delivery of health care services, not just to state employees and teachers and retirees, but to everyone in connecticut. we would be a huge boost to the economy. we see real rapid growth if we can bring down the cost of delivering health care services. i'm talking about if a heart attack costs $90,000 to treat today, let's make i can do that with my business experience. >> mr. foley talks about his business experience. i ran a city for 14 years. i saw it grow during the time i was mayor. added housing, added educational institutions, made progress. but we also understood that we have to build a city for the long run. we have to invest in infrastructure. guess what we are doing in connecticut? just of that. we are not driving the state into bankruptcy.

what we are doing is making sure that we are making steady progress. heading up the infrastructure that will allow us to compete with massachusetts who are doing some of these things long before we were. in the last two quarters of 2013 when we outgrew every state in new england. tom has made statements, things like "not as many jobs as we said," that's wrong. total private-sector job growth over the time of our administration is much more than 60,000. at the same time government has gotten smaller. government has gotten smaller while i have been governor of the state of connecticut. sure, we should be more efficient. sure, we should be investing in technologies we did not have in our state previously. when i inherited this state because you elected me governor, the largest department spending 18% of our money was operating on a format from the effective

age of 1989. >> i'm sorry to cut you off. now onto the rebuttal phase. mr. foley. >> i'm glad the governor brought up his experience in stamford. in stamford, he raised taxes seven times and i understand the debt was significantly higher. the thing that bothers me most about governor malloy's term in stamford is that it was the city in connecticut with the largest achievement gap and he did nothing about it. he may talk about being interested in improving education, but while he had the opportunity in one of connecticut's largest cities with the biggest educational challenges, he was not up to the task. he was also investigated for corruption while he was mayor and he leaves that out. listen, we have a great state workforce in connecticut. i know what it takes to run an organization that has a mission

and direction to do a good job. government is there to serve the citizens. we need a state workforce that is the right size for the job. i believe it's the right size for the job right now. they also have to have confidence in their leadership. they have to feel secure in their jobs. they need to be well-paid, secure in their jobs. they need to know they can take care of their families while they're working and in retirement. that's the kind of leadership i want for the state workforce. to get this government working for the citizens, get the economy going, get the state turned around. >> mr. malloy, your rebuttal. >> everyone watching from home, i want to have a sidebar discussion. every republican says democrats will only raise your taxes, so that we tell you about a candidate that tom supported for governor many years ago.

his name is tom rowland. he raised taxes numerous times before he went to prison. the last two administrations raised taxes 1.8 billion dollars between