pelosi. i echontative pelosi:

your remarks by saying that we express her sympathies to france and france is our oldest friend, france is our oldest friend. we extend sympathy and fraternity. hit, the french press said, "we are all americans now." as we approach the issues of concern there, we have to recognize that protecting people is our first responsibility, but we also cannot yield to terrorists, whose goal is to instill fear and to change who we are and our way of life. and so, again, i associate myself further with your remarks. today, we have gathered after misguidedcircuit's decision to the community of

immigrants of america, but we are glad to move forward and resolve this issue. are installing the immigration accountability executive action by president to prevent it only perpetuates a broken immigration system that fails to serve the national interests. we must not continue to defer the dreams of hard-working immigrant families who give so much to our communities. at our meeting this morning, our ranking member of the immigration committee, a person who has been an immigration lawyer, taught immigration law, chaired the immigration committee, shared with us the option of chain -- of signing an amicus brief about change. this is just stunning that

people are saying that the president, this president, doesn't have this authority. just as presidents before him, president authority has authority to make the nation better and to reflect our shared values, and every administration, democratic or republican, since president dwight david eisenhower, has use executive authority to do just that. in the years immediately following the and i can, in fact, even when congress has acted, our congress is acting in , butce of congress's act in the absence of that, he has discreetly, in using his authorities, made his presidential executive, taken his presidential executive action. but even when congress did act the 1986it was called immigration and reform control

act, president ronald reagan, and following him, president george herbert walker bush, protected thousands of people who received protected status under that law. not goid congress did far enough so they initiated a family fairness initiative. president george herbert walker ronaldd if president reagan took those bold actions, how could you say that, how could this court say, that this president doesn't have the authority to do exactly what they did in fact do? fact, they affected a higher percentage of people than president obama's actions. chose not toicitly grant status to the people that president reagan and president rights to, andhe president reagan and president bush recognized that it was not tothe national best interest

separate these families. god bless them for that. we remain confident the president obama's executive actions will be upheld, there is a need to pass this reform as we are urgently in need of this. movingforward to forward, and i perceive this to have delaying tactics on the part of the district court. i hope that this can move forward expeditiously so that by the end of april. that is for them to proceed in that way. so this is really very important.

this has all of the legal authority in the law. there is a precedent by former presidents. this is a very misguided decision. it must be reversed. i know yield to mr. assistant leader mr. clyburn. mr. clyburn? mrs.sentative clyburn: pelosi, let me thank you and expressing my tremendous grief in franceis happening and lebanon. frankly, other places across the globe. i don't know of anyone who will notion thatt the our immigration system is broken it is broken and we have known that for a very long time and we

whatve very strongly that president obama is attempting to do is put families first as we respond to a broken system. play, andas a role to for some strange reason, the to cop outs decided to the tea party element and refused to move forward to try and fix our immigration laws and does, i think it is important for the president to do what is necessary to keep that is together, and

what he is attempting to do with this system. and it is not that he is acting outside of the law. i think that all of us are aware sf the history that president have pursued in trying to keep them together and try not to destroy communities and tried not to unfairly penalize law-abiding citizens, and so i am pleased to stand today with my colleagues in support of the i will yieldd now back to the vice-chairman of our caucus, joe crowley. are presented of crowley: -- representative crowley: thank you, jim. to express myike

condolences to the people of paris, as well as lebanon and turkey. this is not the first fairest attack -- first terrorist attack, and being from new york, and having experienced our own terrorist attack, there is a special connection and we are joined against this attack against innocent lives. but i also want to take a time to talk about the opportunity onepleasure of discussing of the most a verse districts in the united states today. whether my constituents might be from ireland, mexico, colombia, or career, i think that lumping them all together is a potential for a knock on the door at night or to pull over a vehicle because the taillight is out, and that for many of us would be inconsequential, what for them, it must be a life-changing

experience, one that could potentially rip a child's parents away from them and see them deported. that is a real-life fear for many of the people i represent in the 14th congressional district in queens and bronx new york -- bronx, new york. i think our fellow republicans understand is that not keeping up with the principles of what we as americans stand for, not unlike my grandparents who all came to this country for a better life for themselves and for their children. i dare say that i don't think anyone before my grandparents would have ever imagined in a generation that their grandson would be a representative in the house of representatives. they are no different in many respects from the people coming here today, seeking out the same opportunity, providing for their families, to give a better life to the greatest country in the world that we have ever known. that is a standard that we have

probably lived up to throughout our history, and one that i believe, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, are looking to further deteriorate. we see that rhetoric coming out in the aftermath of paris. knee-jerkcomment response from our republican colleagues, as opposed to a thoughtful, well thought-out ofn in an ever-growing issue people who are under duress and who need relief. instead, they simply turn their back, and that is not the america that we are. we need to reevaluate that. i believe the fifth circuit was wrong in the decision they made, but do that as it may, i am calling to everyone, and especially to mr. ryan, the new speaker, i know he has had a call for immigration reform, but now it is time to fix our open

-- broken immigration system. this is for people who are living in the united states today, and we need to address the issue of integrity of our national security purposes. but we also need to understand the world that we are living in today. this is part of the fabric of the united states. theeed to find a way to fix broken legal immigration system that we have today as well. it is not working. we need to take an opportunity, now is the opportunity to do it, now is the time to fix our broken immigration system, don't delay it any further, now is the time to do it, we have a president who wants to do that, and with that, i'm happy to yield to my friend. you, i want to join my colleagues by expressing my thoughts and prayers, my condolences and support, to the people of france. as we gather this morning to have a conversation about

immigration reform and policy in to united states, we have make sure that we work together, and democrats are willing to work with our republican colleagues to pass comprehensive immigration reform, to have a thoughtful conversation and have a but yet while we new speaker, we are hearing the same old, tired excuses. we still have a speaker who is unable or unwilling up to the freedom caucus, the most conservative arm of the congress , to allow even for a debate on immigratione reform. republicans from the presidential candidates, like donald trump, to the house, continue to alienate latino voices, hispanic voices, to their altra conservative addition, of comprehensive immigration reform. because the republicans in the

house of refused to address this serious issue, president obama took action, just as every president from eisenhower has done. that includes both president reagan and both presidents bushes. bush.sidents many people who live and pay taxes and -- live here and pay taxes will continue to live in fear. senator rubio said doing nothing , but thatto amnesty is exactly what house republicans have been doing. again, house republicans have had the opportunity to support reamers, they have a voted against them every time on the house floor. house republicans have better come up with coming up with some more solutions than coming up with excuses. that, mr. chairman, is important that we work together

here, and it is long past time for house republican leadership to allow a vote and a debate on comprehensive immigration reform. with that, i will turn this back -- chairmanzetta the center -- becerra. :hairman becerra we are still looking for mrs. dominguez, but we heard that she was stuck in traffic. so we will take questions. i think most of us respect the fact that the president has done everything to keep americans safe, keep american troops safe, and if we get involved in any conflict, it would be for a good reason, and it is personally my opinion that i am a not voting to send american troops to fight in a civil war, that i am prepared to vote to send troops

to a country that i find that those people in that country are prepared to fight for themselves . at this stage in syria and iraq, --ell you that i have let have yet to see the people of syria and iraq is conducting themselves as a unified people ready to fight against the common enemy, and so for that reason, it is tough to meet to see us moving forward. everything that the president has done from the airstrikes to port a nation with our allies on the ground to coordinating with france and our european partners and our regional partners to try to help those who are fighting with isis, i think that what we are doing is making every effort to make sure that isis is not back, as we have seen as they are losing territory, but that they are ultimately defeated. i would also allow my colleagues

to respond as well. next question. yeah, here and here. >> [indiscernible] something that needs to be done and if not, [indiscernible] : as ian becerra mentioned, you hate to be driven by fear, or as i mentioned, things are worse in fear when -- in howeat people you treat people. i mentioned that some 70,000 i 11ees have come in since to this country, and not a one has ever faced arrest or terrorism or some type of terrorist activity. must goess that you through as a refugee to go into this country is extensive. it is long. you must go through the most

thorough of background checks. in fact, there is no form of person coming into the country from another land that requires more inspection, a more rigorous inspection, then those who qualify as refugees. so i am not sure what the legislation is that my republican colleagues might introduce, but if it is simply a primordial reaction, then i would say that what we would have to do is recognize that all americans want to make sure that we do nothing to jeopardize our freedom and our security here. can,st to everything we not just in the inspection and in the interrogation process or in the questioning process of anyone seeking refugee status, but make sure that we avoid having anyone come to this country who might have to do us harm, and we will have to do everything that will give the american people the sense that that is our job.

that than to say that some child or a mother should be denied refugee status after going through a rigorous process to qualify, who has proven that she ,ears death, torture persecution, would be such a sin on our american values, that i think it is important before reacting before i say it must be important to wait and see what this legislation says. but if the process is more rigorous than what we have, then i think you are going to find a lot of people very receptive. what i think if it says to shut the door to people who fear the for their life -- who fear for their life, and we have a process that rigorously inspects think that is an overreaction based on fear, perhaps hate, and i would hate to see that. perhaps my colleagues have a response as well. i do think crowley:

it is important to point out that, in our first responsibility, i think the federal government must protect the united from foreign invasion, and those who choose to harm us. i think the president is doing everything that he believes in conjunction with the coordination of -- in conjunction and coordination with the experts. he also said he is open to any suggestions and ideas that they may have. be also working in anything that is helpful in containing daesh in the region and helping those in the region from washington, d.c. all the way to omaha, nebraska. reaction, it in terms of mr. ryan's move to bring a bill to the floor, i wish we would have that same kind of action in terms of overall comprehensive

immigration issues, which has languished, never brought to the floor, not a single floor -- single bill brought to the floor. instead, it has been a knee-jerk movement based on fear, and i would suggest politics. . politics.- this is not a time for a political answer, this is time for a solution. i understand american people have fear and i understand that they have a concern that what happened in paris may happen here. we are all concerned. we are human beings. but we need to do this in a deliberate fashion and a smart fashion. any of't yet heard from the experts who are having a meeting today, a close more -- closed door meeting today, i want more information before they begin rushing to judgment or making those kinds of decisions. i think that is what the republican leadership in the speaker need to do as well. mike?

mike: [indiscernible] chairman becerra: i think we are all looking for a way to make the refugee program work well or to help those who are truly in fear of their life or their children's lives. i don't think any of us have an issue with that. i want to make sure that if someone comes into this country, they have the right intentions. i think that is absolutely appropriate, and not only do the american people deserve it, they demand it. i think you are going to find will american person demand it. shutting the door on a person who is seeking asylum or refuge is not arab tradition. in fact, i think we can all think of one issue back in 1939 of the voyage of st. louis,

where 1000 people were seeking refuse -- refuge. seeking that set is because they were jews and we turn that ship away and as a result, we know that probably one fourth of those people perished in concentration camps. so we are not talking about people who just want to come into this country, certainly not people who want to do this country harm. we are just talking about folks for economic reasons were trying to flee. we are talking about people who have to try to prove that if they don't get refugee relief, they made time. -- they may die. they may be tortured. so i don't believe america intends to close its doors on people like that and i don't believe the american people would want that. i believe the american people

will continue to recognize that some of them are the sons and the daughters of the very refugees and they want us to uphold our status as a democracy that fights for freedom for all, including those who seek refugee status. represented crowley: i think we also need to understand what kind of indication that will be, what kind of message is sent to turkey, what kind of message is sent to saudi arabia, for instance, who doesn't do enough, or they don't do anymore, when there are people who are not threatened with economic disaster or political consequences. this is about rape. this is about beheading. this is about the wanton massacre and genocide of people that we have to help prevent. and as the chairman has mentioned, there is a rigorous, rigorous program that they have to go through in order to gain entry hearing to the united

states, so i think we have to examine that. if there is something that we can do to improve that, i think we should improve that, if there is something we can do to root out the possibility of a terrorist entering united states, of course we have to fix that. but turning it off is not the answer as well. >> [indiscernible] german -- chairman becerra: lorna, are you asking the statement? [laughter] "would hear governors say, don't bring any of those folks into my state." first of all, a governor doesn't have a right to say that. here in the united states, if

you are here legally, you have the right to travel, and i don't believe the governor haslam right to say, "you can't come into my state." thank god for the constitution, first. ,econdly, for someone to say "you, on the side of the room, yes, you will be allowed in, you, on the other side of the room, you are not, and therefore, your persecution may lead to your death." that, as the son of immigrants, that hurts. we are mr. bush got that idea, i have no idea. i am christian. i'm catholic. you can easily say we will accept christians but not muslims, can we then say, in 1939, we will accept christians but not jews? will accept christians, we will accept them if they are

protestant but not if they are catholic? the idea of refugee status is that you feel persecution not because you are a jew, not because you are christian or muslim, it is because you fear for your life, and if anyone, especially if you are running for office of the highest, to the highest office of this land, my god, please explain yourself. profiling, stop making people feel like they are bad something because they happen to becoming from the same country as there is so much turmoil in. do not paint people with a broad brush. thatve seen the results of back in world war ii and otherwise, and i think it is just the ugly part of this discussion and it is surfacing way to quickly, and i hope it changes. yes, at this stage, we will have to hold off on that, but if there are any further questions, we will take that as well. yes.

>> [indiscernible] cerra: you know, and that is scary that as much as you hear the bellicose words of want to send your children, your son or daughter to war, to fight a civil war in those same people who are calling for us to send our troops, put them on the ground in combat, they have yet have thelet's authorization to use military force so that congress actually gives the constitutional authority for the president to do that." i find that to be cowardice on the part of those politicians who talkedup, who -- tough but won't act tough, and who are unwilling to put their own sons or daughters in line to put boots on the ground and to say your center dot or has boots

on the ground. we will take a quick word from mr. mingus who will talk about why it is so important on the .ssue of immigration i thinktative crowley: this is about an event that took i think years ago, and it is a quite different entity. in this ever-changing world that we live in, we need to update this and every member of congress who is not here back then, they had the opportunity to express him or herself as to their belief to the direction that the united states should go. as the chairman said, it is one thing to speak ella kos and use and to use, but --

, but it is bellicose another thing to go along and get along. erra: as difficult as it is to navigate in this country, sometime it is difficult to be inside this country. pleased to bee inside this building and we are pleased that mr. mingus is in here, and we would like to hear how the son of mr. -- the daughter of mr. mingus has the dominguez that miss is in here, and we would like to hear how the daughter of mr. dominguez is here to give her thoughts. i am so proud to be here and to come out of the shadows. we are here to live without fear. when president obama announced

suspension, myca family cried. my husband and i lived in fear partition.ion -- the -- deportation. [indiscernible] we would not be able to have a family. we would not be able to graduate from high school. we have worked too hard and worked so long to contribute to this country. the time is now to implement daca for my family and all of would helps that from these benefits.

thank you. : thank you very much. miss dominguez: [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]

chairman becerra: gracias. thank you, mr. mingus, for those words, thank you for your , fornt -- miss dominquez those words, thank you for your courage, and thank you for doing that for your family and your children? -- children. any questions? >> [indiscernible] i think becerra: clearly what all of this manifests is that there needs to be a system that works properly, whether it is our refugee system, aching sure that it is

rigorous and robust, making sure that only those were qualified are coming into this country, and i would say so far, our system has worked very well and moving forward, we will make sure that it is even tighter than necessary, but as someone who has built his country, and is building a future for her kids, we need a system that works right for her. for her to be here for 15 years, it shows you that we have to move forward because people and families who have made this their home for the right reasons, so we hope to be able to have reform that deals in a comprehensive way with its refugee status, asylum issues, -- orthe gratian immigration through the visa process, or in dealing in a righteous way, with the 11 million people in the country without documentation. it is time to make it work and

not say, we are not going to deal with it right now. i want to be able to see miss dominguez smile as her son graduates from congress. rep. crowley: i would like to add -- from high school. rep. crowley: i would like to never broughtouse this up in spite of the promises by then-speaker boehner that a bill would be brought to the floor. nothing ever was. there was talk about how the president can never be trusted. well, who can trust them? trust, you know, when you point the finger at someone, there is a finger-pointing back. chairman becerra: thank you very much. miss dominguez: >> c-span has the best access to congress.

or on your phone at c-span.org. listen any time on our c-span radio app. follow c-span and our capitol hill reporter on there. stay with c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org for your best access to congress. not electf all i was that. so it did not make that much difference. i did notice the difference between being the vice president's wife and the president's wife was huge. the vice president's wife could say anything and nobody cared. the minute you say anything as the presidents wife, you are of the news. i had to learn that. officeara bush used the

to help with education. she was the first first lady besides abigail adams to be both the wife and the mother of a president. c-span's original series, first ladies. their influence on the presidency from marcia washington to michelle obama, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. >> members of the house of representatives met yesterday in a closed door session for a briefing on the paris terrorist attacks. briefing, house members spoke to reporters. this is 20 minute.

>> first of all, i just came from a classified briefing. , the state department, and the dod. we reviewed -- i reviewed our thestic security situation, number of domestic security enhancements in the last couple of days and in the last weeks , given the world situation. i stress we should continue to evaluate if more is necessary. we talked about what is going on

in the cities, with the mayors are doing, what the police departments are doing. toare in continuous contact determine if more is necessary. we talked to mass transit, organizations representing businesses, and we talked about the refugees. is in unprecedented crisis in the world. i believe a lot of countries right now are looking to the united states for leadership. i believe there is a general recognition that the united states needs to lead. to ourld step up humanitarian obligation and do so carefully. we should vet people have leave pursuant to our process. our process has improved over the last several years. we consult with lots of different agencies. it is a careful, time-consuming

process. we are committed to continuing that process with regard to syrian refugees. to remember, syrian refugees, for the most part, the ones we have admitted our women and children. they are the support victims of the violence that is occurring and that part of the world. to edition and heritage as a country to step up these peopleme of who are desperate, looking for a better place and a better life. as secretary of homeland security, i am committed to ensuring that the screening process for refugees is one that thatreful and to that we refugees against

the information we have. this might turn into a situation where they try to defund this? a lot of a -- republicans think this is not sufficient. uci as is the -- uci us is the agency that does the vetting. the only public fund's ago are for e-verify. others are naturalization fees. sos for green cards and forth. it is an organization that pays for itself. part of the programs they run the is the vetting for refugees done in conjunction with the state department. it is very important to the members of congress and to me conduct vetting that is

that is thorough, careful. it is betteri know than it used to be and we are going to continue on this path because there is an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the world and other nations are stepping up. we should do so, too. we're looked to for leadership. >> secretary johnson? >> got a go. that ago. got to go. >> the majority leader said that -- [indiscernible] >> well, because the fbi are recently, asring

well as jeh johnson another's that you cannot do a full vetting of the syrians because there is no third-party to contact in syria where you can get information on them. when the folks in the administration are saying, we cannot get the vetting and background check and the president says where going to bring them anyway, we need to say, wait a minute. let's look at this process. when i have tried to come up with is an approach that does not say we will not allow refugees, because this country has a big heart and we have a big heart for refugees and we worked to bring in the people that are the most vulnerable and are seeking shelter from -- from bombs and those kinds of things. but we need upper vetting of refugees. to's ask the fbi director put a process in place so we have background checks. if that cannot be done, then we

cannot allow them in. >> do you think this has in any way put out concerns about trying to defund? the omnibus bill about trying to keep open? >> we are working very closely with democrats and leadership offices because we hope that by taking a reasonable approach, by laying out a process where we can move forward, that we can get them across to come on board with us. i have one and we have been , i have nottwo days been in my office i have been in a briefing without my phone. [indiscernible] >> we have to put some infrastructure in place where we can have a background check and we have to figure out how we can do that. made a deal with folks that have

relatives in the country that we know something about. has got to be a process in place. to date there is not and we're just bringing 10,000 people in without vetting them properly. , let's haveaying is a piece in place before we bring them in. in consultation with others determine each person is not a risk or a terrorist threat. how can you avoid appearing callis? say with devon infrastructure, a way to do this. and people are saying, they want to close the borders. >> when i am back home in north carolina it is not just republicans that are telling me their word. republicans and the macarthur word. i am hoping we can have a bipartisan vote where we come together and say, look, we're a country who allows refugees and

but they must be properly vetted so we're going to stop this process until a process is an place where we feel confident we are being protect it. i have to think about what i can say because it was a private briefing. it is hard for me to answer that question. >> can you further reiterate or backup why you -- it reinforced the notion that is vetting process we have weak and bringing these 10000 and now poses a grave risk that terrorists could exploit it. i will certainly continue to believe we need legislation. >> it sounds like your proposal

would just require certification from the fbi. >> it depends upon what you call vet. do we have a background check? is, we look atg all of the databases of all of the federal agencies and if they are not in there, we let them in. that is not good enough. we need to do it properly. the fbi director testified we need to be able to contact third parties, look at other databases , do a whole background check on these folks before we even go through the vetting process. if they do not have that information, we need to stop the process until we do. >> do you have any information with the white house? >> no. i have been tried to get democrats on board.

a lot of republicans jump on quickly, but i'm trying to reach out to democrats so they understand what this legislation does. my hope is that it will be bipartisan. >> have you had any conversation on the senate side? >> no. but i believe what i want to do a similar to what they want to do. if we can put up a good bipartisan number, my hope is the senate will you get up. >> were kind of response are you getting from democrats? >> positive. them across i have talked to are very cautious. rhetorica lot of fiery going around. don't let any syrians and. don't let any muslims in. that is certainly not my approach and it has been welcomed. it is cautious, but they have been open to talk about it. >> it sounds like you screened some of the rhetoric.

-- isn't is like you have seen some of the rhetoric. >> i have not really seen it, but to say we're going to stop it or only allow one religion or dother is not the weight to it. there are a lot of christians being persecuted, that troubles me personally. muslimse also a lot of being persecuted. rather than pick one over the other, let us have a process and place where we know we can vet these folks and we can stop those who are a risk from coming in. >> thank you. >> thinks. thanks. the issue is the database and the vetting process. everyone agrees there is a threat. everyone agrees refugees are in crisis and the united states should and could help.

the problem is whether is no database, no information, how do you vet? when you go to different services, different organizations and you are running on the same data that does not exist, then there are holes and gaps. to challenge in congress is fill those gaps and make sure the vetting process is slowed down and make sure we close all the holes in the gaps. think this is a political issue between democrats and republicans and is there any kind of division? this first remarks weren't is not a democrat or republican issue. issues an american because if issa strikes it will kill americans. we have to rise above the politics. officer andmilitary a former deputy of special operations in iraq, an

individual who has spent a lot of time looking for individuals and trying to sort through who is a terrorist, who is not, who is sympathetic, who is not, it is a laborious process. but certainly the vetting process now needs oversight. we could slow it down to make the holes inify the process and stop the threat or at least mitigated to where does acceptable. right now, i do not think the threat response is acceptable given what we have had in paris. 9/11 was not that long ago. butave improved since 9/11, again, when there is no database, i think the process should be we put the brakes on a little. pushback to any on theforts

certification process? >> i do not think there was a great deal of pushback. notink most of congress is satisfied but willing to work with us, which i think is positive. i think three things. one is we have to rise above politics on this and make sure we have the right vetting process and place. the right oversight. holes, we needy to fill those holes and make sure the vetting process is correct and have some assurance we are not going to have terrorists among refugees. the points were made that many of the refugees are women and and children. many of our troops who died in iraq were the result of women and children, too. ishave to recognize there

that. just because you are a woman does not mean you are not equal to carrying out operations or being sympathetic to operations. again, the challenge in syria and the middle east is a lack of databases. when there is a database, is that database credible? >> in an interview on cnn they said there were four individuals in paris. is that something you conferred about today? >> on that, i am going to have to defer. it was discussed and that is as far as i can give details. [indiscernible]

>> as a former seal, i can tell you what was discussed in a broad overview. the majority of the discussion had to do with vetting the refugees. of course, i am worried about our southern borders. it was brought up that every refugee is vetted, but every individual that has come across with a password from the european union is not vetted today. the reports are about 5000 or so eu citizens have gone back-and-forth into syria. that is a staggering number. we need to do better identifying that and making sure their next stop after syria is not europe and then landing in new york and creating the same cells.

>> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> overall, i would say it was a positive meeting. >> you have any other news about what happened there? the question is, have i learned anything new? i think it confirmed a lot of reports that tyler open-source. notink most of the media is far off. they are on the target and they in the bathtub, they are not in the middle but they are reasonable and conclusive. -- the best book, they are not in the middle but they are reasonable and conclusive. as far as her television -- information pushing forward, a lot is media. it a discussion to be push forward is about vetting. aere was a consensus that as

country we have to do our part, but the overwhelming majority,'s slew the republicans, feel we are not convinced the vetting process does not have holes and we will work with the administration to fill those holes. if we have to slowed on the process, that is didn't. -- didn't. --prudent. the vetting process needs to be reviewed. the vetting process needs oversight for one agency so it cannot operate unilaterally. it is in the consensus. that we need more consensus. with three branches in our government and each branch should have oversight. but, when one agency executes thenhing about oversight,

there is always suspicion. there is doubt. i think we need to make this transparent, you know, more open on how we got into that discussion about, again, the process on vetting to ensure the american people are doing it the right way. you.ank >> you are welcome. >> house members came to the houseto condemn the attacks in press. here are two of those speeches. >> thank you, mr. speaker. france and the people of the united states have shared a common bond of liberty and equality for over 200 years. in the face of the recent terrorist attacks in paris, that

bond brings us now even closer in unity and in solidarity. we stand with the french people as they mourn. we stand with the friends and families of those who were killed like miss gonzalez, a young california state university long beach student studying abroad in paris. we also stand with our cal state long beach family in their mourning. though emmy's death is a personal loss for each and every one of us. it tears at the very bonds of fraternity that embrace every member of our cal state long beach family, and the long beach community. emmy was a daughter, a friend, and a mentor. just 23 years of age, she was a

vibrant student. and what those who knew her have . lled, quotes, a shining star she committed herself to learning. she traveled across the globe to express and to explore her talents, her creativity, and the world. now all that seems broken. yes, we grieve for her, but we also grieve for all the victims in paris. we grieve for their families, the friends, and all their loved ones. we grieve for each and every one of them. today we are all part of the human family. , as a family, we mourn her our shining star. but in our mourning, let us

remember something very, very important. this was not an attack on paris, though paris was the target. this was not an attack on the french people, though the french people were the target. this was an attack on what unites us, our shared humanity and our shared values of liberty. d in that humanity, in those values, we will find the strength to stand strong in the face of senseless violence. because in the end the humanity that unites us is what frightens those who would do us harm. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, for five minutes. mr. yoder: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, america and her allies are under attack by islamic extremism. the despicable act of terrorism the world witnessed over the weekend in paris, france, serves as a stark reminder of the threat posed by isis knows no borders. french officials have indicated that at least one of the paris attackers linked to isis was admitted into europe as a refugee from syria. nevertheless, the administration's made it clear that in spite of this it will continue to seek to bring up to 10,000 syrian refugees to america in the coming year. the president's refugee proposal places the interests of other nations ahead of the safety and security of the american people. because we are unable to verify whether the next attacker is within their midst, we must halt the flow of any refugees into the united states from syria. mr. speaker, in light of these

attacks, now is not the time to open our borders to refugees from countries who wish to do our citizens harm. congress stands ready to legislate or use the power of the purse >> on today's washington journal, we look at how congress is dealing with the syrian refugee crisis. parisen we look at attacks and the isis strategy. deborah bylowed by dell who will discuss anxiety and the treatment for ptsd. >> sunday. >> item the first woman to reach four stars.

the cnl is traveling for the town, i was in norfolk, virginia, and he asked to see me. i presumed it was about the next job i was going to. they were looking at me for being a four-star, and your a couple different opportunities where i think you would do well. howard talks about becoming the first female four-star admiral in the history of the navy. she also discusses the history in the navy priority to becoming a four star. she talks about how she helped --capture the man who was rescue the man who was captured by somali tyrants. on the jobfew days captain phillips was kidnapped. it was our responsibility as a task force to get him back

safely. a surpriseviously mission and a challenge. we got him back. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. signature feature of c-span2 book tv is our coverage of book fairs and festivals from country with nonfiction author talks, interviews, and fewer segments. coming up, we will be live from the 30th annual miami book fair. authors include john lewis talking about his book. a live call-in with wall street journal columnist peggy noonan. and journalist judith miller joins us to talk about her book. and news man ted koppel talks about his book. on sunday, speak with the authors live. takes your calls

about his book. and another author will take calls about her book about the obama, and thek racial divide. be sure to follow and sweetness your questions. us your questions. your questions. employee service misconduct, including the leaking of personal records were testified about. testifying, was the man who investigated the incident. this is 2 hours.

chairman: the house committee on homeland security and governmental affairs subcommittee on regulatory affairs and management will come to order. the purpose of this hearing is to examine failures in the secret service government wide. the chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. office ofer, the dhs the expect or general of the oig released a report on its four month long investigation into improper access and distribution informationt -- of within the secret service. the information was alarming. employees accessed information on employment and passed the information on and senior

employment did nothing to stop it. john rossgeneral stated that the episode was deeply disturbing. director clancy said he had a different account of what he initially told oig. investigators subsequently had mr. clancy and had to re-issue a report. this leaves questions unanswered. secret service not act and how and why did the director change his testimony immediately after the oig report was released. the american people demand answers. as the serving as this incident is, it is only one example of incidences where secret service employees's showed poor judgment. earlier this year, senior agents who may have been under the influence of alcohol, compromised the white house when

it was being investigated for a suspicious package. mr. clancy was not immediately informed. there was also a report of a 2011 incident where agents reported to the home, incident thathome had a violation of the employee code of ethics. the latest report are another example related to the damage of trust of the secret service. when scandal after scandal act, itand it fails to is cause for great concern. abusehe secret service abuseauthority, they their respect of the american people.

the panel made broad recommendations in 2014 related to training of personnel, perimeter technology, and leadership. ofre was a broad roadmap providing service. i expect director clancy to hasy explain today what been it lamented the panel's recommendations. we must also understand what is being done to improve the overall management of the secret service. i am also concerned that civil -- similar abuses and shortcomings could be involved in other agencies. to understandt what policies and safeguards are in place to prevent organizations to abuse, and if it happened in this service, what is to say that other federal agencies are any better? beyond hearing must be

pointing fingers. we expect the highest from the secret service and we want the service to be successful. it is critical to its well-being and as we saw from excellent work during the papal visit, correction, during the united nations assembly, they can work with focus and leadership. i look forward to hearing more on how this secret service can overcome recent obstacles and improve the culture of this critical agency. thechair now recognizes gentleman from oklahoma, mr. langford, for his statement. thank you for holding this hearing with our subcommittee as well. aam trying to think about more awkward situation about how we are seated here, but we are

seated so far away and i do appreciate that it will be an open dialogue as we walk through this together. i also hope this sheds some important light on this. at the outset, i would like to acknowledge the role that the secret service holds. we do very much appreciate the service the secret service has done for a nation, however, the recenthistory of scandals can be swept under the rug. the secret service continue to misuse its ability to misinform jason chaffetz. to report noted 60 instances the database by 45 secret service employees the violated

the secret service act, as well as internal policies. the report also noted that 18 senior secret service executives failed to stop this unauthorized access or in form director clancy of these authorized -- unauthorized accesses. on its face, such widespread violations are deeply disturbing. they do not question if this was the only time that they had inappropriately used the database. in the internet age, there is thiss the concern of information that could be misused. to me, there is a much bigger issue. in these days, millions of --ricans's personal data americans' personal data is stored across multiple agencies.

2014, the amount of -- many agencies have failed to foment hundreds of recommendations to remedy security control and vulnerabilities. these security weaknesses continue to exist and millions of americans house by the irs, hhs, the v.a., and other , just thise at risk month. the social security administration paid monetary awards 250 employees who were previously discovered to have accessed personal information to others without authorization. 50 employees without authorization got in the end were rewarded -- were rewarded in the end breaking the law. a lower was retaliated

against for shedding light on inadequate suicide practices at va hospital. illegallyyees accessed his private medical records after he brought to light the shameful behavior occurring at the va hospital where he served. we question is now, how do fix this problem so that americans believe that the secret service will protect their information and not use it for nefarious means? i would like to thanks inspector clancy and co-inspector ross -- hoff for presenting today. i look forward to discussing each of these issues. the chair now: recognizes the gentlelady from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman. i want ton coleman: thank you for holding today's

hearings. director clancy, i want to personally extend my condolences on the loss of your father. i thank you for your testimony, and i also want to thank the men and women of the secret service for their diligence and hard work in the recent papal visit. as a member of the committee of homeland security and the committee on oversight reform, i am well aware of the gravity of the secret service's mission, particularly its duty in protecting the president, protect foreign dignitaries, and oversees security mystically and abroad. that them confident overwhelming majority of the men and women of the secret service take their job seriously and highest level of professionalism, i'm worried about lapses of judgment in senior management. it is obvious that there is a

wide lack of leadership, however, this did not just began under director clancy's leadership. these issues have plagued the secret service for years. last year, secretary johnson asked the panel to a favorite secret service. according to the report, the secret service needed a culture change. they needed to foster greater accountability among the staff, water eyes administrative function, and including adjusting the hours for special agents, and improving their training. after the panel dismantled, the inspector general continued to cooperate their findings. -- corroborate their findings.

general found that the staffing and scheduling practices of the secret service contributes to officer fatigue and that this could pose immediate danger to the protect these -- protectees. the secret service considered the findings and isolated incident. the inspector general's most recent findings shows that access the agency has a deeply rooted cultural problem that is not being addressed. thatnspector general found over 40 agents had improperly accessed the personal records of members of congress through an antiquated database. according to the inspector general's findings, secret service leadership, including the director and the deputy director, did not recognize the severity, and dismissed that data breach as a rumor. instead of general -- instead of

dealing with the information, they discussed the database access at a luncheon. the inspector general found that director oft training oversaw all aspects of career development and capacity training for the agency, and suggested that the information contained in this database be leaked to embarrass a congressman. mr. chairman, while this isident is reprehensible, it not good for us to speak of it in isolation. finally, i know that the secret service cannot improve with no help from congress. therefore, i need to know to hear from the director what he he needs from us for staffing but also technological needs, but also, i need to know from the director

what his plans for the agency are. when the top-level turns a blind eye, this is an issue. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. chairman perry: and now we turned to the gentlelady from north dakota for any statements that she may have. perry andou, chairman cochairman langford, i first want to say thank you for the brave men and the brave women who serve in the secret service. fewe i understand the last months and few years have been marked by high profile misconduct,f agency i know and you know that the majority of our agents work hard and put their lives on the line every day to protect the white house, has presidents, presidential candidates, and many officials and foreign presidents,-- past

presidential candidates, and many officials and foreign dignitaries. i know what a few people can do to the morale of an entire organization, and i know that just by looking at the faces behind you, is to clancy, i know the impact that these discussions have had. spirit of, let's work together to make the secret service what the secret service should be, the most respected law enforcement agency in america. let's restore the morale of your agents, and let's work together in collaboration and cooperation to change this dynamic and to once again have your agents stand tall, if they tell their agents -- if they tell their friends and neighbors that they work for the secret service. that is why i am here today, is to remember and to remind therene on this dais that

are literally thousands of men and women who every day walk alongside cars, willing to sacrifice their lives and serve protection as leaders -- for the leaders of this country. not one person can take away the bravery of those men and women, and so clearly, we have some issues to discuss, there is no doubt about it. thehave already heard about concerns that we have today. reason for being here and for being interested in this topic is really to restore the morale and restore the integrity of the secret service so that all of the brave men and women who have done nothing wrong in the secret service can once again hold their heads high. -- ince again, i yield yield back the balance of my time. chairman perry: thank you.

we recognize the gentleman from mississippi for his statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think the subcommittee and the senate subcommittee on regulatory affairs for holding today's hearing, and i also think director clancy and inspector ross -- roth for being here today. i want to thank the men and women of the secret service doing both the papal visit and the anniversary of the united nations, and the dedication of the office of the secret service is admirable. unfortunately, their tireless work is taught -- is mired in the issues within the agency. beforessues lasted long director clancy's appointment. however, congress and the public and the offices and the agency

he leads hold him accountable. prior to director clancy's this panel, known as the protective mission panel, has several glaring findings and recommendations. livy's findings was articulated through many years of oversight within the secret service. needsw enforcement agency to undergo a cultural change that includes leadership that is capable of fostering greater accountability. pannell stated that the agency's star for leadership. -- the panel stated that the agency is starved for leadership. the panel completed its review, and the office of the inspector

general the inspector general found these four supervisors turned a blind eye too two government agents, including the head of the president protection detail, disrupted a bomb investigation while driving impaired into a barricade at the white house. last month, the inspector general found at least 45 agents improperly assessed the personnel database to retrieve information in an attempt to embarrass a member of congress. of those agents that may have broken the law by improperly accessing the database, 18 of them were at the levels. the findings concluded the director of the secret service, his deputy director and chief of

staff failed to take seriously that agents were discussing information about the congressman's personnel file. theinspector general made finding that the assistant general of training, the person appointed by director clancy to manage and direct all aspects of personnel, career development and professionalism suggested the information found in the database delete in retaliation to congressional oversight. the secret service will be expanding and undergoing a rigorous hiring phase. there will be looking to their leaders for guidance. as the secret service expands, it is our responsibility as

members of congress to assist the secret service with adequate necessary funding for its mission, both the protective mission and the inspector indicated fatigue can place protect he's at risk. the agency needs to have its capacity to properly vet employees before they begin work rather than continuing the practice of having uncleared personnel working in sensitive areas such as the white house. the new recruits should represent america and have opportunities for investment. as of right now, the secret service's direct diversity numbers are dismal. furthermore, it would be hard for law enforcement agencies commitment to equal opportunity and inclusion to be taken seriously with the class-action racial discrimination lawsuit still hanging over the secret service's head and the secret

service using everything tactic it can instead of resolving the lawsuit amicably. there needs to be changes in the secret service. i know the deeply rooted problems will not be solved overnight but we have to get to the source of them consider continuously glossing over putting on band-aids and going forward with business as usual. i look forward to working with the secret service to dance its mission. with that, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the chairman reminds other members of the subcommittee that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have a distinguished panel. witnesses before us on this important topic. the entire written statements will be in the record. the chair will introduce all the witnesses first and then recognize each of you for your testimony. mr. joseph clancy, as appointed director of the secret

service, after serving as active director since october 2014. previously, mr. clancy served as a special agent in charge of the presidential protective division. mr. clancy began his career with the secret service in 1984 in the philadelphia field office. the honorable john roth was the inspector general for the homeland security in march 2014. previously, he served as a director of the office of criminal investigation for food and drug administration and assistant district attorney for the eastern district of michigan. welcome. mr. joel willemssen. of theging director information technology at the government accountability office where he leads the gao's evaluations of information technology across the federal government. 1979, hening gao in has led numerous reviews of the information technology systems and management at a variety of

federal agencies. welcome. thank you for being here. today, the chair recognizes mr. clancy for his opening statement. : good morning, mr. chairman. chairman langford, chairman terry, chairman johnson, ranking ander watson-coleman ranking member thompson. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i plan to address the findings of the recent report in the many improvements implemented over the past year designed to address the findings. i also look forward to discussing the numerous organizational changes we have made of the united states secret service and the like to express my gratitude and recognized the support of secretary johnson and the congress in making many of the changes possible. i said before you today a proud representative of the thousands of men and women who selflessly

execute the mission of this agency on a daily basis. recent accomplishments include simultaneous special security events surrounding the papal visit and the united nations general assembly, as well as a number of high profile investigations served to reinforce this feeling. in fact, in addition to initiating protection to presidential candidates last week, the secret service personnel are deployed around the world ensuring the president safety while in southeast asia and yet another example of their commitment and dedication to the mission. despite the secret service as many recent successes. i recognize the primary reason we are here today is to address the misconduct detailed in the report. arose thatigation the employees in a properly utilized a database to access the applicant record of an individual who is now a member of congress. the misconduct outlined is inexcusable and unacceptable.

this conduct is not supportive of the agency's unique position of public trust. on behalf of the men and women, i would like to publicly renew my apology to this breach of trust and a for my -- a firm i position -- affirm my position. advertise in the handling of the privacy act information. violations,of these the relevant policies and procedures were in place and could be found in the number of locations including the secret service ethics guide, the penalties, policy manuals and online training courses. i was angered by the disregard of these policies and i am determined to ensure all employees are held to the highest standard of professional conduct. as i have stated in prior occasions, i am committed to ensuring the calendar that he in this matter regardless of rank, the accountability -- ensuring

accountability in this matter regardless of rank. the proposals related to this event. more are on the way. discipline is being administered in accordance accountability tot service policy and i am confident these actions will be fair, appropriate and completed in a timely fashion. a contributing factor that motivates individuals to improperly access this information was that data. secret service recognizes this some years ago and began a process of modernizing its i.t. infrastructure to allow for such data to be compartmentalized and restrict the access to those with an official need to know. this process was completed in june. at this time, the system has been officially retired. with respect to applicant records, and number of employees with access to the new system has been were -- reduced by more

than 95%. finally has been made by my statement and the decision to reopen the investigation on october 5, 2015. prior to publicly releasing the provided a draft copy was reflected my statement that i became aware of the rumor on april 1. as my colleagues and i repeat -- reviewed the draft, i was a made aware of the rumor on march 3 five. when i was made aware of was a rumor with no indication of employees misconduct or accessing information. in order to ensure the accuracy and knowing the concern it would cause, i took the initiative to contact mr. ross prior to the report publication to ensure it was accurate and correct on this case. with respect to the recommendation tremendous progress has been made. say we haveo

significantly altered the way the secret service is structured and managed. we have made strides in hiring new members of our workforce and expanding training opportunities for current members. i'm also realistic and knowing many of the changes we are making will take time and we must continue to communicate these changes to our workforce. in the interest of time, i will point you to my written testimony submitted in advance for more thorough description of this process and look forward to discussing the progress on these recommendations with each of you today. i would like to close by remembering a remarkable leader and true friend, former assistant director terry clark. jerry is widely known for his decisive action he took march ronaldhe attempt on reagan. the decisions he made that day, including evacuating the

president directly to the process -- hospital, saved the president. as i reflected on his passing, i had the opportunity to review a speech he made to a graduating special agent training class in 1994. "intated and i quote, organizational coulter is a product of time, successes, sufferings, failures and just plain hard work. after 100 years or so, deep roots are developed and a corporate memory involved. while another agency can purchase equipment and technology similar to the secret service, they cannot buy the corporate memories. this is a priceless commodity." as the men and women of this agency traversed these challenging times, it is important to remember culture is from hard work and dedication which will prevail as a lasting corporate memory of the secret service. thank you and i welcome any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. clancy.

the chair recognizes mr. roth. mr. roth: chairman langford, ranking members and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify. we conducted a number investigations on the sections of the secret service programs and we have a number of ongoing projects. a written testimony describes some of the work. in theoral remarks discussions and allegations of the secret service to restricted database discovered details of the chairman's application of the secret service. as other ongoing work. agencyd the application was accessed by secret service employees in approximately 60 occasions from march 25 to april 2 of this year. we concluded the vast majority of those who accessed information did so in violation asthe privacy act of 1974

well as secret service and dhs policies. we identified one individual would knowledge -- who acknowledged. because of the number of individuals who access the information was so great, we were unable to identify others who disclosed information to third parties. we found the axes begin minutes after the director testified before the committee on oversight on march 24 and continued in the days following paire. fueled andd an confirmed. we found a number of senior managers were accessing the information improperly and some access to themselves. other senior managers were aware they applied to the secret service but did not comprehend the seriousness.

no one acted until it was too late to stop his unlawful activity. our investigation also reveals the mci, a case management tool in 1994, did not have the audit and access controls of a modern i.t. system or progra april appropriately discriminate the information. appropriate safeguards to ensure the safety and security and confidentiality of the records. additionally, the secret service must ensure only reboulet -- relevant information is in the database. maintains they have the information about the records of the individual that is relevant and necessary. the fact that the mci had records from an unsuccessful application from 12 years earlier which contained

sensitive information which could lead to identity theft may violate the privacy act. were trainedagents in the system and receive yearly refresher training, it was apparent many of the agents this regarded it. -- disregarded it. data to aboutall five other secret service information systems in september 2015. our office of information currently audits is conducting a technical security assessment of the information systems that the secret service now uses to store information. we expect to complete that assessment in the final report in february 2016. over the past year and a half, part of our independent oversight effort, we have investigated various incidents to allegations of misconduct and other issues related to the secret service organization and mission.

the results were investigating and point to ongoing organizational and management challenges. the secret service has taken steps to address these challenges but not always successfully. additionally, we are reviewing three incidents involving potential security lapses. for each incident, shot being fired at the white house, an intruder white -- dubbing over the fence, and an armed guard getting close to the president, we are figuring out if the secret service went through its own policies and whether these corrections will adequate. the ultimate aim of the review is to determine and understand the root causes of these lapses. in this fiscal year, we plan to issue three reports as well as a report that identifies the root causes and includes any other necessary overarching recommendations. this concludes my prepared statements. i welcome any questions you or

any other members may have. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. willemssen. mr. willemssen: thank you, chairman, ranking members, chairman johnson, ranking member thompson. members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting us to testify today. as requested, i will briefly summarize our statement on information security across the federal government. we expanded as high risk designation to include computerized systems supporting the nation's critical infrastructure and the protection of privacy and personally identifiable information.

the cyber threats facing our country continues to be very serious. the impact of these threats is highlighted by recent incident involving breaches of sensitive, personally identifiable information and a sharp increase in information security incidents reported by federal agencies over the last several years whichever is in from about 2006 to about and 2014. given the risks posed by external and internal threats and the increasing number of incidents, it is crucial federal agencies take appropriate steps to ensure their systems and data. however, we and inspectors general have identified significant weaknesses and needed security controls. , 19 of 24e, 2014 major federal agencies declared

information security as a material weakness for significant deficiency. most of these agencies have reported weaknesses in key control areas that we track, including controls intended to prevent, limit for detect unauthorized or inappropriate and data.networks in particular, the work has shown that too many agency employees have too much on -- unnecessary access to too many systems to databases. agencies need to implement clear policies on access to sensitive information. and grant access permission to users at the minimum level necessary to perform legitimate job-related tasks on a need to know basis. deploying effective accountability mechanisms detracts user accessibility and it is essential in ensuring improper access could quickly be

detected and remedied. to address the many information security weaknesses at federal agencies, gao has made thousands of recommendations. over the last six years gao has made 2000 recommendations to improve information security programs and controls. 58% of these recommendations have been implemented. until agencies take action to address weaknesses and implement gao and hygiene -- recommendations. networks and sensitive information, including personally identifiable information would be at increased risk from internal annex earl threats, actions to implement regulations will strengthen systems and data security. and reduce the risk of cyber intrusion or attacks. that concludes the summary of my statement and i look forward to

addressing your questions. thank you. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes himself or questions. mr. roth, how many subpoenas regarding the chaffitz incidents and the master central index, how they subpoenas were issued? >> i believe it was only one. >> so why, if multiple individuals breached of the information and may have compromised it, why would only one subpoena be issued? y with a not be multiple subpoenas -- why would there not be multiple subpoenas? >> most of the data received was from multiple data systems. the only time we have to subpoena information is if we go to a third party like a telephone record provider. typically, it is our policy in these kinds of circumstances to

have a level of predication before we go and subpoena somebody's personal telephone records. we had predication only on one individual rather than the hundreds who may have that access to the information. >> even those that admitted to wrongdoing. >> that is correct. >> what is the index search for other improper access incidences. >> the insect -- index itself was created in 1984. it did not have the ability to readily do the kinds of corrections -- forensics he would do on a modern system. do was were required to actually write scripts, programs to be able to find access to the information. it is a time-consuming kind of thing. because of the necessity to find answers as quickly as we could, we restricted it to chairman name.haffitz's

>> would it be correct to say we have no idea in regard to that master central index that any other americans, other citizens have had similar things occur regarding the personally identifiable information whether it was the vault store search -- the voltage or cert -- the are you talking kidding divulged?l-- >> correct. >> i understand you have thousands of employees. this is not to this march the credibility -- besmirch the credibility of your agency. how does something like this happen? secret service agents use government information, access

databases and then use equipment, time, materials to private citizens property without any cause of anything? is that essentially -- that is my narrative. what is yours and how does that happen? >> i was not here during that timeframe so i will rely on some briefings when i first came into it as acting director. that people made very poor decisions, misjudgments. it should not have happened. there were some changes made in our management. >> i will tell you, i imagine you are familiar with it. read you it.readll it is from your agency. moving forward, based on what has occurred regarding the information and data breach, i want to give you a flavor of what i see here.

an employee is entitled to the employee entitled to, the employee is titled to. -- entitled to. provided with, the employee should have an opportunity to, the employee is entitled to. you kind of get my jusgist. what of the consequences of the actions of 45 or 41 employees who access this data and whoever --seminated it over 60 times what are the consequences to those individuals? we see what the employee's rights are, but what are the consequences -- how does mr. ffetz get his reputation back? where do things stand? >> mr. chairman, secretary johnson and i met and talked

about this in the true sense of transparency because myself and my executive staff have been interviewed in this case. we made a joint decision that the department of homeland security would make the proposal and in this case, -- i have heard the comments murdered -- made today. they are reprehensible, disturbing and embarrassing. i agree with everything. mes hearing today will help get this word out, the importance of protecting pii. we have the training and ethics guide we go out and train our recruits. but a hearing like this puts a definitive stance on our failures. dress your question, in this case, we are proposing as of -- i don't know the number -- approximately 42 will be issued a proposal of discipline ranging from anywhere

from the -- three days to 12 days of suspension. -- themaximum is 12 days chair will indulge himself in time right here -- the maximum penalty, the maximum repercussion -- we all know that when you look at these computer systems, there is a warning that they should be used for official business only. we all know. as your folks know, as secrett security clearance -- using this information for what it was used for was incorrect, unauthorized, illegal. the most we can hope for, the disciplinary and is not a loss of your secret security clearance, not a loss of your employment, it is 12 basis pension? his accurate -- 12 days suspension? is that correct? >> those proposals have been issued as of today.

the ses level folks have not had their discipline proposed as a this date. >> is mr. lowery that employee? what is the range of options of discipline for consequence for mr. lowery? if you can inform us. maybe you are still concluding your and forget -- investigation, but what can we expect? >> reprimand all the way up to removal. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you for your questions. to affirm my time -- defer my time. >> thank you, chairman. incident thatery we know of, there seems like there was not an adult in the room, that there was no one who provided the voice of saying, hey, guys, this is not the way

to do this. we have a responsibility. while we look at management and resources, you said in your testimony you talked about how the corporate culture of the secret service is a priceless commodity. every day, that prices commodity gets threatened by agents not willing to be the adult in the room. not willing to be the person who stands up and says knock it off because you cannot do it just from a management standpoint. you have to change the culture at the bottom. i think that is my the concerns we have is that it seems like all of this has happened with a great impunity. you cannot touch me. as the chairman just talk about or it is ok to do this. i want to know as we look at management changes, as we look at systemic rules and policies, both rules and policies are only as good as the commitment that people at every level within the

secret service have for change. what are you doing within the secret service to build capacity for people to be the adult in the room, to stop this at the source and say this is not what we do in the secret service? >> thank you, senator. the discipline system we have in place now is relatively new. it is proximally two years old. which includes a table of penalties. in the past, discipline was handled at a local level. now, everything is funneled up to our office of integrity. >> i only to interrupt but i am not talking of discipline i am talking about culture. consequences are part of changing the culture but what about the integrity at every level? basically saying we don't do this, we don't know to hotels and higher -- hire people to service us. we'll drive into the white house and disrupt a major investigation.

we don't access a congressman secrets record. we don't do that. who is the person and how are we training people at every level to stand up and stop this behavior because i don't think we can do it just having hearings like this. i think we have got to restore this priceless commodity you were talking about which is the integrity element of the men and women at every level knowing it ibilityr respons to maintain the integrity of the secret service. >> i agree. we can have all the training exercises and all the online training -- for example, i have been to 10 of the field offices. i speak personally to our agents. i walk around the white house talking to officers. i meet all the recruits prior to their graduation. i tell them what they represent, what is expected of them, but i have to do more of that as well as our staff.

we have to keep communicating to our people. again, what the congress is doing today is a help to us and our agency because, again, the seriousness of what we've done in this particular case resonates by these types of hearings. mrs. watson coleman: this is what we've been experiencing, mr. director. i want to talk about the panel's recommendation. one of the things i think was noted in the panel was that -- that we needed new leadership.

we needed leadership from outside of this organization that didn't have the long-term relationships that might be somehow influenced by the relationships they did have and seeing it in sort of an insular way. you have a 27-year record or experience with the agency. clearly you are an insider. there was a removal of a number of deputies and they were replaced, and the majority of the deputies that were replaced were also from within the agency with long service records. my question is, how do we change the culture of the organization if the very top leadership has been a part of that culture and perhaps only sees this organization from within?

would we have not been better served had you identified the capacity to go to the outside and find people with certain skills, leadership abilities, accountabilities that would -- that would have transcended the relationships that individuals may have had, could that possibly have helped us become more efficient, more effective and more accountable as an agency? mr. clancy: thank you for that question. i tell you that this position, the director's position should have been someone from the outside. there's good reason for that. i understand that. i consider the fact that i had left the service for three years, worked in private industry, has allowed me to bring me some outside views on how to run a business and how to run this agency. so what i did do is first of all, i brought in a chief operating officer, a civilian, from outside the agency. and that c.o.o., the chief operating officer, is equivalent to the deputy director. additionally, we created a lot of subject matter expert positions where traditionally they answer to agents.

you know, prior to me arriving here, all the top level security was run by agents, and some of them candidly were not subject matter experts. for example, finance. we now have a chief financial officer who does not answer directly to an assistant director. she is the chief financial officer. chief technology officer is an engineer, not an agent. the chief strategy officer is a lawyer who's not an agent. there's a few others as well. so we brought in -- we're trying to bring in this outside perspective to run this business but also move the agents into our core mission of protection and investigations. mrs. watson coleman: so talk to me about your ability to bring in not only new people into the agency but more diverse people. because the information i read regarding the secret service is that it is predominantly white male, there are -- there's a small percentage of women and not very -- not consistent with agency but more diverse people.

across the board in federal government. what are you doing to address the issue of lack of diversity in terms of race and ethnicity and gender in positions? and what are you doing to address the long-standing and outstanding issue with the civil rights complaints? that move beyond them as opposed to using this system to delay the implementation of the corrective actions that could be taking place? thank you. mr. clancy: in terms of diversity, i'd ask you to look at my executive staff. on that staff of approximately 12 people, we have five african-american, six females and -- but going down throughout the ranks, you're correct. we are not where we want to be with diversity. so we are targeting universities that are -- provide diversity for us. we've shortened our hiring process where we can go to these universities and over a weekend period of time do a testing, an

interview and polygraph if the first two steps are met. but we are targeting specific areas of the country to really work on this diversity. because we are deficient in that area. certainly with females as well. we are working diligently to try to improve that diversity. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. i yield back for another -- >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. johnson. senator johnson: in your written testimony you state that, quote, information access by secret service employees on approximately 60 occasions between march 26 and april 2 of this year and you went on to say that we concluded that the vast majority who accessed this information did so in violation of the privacy act of 1974.

what are the pants for violating the privacy act of 1974? mr. roth: there's civil penalties for the agency if there is a widespread sort of gross negligence standard. for individuals who accessed the system and to -- improperly, knowing it was protected under the privacy act. that's a misdemeanor which has a fine as a penalty but no custodial sentence. senator johnson: is there any department of justice investigation undertaken right now to determine whether those misdemeanors were being to be -- are they going to be prosecuted? mr. roth: no. during the course of our investigation, we presented a case of the most compelling case we had and it was declined by the u.s. attorney's office. senator johnson: why would that be? mr. roth: there's several reasons. first of all, each individual agent has a fifth amendment

right to not speak to us if in fact he's under criminal jeopardy so we could not interview individuals compel their interview which we ultimately had to do in this case for a lack of voluntary cooperation. so the level of evidence that the department of justice had was not sufficient for them to move forward. additionally, when one looks at the penalty it was simply a matter of competing resources. senator johnson: director clancy, i got involved in looking into the culture problems with the secret service back in early 2012 after events in cartagena. this is not why i ran for the united states senate was to look into the secret service. it's an agency that we all want to have a high deal of credibility and, you know, as you stated in your testimony, the culture in many respects is almost, you know, beyond rapprochement.

it's a fabulous agency. they're doing great work, but the other hand, there's a real cultural problem. what are you going to do about it? i mean, i hear communication. i understand communication, but actions speak far louder than words. and when we're just talking about a disciplinary process, when there are violations of the privacy act and there are no prosecutions of it, nobody is held to the misdemeanor penalties, there's nothing more corrosive in an organization that has a cultural problem when misdeeds go unpunished. so what actions are going to be taken? this is three years now. you know, cartagena occurred in april of 2012. we had 2013 and 2014 and 2015. three years later, we have a number of members of the secret service violating the privacy act.

>> thank you for the question. we have removed people from the secret service. several were removed. in theoday, we are process of proposing a removal for an individual on related to this. people are removed in the secret service. this penalty that we have used -- we have benchmarked that with other agencies. so we are we want to be consistent with what's being done across the board. and just recently i published for the first time to our entire work force our integrity, the discipline over the past year. so they can see what types of cases are out there, are supervisors being disciplined equal to the workforce? we are trying to be transparent.

that communication is critical here, but we are trying to be more transparent and driving home the point people will be held accountable. in this case they will be held accountable. mr. johnson: there are a lot of protection force the employees, the actual agents, again it's hard to see the accountability. do you find that to be a problem? are you constrained in what actions you would like to take based on all the protections for the agents? should we have -- should we be looking at the law there and making sure the agencies have enough power to actually hold people accountable? director clancy: i think the accepted service would allow us to speed up the proposals and the discipline process. i know sometimes we are delayed in the process as we move forward. senator johnson: you would like some ability to take stronger action quicker? director clancy: yes. senator johnson: we need to take that into account. thank you. mr. perry: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. chairman.

almost to the member before me the conversation has been about the culture, the organization. and i think it speaks to whether or not internally we can fix it or do we just cover it up? and i'll get to a specific shortly. inspector roth, in your review of the secret service, how would you describe the culture within the service, especially at the executive level? mr. roth: as we noted in the report on the access to chairman chaffetz's employment record, we found a number of supervisors who, in fact, themselves had access to m.c.i. to me that was a very troubling incident. additionally, few people then

elevated their concerns or the fact that this was being used to a high enough level of management for something to be done. so that was sort of certainly troubling behavior that we identified. mr. thompson: let me -- so we had senior level people accessing information. then we had that information being it noted by people above those individuals, and is your testimony that nothing happened? mr. roth: that's correct. i'll give two examples, if i may. the first was the special agent in charge of the washington field office came to understand some of her employees were accessing the m.c.i. to understand whether or not that rumor existed. she ordered her individual, her subordinates, to cut it out, i think her exact words were knock it off or quit fooling around with the m.c.i. database.

in fact that's what occurred in the washington field office. unfortunately throughout the country other individuals were doing that. so that would be one example. the second example is the special agent in charge of the indianapolis field division who was, frankly, curious why it was, in his view, chairman chaffetz was so hard on director clancy. and he just out of idle curiosity accessed the database himself to discover, in fact, that chairman chaffetz was a prior applicant. he did nothing with that information. did not elevate it up or do any other kind of conduct. there are a number of examples like that. mr. thompson: thank you very much. so director clancy, i hope you sense the membership's concern about the culture.

and i would hope that going forward you would take this hearing, as you said, as a moment of instruction to try to fix it. the men and women deserve it. they do wonderful job. and -- it's about leadership. and i think it's absolutely important. as you know, i have been talking to you since the summer. a little small issue to some. it's relative to the fact that we found out that there was 643 employees assigned to duty that require a security clearance and they were working for the department without the completion of the clearances.

and i had asked you for the demographics of those individuals. and as of this date i don't have the information. i know you have been busy, but can you give me some indication when i can expect to receive the demographics of those 643 employees? director clancy: yes, sir. first of all my apologies you have not received that information. 640 individuals i'm assuming may be department wide. i think within the secret service we did have people working that did not have their security clearances. i think it was much less than that. we'll get you an answer in the coming days on that -- mr. thompson: it was department wide over a five-year period.

my point is some of us run into men and women around the country who indicate that i'm trying to get employed with the secret service, but they tell me i can't get considered for employment because i haven't been cleared. i can't go to training. i can't do a lot of things. but it troubles some of us when we already employing people whose job require clearance on the other hand. so i don't know if that's favoritism or what, but it's real concerning. director clancy: i'll follow up on that, sir. i can tell you that we don't look at that diversity in terms of who gets a security clearance, who does not. in this case the one that you referenced, i'll speak for the secret service, we were delinquent as we went through this hiring process. we did not get people their security clearances in a timely manner. and they were assigned to positions outside of washington for the most part.

but what we have done now is we brought in some contractors, additional 14 contractors, who ensure this never happens again where someone goes through our training when they get their graduation, when they graduate, they should have their clearance. that has been resolved now within the secret service. mr. thompson: thank you. so is your testimony that nobody working for the secret service right now without a security clearance? director clancy: that's correct. to the best of my knowledge that is correct. mr. thompson: can you verify that for the committee? director clancy: yes, sir. mr. thompson: yield back, mr. chair. mr. perry: the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk. mr. loudermilk: that you, mr. chairman. and thank you-all for being here. this is especially troubling for me as we look back over the history of this incredible agency, this service.

it's an icon of what i think is american exceptionalism. and the action that is we have seen take place of course it tarnishes the reputation of the service. but more so i think it really tarnishes the image the american people have of what they have always elevated as the exceptional service. not just in the nation but in the world. and i think it's imperative that we address these issues not just in hindsight but going forward to make sure we restore the trust of the american people, the trust of congress, and the trust of the protectees. mr. roth, you said something in your written statement that really struck me here. the secret service has certainly taken steps to address these challenges. but not always successfully. these persistent challenges may not be easy to resolve through

actions such as suspending employees and issuing new guidance. they may require more fundamental change that addresses the root of the misconduct. i think that's what we need to focus. what is the root, in your opinion, what's the root of the problem? mr. roth: when you look at guidance with regard to creating a ethical culture, they say it comes in three dimensions. one is tone at the top, not just the very top but all through leadership of an organization. the leaders have to set the exact right tone. the second is to have a code of conduct and ethics that is truly meaningful. the third is to enforce that code of conduct in a way that expresses to the rank and file that you mean what you say with regard to that tone at the top. you have to look at all three of those things. as director clancy said, i think the middle part, code of conduct, was not there until cartagena. there have been steps they have taken since then to establish a

more rigorous policy. that's certainly an improvement we think is well deserved or a positive step in the right direction. again, it has to be tone all the way through the organization, as well as a meaningful enforcement of that code of conduct. mr. loudermilk: i have a timeline of misconduct that went back to cartagena, but it goes back to 2011. up until that time -- there is misconduct in any organization. was there a history like we are seeing now, mr. roth, that you are aware of, prior to the last four or five years? mr. roth: i'm not aware of it. i don't have any insight into it. certainly we are only as good as the audits we do and the investigations we do. we didn't have anything before that.

mr. loudermilk: thank you. mr. clancy, i applaud your efforts. you have a difficult task. you have been in the agency for quite a while. do you recall there was the level or consistency of misconduct previously in the agency, or is this something new? director clancy: i think agency has always had misconduct. the secret service has had misconduct in the past. i think it has more -- more attention has been brought to this misconduct in the last several years, and that's a good thing. i applaud the inspector general's office for that. this has to be brought out in the open. these misconduct episodes, otherwise we won't correct it. mr. loudermilk: make sure i understood it right. you're trying to benchmark your disciplinary actions of other agencies, is that what you're referring to?

looking at other agencies? director clancy: yes. my understanding when the table of penalties was built out, our legal team worked with other agencies to see what they were doing from a discipline standpoint, what their table penalties were. and we took their best ideas, best practices and built ours. mr. loudermilk: i would suggest, you guys have to be a little stronger, little better. the nature of the work that you do is so important to this nation. one last thing. we talked a lot about culture in here, and that is true. i think what you're getting at is the culture of the agency, it's the espirit de corps. you're in the secret service. you have an obligation to the integrity, the honor, and the dignity to uphold this agency. and i think that may be what's missing somewhere, just real quickly, i was going over this timeline, and there seems to be a common element with a lot of these. i look at cartagena, alcohol was involved.

june, 2013, alcohol. november, 2013, abuse of alcohol. december, 2013, alcohol. march, alcohol. june, 2014, alcohol. there seems to be this continual cycle of alcohol abuse associated with this which, from my experience in the military, usually indicates that there's a morale issue. i'll let you comment and i'll yield back after that. director clancy: you're correct, congressman. we do have a morale issue. a lot of it is because of our staffing. that's one of the things we need to do work is our staffing so we can build up the staffing level we can get more training which our people want, give them a better quality of life, which will help their morale as well. again, to your point here today, the accountability and discipline matters also helps that morale. are we going to hold people accountable? i will tell you the episodes since i have been here, you mentioned the march 4 incident

where an individual -- two individuals after retirement party drove on to the white house. i can tell you that retirement parties now are -- i don't know of any taking place. people got that message. what we are talking about today, p.i.i., people are getting the message. unfortunately it takes these significant errors, misconduct to resonate sometimes with our people. i do want to also say one thing. less than 1% of our people are involved in this misconduct. 99%, some of you mentioned, are doing the right thing. but we have to focus on that less than 1% because we are held to a very high and rightfully so, we are held at a high level. mr. loudermilk: i hope you can get the service back to the point where people aren't doing the right thing because they are afraid of the discipline, but they are doing the right thing because they are dedicated to their job, to the service, to the spirit of the service, and

their oath to the constitution. thank you, sir. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california, mrs. torres. mrs. torres: thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, just to be -- to have some statistics here on the record, according to the partnership for public service the agency is 74% male, is that correct? director clancy: 75% -- let me just check that real quick. that sounds correct. mrs. torres: 72% white. leaving it severely out of step with other agencies. women make up 25% of the agency's work force, but only about 11% of the agents and uniform officers.

director clancy: you're correct, yes. mrs. torres: you talked about your outreach efforts with universities and targeting certain areas of the nation. have you engaged an employment agency to help you or to advise you in finding a more diverse work force? director clancy: i'm not aware we have done -- taken that step yet. it's an excellent suggestion that we may look into. i will tell you that when we go to these different areas of the country, we have a very diverse group recruiting group that goes out to try to encourage females to apply, as well as across the board in diversity. mrs. torres: are you targeting also the military or law enforcement agencies looking for -- there's great people working

-- director clancy: we go to military bases. again we run what we call these entry level assessment centers, so that, for example, the military base, if you want to apply for a job with the secret service, we can do a testing initially. if you pass the test, that very day we can do a super interview of you. if it looks like you're a good candidate, then we move you right to a polygraph all within a weekend to speed up that process. absolutely. the military bases, we found personally that people that have had military background serve us very well. mrs. torres: they have a high work ethic. they understand the pecking order. they understand the need to serve. i am disturbed by the incidents. i am happy to hear that it's a reflection on less than 1% of the work force, but by no means does it make me feel better or safer. so would you say you have an

agent problem or do you have a management problem? director clancy: management problem. it starts with me. there's no question. it's a management problem, leadership problem that i have to find an answer to. mrs. torres: have you taken steps to ensure that when we are climbing down on agents that tougher disciplinary actions are taken upon the people who supervise them? director clancy: supervisors are held accountable. again, we put this out, again, trying to be transparent, to show our work force how -- mrs. torres: are there policies in place to ensure that whistle blowers are protected? director clancy: everyone in the service knows that whistle blowers perform a vital function and they cannot be -- there is no retaliation, there is no -- you have to let them go.

mrs. torres: so, there are disciplinary steps that the agency takes when the department rules are violated? director clancy: yes. mrs. torres: and there are disciplinary steps that the department takes when our laws are broken? director clancy: yes. mrs. torres: the agents are read miranda rights, is that what you were referring to an earlier question? director clancy: no, they are not read miranda rights. they are read others. let the inspector general correct me here. but that's what they are read, yes. mrs. torres: i come from the civilian part of law enforcement. so criminal charges are filed whether they are felony charges or misdemeanor charges. what are your steps? what steps do you take during that process?

director clancy: if criminal charges are filed, we typically immediately move to removing the security clearance. so that this individual can no longer have access to any of the protected facilities, any access to any of our protectees or any of our -- mrs. torres: what happens to the rest of that immediate department that are working with that employee now in the process of a criminal investigation and their supervisors? director clancy: if it's -- at that point we don't have -- we remove all their badges. we remove their equipment. and then it goes through the normal course of criminal justice system. mrs. torres: my time is out, but what i'm trying to figure out is if you have a rotten apple, how

do you ensure that the whole bowl isn't bad? director clancy: we can remove them very quickly in that case when there is criminal charges. mr. chairman, if i could just correct the record for one item. ranking member thompson asked me about the security clearances. our agents and officers, some of them in training now, have not had their clearances settled. they will by graduation. so anyone who graduates from our academy will have security clearance. while they are going through training some of them may not have. mr. thompson: as of this summer when we talked, that was not the case. the speaker pro tempore: that's correct. that was not the case. you're correct, yes mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentlelady. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. clawson. mr. clawson: sorry to hear about your dad. director clancy: thank you, sir. mr. clawson: greatest generation. i know many here lost their fathers from that generation and i think we learned from them. was your dad a vet? director clancy: he was. mr. clawson: i know all about this. i just lost my mom.

it's the generation that the class is halfful. put the team first. work hard and go to church on sunday and the rest answers itself, right? director clancy: yes, sir. absolutely. mr. clawson: we were lucky to have those kind of folks. director clancy: yes, sir. thank you. mr. clawson: although we do a little bit for our country now, without ever saying it that remind us compared to what they did we don't do much. director clancy: yes, sir. mr. clawson: i have full respect and admiration for you and your dad. i walls thought organizational culture being performance and how your agent and employees think of themselves is dependent on those because they see it. when that bad behavior is not dealt with quickly, it impacts that culture and how we view each other. because it discourages good performers that they are doing their job every day. everything tells me that these incidents of bad behavior ought to be isolated, put up in lights for everyone to see, and that action needs to be taken quickly.

therefore -- and that that really is the responsibility of leadership. therefore, when it drags on and on, when it drags on and on, it really sends a bad message to this corporate culture that you referred to earlier. why so slow? i mean systematic, you're the chief and you got the head of homeland security. let's go. let's take some action so you can do what's right and preserve the culture for all your great performers. am i missing something on that? why so slow? director clancy: you're correct. again certainly if there is any criminal activity, it's quicker. we can remove security clearance right away. with other types of misconduct, it does take time for the full investigation. and again in transparency we had

the o.i.g. handle this investigation to do a very thorough investigation and then once the investigation was completed, then we could move forward with that discipline. under title 5, the employees, federal employees are given certain rights and we follow that process. but eventually we get to where we need to be. eventually we do get to where we need to be. mr. clawson: it's going slow for my pace. typical folks that run large organizations don't understand this kind of length of time for -- it just festers because you don't put it behind you. my point is let's get going. i have found in organizational change, if you don't change a third of your people in positions of responsibility, you won't change the culture. because they are going to outwait you. they always out wait you. if you change more than 50% then

you may have a problem with the institutional memory that you discussed earlier. i'm really glad you brought diversity and experience into your direct reports, but they'll outwait you below that. no rule of thumb is 100% for sure, but film' sitting in your chair and not changing a third of my managers, and you're thinking you're going to change your organization, good luck. don't believe it. don't know if you thought of it in numeric terms, but let's get a performance culture going without washing away the memory of the successes of the past. i'm all for having both and i don't think if you implied this in your early comments, i don't think it's one or the other.

change your culture and preserve the successes of the past. does that make sense? director clancy: it does, yes, sir. mr. clawson: anything i said you would disagree with? director clancy: i wouldn't, sir. mr. clawson: we want you to succeed. we can talk all day about whether you should be in the job or not but you're in the job. we need you to be successful. anything can i do and our group, we want you to succeed. i really like the tone at the top. so let's get them. thank you. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. thank all of you for being here. mr. clancy, how many times -- when did you get -- become the acting director? director clancy: october 6, i believe. of 2014. mr. carter: how many times have you appeared before congress in -- congress. or not but you're in the job. we need you to be successful.

anything can i do and our group, we want you to succeed. i really like the tone at the top. so let's get them. director clancy: this may be my sixth or seventh. mr. carter: i have been here since january 6, i think this is the fourth time i've seen you. obviously we got concerns here. and there seems to be an ongoing problem. as you might know i'm very fortunate to have the federal law enforcement training center in my district. and i'm familiar with the training that takes place with the secret service agents down there, and i think they do an excellent job. i also want to remind you of the protective mission panel that came out and actually said that the amount of training that the secret service agents were getting was far below what it should be. in fact, i think at one time they said it was equaled only to 25 minutes for each 1,300 uniformed officers? what are we doing to change that? director clancy: you're absolutely correct. i have been down to your federal law enforcement training center.

they do a great job down there and they help us as we try to build our staffing levels. in terms of what we have done, uniform division, 99% have gone through a building defense exercise training mission. 10-hour block. additionally, approximately 700 of our uniformed officers have gone through a three-day training period where they do their firearms, emergency medicine, control tactics. number of things. the agents on the president's detail, we have increased the number of agents on the president's detail. by the second quarter, early january, we went out have increased the numbers there by 85, which is what was recommended by the blue ribbon panel, and that will help their training. so we have increased training. by 85% on the president's detail in the past year. mr. carter: specifically, let's get to what we are here about today and that is chairman chaffetz and that situation. inspector roth has stated that several of the agents that violated the secret service and the homeland security policies, when they accessed his records, this is a criminal offense, don't you think? director clancy: it's on the books as a criminal offense.

mr. carter: tell me what you have done. have these people been fired? have they been disciplined at all? a criminal offense by an agency that we hold to the highest standard. earlier, i'm a little frustrated by some of the things i heard here. keep in mind that we up here are experts at spin and pivoting. my campaign manager, that was his favorite word. all of a sudden i heard about the data. give me a break. if they wanted to see this they were going to see it i don't care how the data was protected. how can you let this go on? why didn't you fire these people? don't you agree? they do this was wrong. director clancy: i do agree. certainly there's misconduct here. the discipline has been proposed for those 15 and below. but the data is also important. it's a sidestep. mr. carter: i understand that. i respect that and i acknowledge it is important that it be protected.

but still the basic premise here is that they knew what they were doing was wrong. director clancy: the o.i.g. report they should have known what they were doing was wrong. some of them i think will acknowledge -- mr. carter: should have known? to an agency that we consider to be -- to hold at the highest level? i just can't go along with that. even you yourself said it was inexcusable and unacceptable. and it is. it deserves discipline. i'm a small business man. i have employees as well. i can tell you when something like this happens -- i'm not trying to tell how to run your business, you know as well as i do that when you got a cancer, you got to get rid of t otherwise it will destroy your whole business. you have to get rid of this cancer here. you have to set an example. and you have an opportunity right here to set an example because what they did was wrong. they knew it was wrong.

and they deserve discipline. they deserve to be let go. director clancy: we do look at the whole picture here, too. the whole person. some of these people have spent 28 years with no discipline in their history. some of them self-report it. some of them, they are all obviously very remorseful. it was wrong, yes. we do look at the whole picture. the whole person of their career. mr. carter: i get that. i want to make sure that the punishment befits the crime. i understand that. and you should look at their whole career. at the same time, again, you have been here six times since you took office. we don't -- we want you to succeed. we don't want to see you fail. we don't want to see you here anymore is essentially it. we want you to do this. we want you to do well. but we got to have you help. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. perry: the chair thanks the

gentleman. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. -- senator lankford. senator lankford: thank you. let me state a couple things i picked up from a lot of the conversation here today. i want to walkthrough multiple questions. there are a lot of issues with secret service. that's been well documented. i want to talk about that a little bit. i would say to you, i do disagree with one of the findings of the panel, do i think someone from the inside needs to be there to fix it. someone from the outside that doesn't have the same law enforcement backgrounds or doesn't have the same sense of corporate identity with secret service walks in as an outsider and has a different opinion on it. someone on the inside can say i'm one of us and can turn things around. i appreciate you there. i'll come back that. mr. roth, let me ask you a question, is it your sense for these individuals that accessed this database it was the first time for them to access this database like this?

did anyone ever ask them, gosh, did you just happen to think, gosh, maybe i should look at jason chaffetz' records? someone said i think i could get access to that. or did this look like a pattern of behavior if they are interested in someone they can pull it? mr. roth: i think it ran the gamut depending on the agent. some didn't think it was wrong at all. it was our database. it was a secret service database unlike n.c.i.c. or one of the other larger criminal databases. this was one by the secret service and saw nothing wrong with it. others didn't understand it was wrong until after they did it. then they realized, gee, i probably should not have done it. senator lankford: there is training that happens multiple times a year both orally and electronically. your computer when it starts it up there it says for official use only. still your perception some individuals ignored that and said it's our database, we can do what we want? mr. roth: that's correct.

senator lankford: the problem is if they can pull a member of congress, an individual there, that also means the new neighbor down the street, i can check my records and see if there is something on the new neighbor down the street. when their daughter starts dating some new guy they can pull his family and pull the records on it. if this is someone they don't like, they can pull their records. what we saw from the v.a. and talk about this for g.a.o. in just a moment, but the v.a. became a whistleblower there and we found other employees that were pulling records that were medical records on someone they didn't like as a whistleblower in the process. the challenge that we have here is access to data and it's official and nonofficial and how do we direct this? based on your perception of walking through this, with secret service, is it your perception this has been an ongoing issue for some employees just to be able to use that database as just, i can go look at it, whether it's official, nonofficial, and they blur those lines? mr. roth: that's the sense we got from. so agents we interviewed who accessed the database. mr. willemssen, how do we identify this.

also during the year had something toes to information for unofficial purposes and looked people up. v.a. has this issue we can talk about with someone grabbing information that's a whistleblower. how many agencies have good systems in place to be able to audit at least how individuals access these sensitive databases? mr. willemssen: this is probably the most common issue we see when we are doing detailed information security audits. too many people have access to things they don't need access to. it's not part of their job description. they don't have a need to know. yet they are given access. access is a real issue. it's one that we -- i would say that's probably the most frequent one we come up with. another issue that's interesting in this case is when you're collecting p.i.i., one of the things you do is end up scheduling a records notice with national archives and records

administration to among other things tell them how long you'll keep the files before you dispose of it. i was curious about why an application filed from 2003 would be kept 12 years later. those kinds of things should be disposed of fairly quickly. hopefully that's part of what this service will be doing going forward. you're supposed to schedule those records out and dispose of them at a certain date. sometimes one year, sometimes five years -- senator lankford: can you pause on that. mr. clancy, the electronic records that are not applicable, and paper records, it's my understanding there are still some offices though the access point has been changed electronically, if you go into a file room, those old application files may still be there in paper form as well. has that been dealt with? director clancy: yes.

we are moving forward to, for example, applicants, every two years those files will be purged. now, right now there's an investigation going on with the inspector general so some of that will be delayed slightly until they are through the investigation. but that is the plan forward. and also with the applicants in mind, 95% of the people that had access before no longer will have access because of the new system. senator lankford: both paper and electronic for those officers around the country? do they still have access to paper records in a filing cabinet? director clancy: i have to get back to you with a good solid answer on that. i think we moved away from paper. senator lankford: that would be something wise to evaluate. and the paper version to make sure that that's also purged. it may be just if you have access to that room you also have access to those files and it's part of the challenge here. let me come back. which agency would you identify and say this agency is a good model example of how to handle personal identifiable information, they are auditing well, tracking well. mr. willemssen: don't have one.

senator lankford: that's depressing. mr. willemssen: the more optimistic note, since the o.p.m. cyberdisaster, this has become a major priority. definitely elevated its priority. agency heads recognize this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. when we first announced the information security areas as high risk, first few years i was told, you're chicken little, the sky is falling. i don't hear that. senator lankford: the sky fell. the challenge that we have here is dealing -- let me give you one example of v.a., this is something g.a.o. has for years and years identified issues with v.a., how does this get better? how do we prevent unauthorized access of medical information and private information for our veterans? mr. willemssen: veterans' affairs has a significantly high percentage of systems that are considered high impact systems. that is the disclosure of data or modification of the data because of the medical records is considered to be very severe

in terms of its possible impact if it's lost, stolen, or reviewed by others. given that you have to put much stricter controls in place, including monitoring users and what they are doing and if they have any atypical patterns and use -- senator lankford: is this an audit or algorithm. mr. willemssen: it's both. it's contained in national institute of standards and technology guidance for high impact systems. like i say v.a. has a significant percentage of high impact systems where you've got to put these kind of controls in place to try to prevent the kind of situations that you described. mr. lankford: mr. chairman, i would like -- i don't know if we have a second round of questions but i do have additional questions for director clancy as well. mr. perry: i recognize mrs. watson coleman for a second round. mrs. watson coleman: thank you,

mr. chairman. you know, i know we were here, i know that my colleagues wanted us to sort of focus on what happened to chairman chaffetz, i think if i were he, i probably would want this to go away now. take care of the business that needs to be taken care of. discipline the people that need to be disciplined. learn the lessons that you need to learn. i don't think he needs to have this or wants to have this as a continuing story. but it does speak to other issues that were identified and does speak to a culture or way

of thinking or way of doing business or the way we -- we perceive ourselves on the inside that needs to be addressed. i know you have expectations for that changing. i'd like to know any steps that you're actually taking to change the culture in the form of action? what happens with your executive level? what happens with the level beneath that? the supervisory level? what happens with the rank and file level? how are you addressing the need to get our agency to think more differently about how we come to work, what we do at work, we don't sleep at work, we don't sext under any circumstances. we don't look into files that we don't have a responsibility or need to look into. is there going to be some sort of a fail-safe mechanism that shows when the file is being accessed by someone who

shouldn't be or has a reason to be? i would like to know some steps that you're taking. thank you. director clancy: you just think in terms of the overall culture here, one of the things we are doing is we are trying to have our work force take ownership of this agency. it's their agency. and let me just give you one example. just three or four weeks ago we started a new program, it's a crowd sourcing type of service on our internet where our agents and our officers and all of our employees, professional staff, can send in ideas, suggestions. what we should be doing better, what we should be looking at. and they get other people from the work force looking at that. they can like that for a better term, and then it forces the executive staff to look at that. we have seen this as a very positive already within a few weeks. we have had close to 200 hits what we call spark, where people have taken ownership of their

agency. i think that's where we got to get to that point. it is management. it's my leadership. but additionally it's the individuals who have to take ownership of this agency. i will say again, 99% of our people do have that ownership. mrs. watson coleman: mr. clancy, i have been on the executive branch of government and i know it takes that kind of expectation, but it takes a plan of action and it takes whether or not you're hiring people from the outside who look at these issues and work through groups and you work down through the organizations. so at some point i'd like to know if you're planning to do those kinds of action steps. then the last question is, i really do want to know, is there some sort of way that there is a notification of accessing information when you're not -- when it's out of order for what you're doing, it's not related to your case. your identification number to get into it signals whether or not you are or are not the right

person to be accessing this information. as a follow-up to senator lankford's concerns. director clancy: my understanding is and the her gentlemen may be able to answer better, it requires constant monitoring and auditing. there is no automatic notice that someone has accessed someone's data inappropriately. it has to be constant monitoring. there's an administrator for each of these buckets of information. that administrator has to control who has access, who has the need to know that information. it's up to the administrator. with our human resources we have approximately 260 who have access to our applicant data with this new system. that administrator would have to ensure that anyone else who enters -- has access they have approved. it mr. roth: if i may, just as an example the d.h.s. text system is one in which, for example, if director clancy had

created a record there and i accessed that record, director clancy would get an email that i was the one who accessed the record. not only what director clancy was talking about, which is you can run reports by the system administrator, but there are real time controls on modern i.t. systems that weren't present in the m.c.i. system. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. perry: the chair recognizes the gentleman from, mr. lankford. senator lankford: thank you. i think the audit system will be the key. whatever percentage that that is to be able to have for this computer at this spot, here's everything that you ran, and that they know at some point

someone's going to just spot audit. you can't go through all of it. no need. just a simple accountability that sits out there someone to know there is an algorithm that's running there is a search for files that don't seem to be consistent with official records. there's a spot audit saying you pulled records from your neighbor down the street or someone you don't like. all of those things i think become important. we have a tremendous number of people that work in the federal work force that are great people. that generally love the country and love to be able to do what their job is.

the problem is these small, as mr. clancy you mentioned, the 1%. i had to smile as we were working through some of the conversation about secret service and picking on secret service today, i hope we are really not picking on you. this has become the latest example of multiple examples whether it be v.a. or social security or others, a visual example again. as i listened to some of the conversation about challenges with public relations nightmares and employees not doing their job and alcohol abuse and everything else, we could flip the tables and you could hold a hearing on members of congress and have the same accusation. i will assure you it's more than 1% of the members of congress have some of these same issues. this issue is a human behavior issue, it's also a professionalism issue. i have taken the task seriously. mr. clancy, i'm going to give you an unfair list and just to be able to walkthrough a few things and aim going to tell you this in advance. as -- i'm going to tell you this in advance. as i have walked through the issues and some of the recommendations, the oldest general law enforcement institute in our country, it's an incredibly val usual resource to our nation. but my fear is some changes that have been put in place over the past several decades, not on your watch, have brought around some morale -- how do we shift morale back and get on top of this?

otherwise it's whack a mole with inch issues. overtime rules seem to come up over and over again. getting some sort of standard practice with their counterpart agencies. accountability of leadership so if there is a bad actor everyone knows that's not tolerable in our agency. when you actually confront issues, everyone knows that's the standard we are going to live up to it. if there is a bad apple that's been stated, everyone works down to that level. prior of new equipment and technology i find secret service is not getting the top priority for some of the newest technology and newest equipment among our d.h.s. law enforcement. and i think that's demeaning. that sends a false message to secret service they are not as valuable as some of the other aspects of d.h.s. the responsibilities seem to be getting cluttered instead of a clarity where it has been historically for protection and for counterfeit duties. there seems to be other duties that seem to be creeping into it that distract from the core mission here. the consistent career track, a consistent theme that i have heard over and over again. career track seems to change. and so no one knows what path they are on here. am i off on any of these? director clancy: no. you're correct. i'll comment on your last, the career track. we did bring in a work force of agents at different levels to

try to look at the best career track moving forward. we have just announced a couple months ago a new career track for our agents so that they can plan their future. that's been one of the problems. you don't know if you're going to come to washington, or go to texas. again, listening to our work force trying to find solutions. senator lankford: that's one thing you can do on the inside. but i encourage in the career track, you examined this, the possibility that individuals on the previous career track still could finish that out. they could be grandfathered into that. or if they choose to shift to the other one they could choose that as well. that gives then the option, doesn't feel like the new guy has the new stuff. also i started on this and complete this and i feel like the rules are changing on me

again. this corporate identity is extremely important and valuable. and what i fear is that there is a growing sense of lack of importance of people that run credibly important to our nation. i never want secret service hopes to feel like they guard doors for the living. they don't have an incredibly valuable role and the morale and role and standard you set will be incredibly important for years to come. if there is a silver lining in this, historically, secret service have had a really bad time when a president was shot. no one's been shot. there are just some things that are messed up. this is a unique moment for the secret service to re-evaluate again and go who are we? where are we going? what's our clear task? i would encourage you if there are issues in working with d.h.s. and in the scheme of things, these committees need to know it. because we want to make sure that all of the d.h.s. families, all feel equal levels of importance. your secret service transition pretty quickly, i guess, from working in the treasury to

d.h.s., and all the restructuring, and you're now one of many rather than the big dog at treasury. that has both benefits and challenges. and we need to know and have some way to be able to help communicate in that so we can help engage in this because we are not only advocates but accountability in the process. today probably feels more like accountability but also the desire to be advocates on these roles. we'll need to know that. is that fair? director clancy: that's fair. if i could comment on one thing there. just to give you some comfort. i know it's given me comfort. i went through this papal visit as well as the u.n. i traveled with the pope and i can tell you as i talk to our agents, our officers, and our professional staff, this was a

defining moment for our agency. as i talked to these people and looked in their eyes, they wanted to be successful. they know the issues that have been highlighted, and rightfully so, over the past several years. this was an unprecedented time in our history. our people were determined to make this successful. we did this for them without incident. our people felt proud about that and i'm very proud of our work force. having said that we have to correct these other things, too, and we will. we've got people that are working very hard for the american people. senator lankford: we acknowledge that and understand that. we also don't want anything to distract it. mr. willemssen, let me ask you this, databases and access points, is there any independent agency or agency that's an executive agency that you think has a higher risk or has no system of tracking this? old or new, that you look at it and say these are the high risk, these are the highest risk, and part of my question are the

independent agencies, do we know for certain that they have auditing process because they handle incredibly sensitive financial data on americans? mr. willemssen: i would point to those agencies who have the most p.i.i., personally identifiable information as reason to make sure that they are doing everything they can to protect that. you start with social security administration who has p.i. on almost every citizen. v.a. you already mentioned definitely an issue. independent agencies, do we know for certain that they have department of education probably somewhat overlooked because they have a tremendous amount of p.i.i. because of the student loans not only on the student but sometimes the parents. i would be most concerned about where the p.i.i. is most significant. senator lankford: let me ask you about things like f.c.c. or cfpb, they he a tremendous amount of data. do we know on their employees how they have access anti-limitations they have? mr. willemssen: we know that they have at least three sets of data collection that includes p.i.i., maybe more. arbitration case records, bank account and transaction level data, and storefront payday loans. senator lankford: we did make a recommendation in terms of the

-- we previously had done work and made a recommendation related to their privacy impact assessment. whenever you correct p.i.i., you have to do a privacy impact assessment that lets everyone know what are we collecting, why are we collecting it, how are we going to use it, how are we not going to use it, and when are we going to dispose of it? they had not fully done those when we did our work that we maimed a recommendation on that. that's something i can follow up on. senator lankford: i know cfpb has requested again another incredibly large jump of information they are gathering on americans and databases. that seems to exceed even what was originally designed in dodd-frank. mr. willemssen: it may be more than what we had mentioned in our report then. they may have further expanded t senator lankford: it's a fairly

recent expansion. what we are trying to figure out who has access to that and how often. mr. willemssen: we can follow up for you on that. senator lankford: that would be helpful. gentlemen, i thank you for your participation today. mr. perry: the chair thanks the gentleman from oklahoma. before i close out i have a couple of questions. mr. willemssen, you are from the government accountability office, i read through your information. i'm just wondering if you can provide any clarity on other agencies regarding penalties, regarding accountability for actions that have been -- that they have engaged in regarding security clearances. that might be out of your wheelhouse mr. willemssen: i can talk about numerous -- some of the major incidents over time.

probably the first major incident we had with inappropriate browsing was at the i.r.s. in the mid 1990's. several employees decided to start browsing celebrity's tax returns, as a result of that there was an act passed that taxpayer browsing protection act, 1997, and that among other things has the penalties of up to $1,000 fine and imprisonment of not more than one year. mr. perry: do you know if anybody was prosecuted under that and subjected to those penalties at all? mr. willemssen: do not know that, sir. but i can -- we can follow up on that with i.r.s. mr. perry: i actually wish you would just so we know. director, you also mentioned that i think you had -- there are limitations, right, what you can do regarding accountability, punishment for actions that are beneath the standard, is that correct? director clancy: yes. we are not able to fire at will. mr. perry: so we need to know, the members of this board and congress in general, needs to know what you need us to do for you to be successful, for you to

manage it for us. we need your direct recommendations. that's as said so many times in the room, we want you to be successful. if we are standing in the way, you need to let us know what we can do, what we should do, so you can be successful. i have served for over 30 years in the united states military, if you're familiar with the army, i can guarantee you if there is a question of your security clearance and activities regarding the security clearance, that is suspended on an interim basis pending an investigation. if you're found to have been at fault and have breached, it's serious. incredibly serious for the most minor infractions. it's not meant to be a culture of punishment and fear, but it's meant to keep honest people honest. and to raise the level of importance of those things that should be important. i would just suggest that maybe

that would be something you might want to look at for suspension of security clearances, which i would imagine in your business a suspension of a security clearance, certainly on an interim basis, but -- maybe on an interim basis but absolutely on a permanent basis means loss of employment because you can't would also say this, in looking at some of the testimony we are concerned about how fast you're getting the information. you're the top dog and charge and i get it, but i will tell you this, too, whether it's in my family, military, or was running my business, bad information, bad news does not get better with time. there must be a culture of something happened and who needs to know and we get the information up to the top of the chain as quickly as possible because you have to be able to do your job, you can't do without the information. if your subordinates don't know that's your expectation we'll have a continuation of this which none of us want. you're sitting here in front of us and you're defending your agency and your agents as we expect you to as you should. you probably also know that 95%

of your time will be spent on 5% of your people. director, i have been out to your ooppration and i have been well im-- operation and i have been well impressed. all of us want to hold up the secret service as a standard. we want that. americans desperately want that. these things are incredibly hurtful when we hear them in the news. they are hurtful. there is a bigger picture here and i think your agents, your employees need to understand it is not their system. it it is the taxpayer database. it is not their information. it is those individuals' information. you are don't own it. those individuals own it. and to use it willy-nilly is reprehensible in an age, as the senator talked about, all these -- the information that the government's gathered, the information that the private sector is gathering and what happens to it and who owns it. and the force of law under the a.c.a. which says you must submit your information to think and to wonder that somebody might be using that for their

personal whatever, that's a problem. that's a problem for the american citizen trusting their government and your employees have a direct connection to that. they must, in my opinion, they must understand that. i want to just speak to this -- you have been questioned a couple times on diversity and filling your ranks and keeping your people employed and incentivized and so forth. we understand you have challenges just like everybody does complying with the law. and filling your ranks with the people that you want to have there. we understand that. i would say from this person's perspective, i want you to get the best. you get the best. you get the best to do the job. finally, i noticed a couple times you said you were trying to be consistent with other agencies. i will tell you this, sir, i understand where you want to be. this is secret service. the premier organization of your type in the united states government, in the world. how about if you lead? if you can't find somebody that meets the standard you want to

set in your agency around the government agencies, go outside. make your own standard. if you need help from us, you need to ask for it. all right. thank you very much for your time here. gentlemen, again, i thank you, the witnesses all for your very valuable testimony and members and their questions. members may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask that you respond to those in writing. without objection this subcommittee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]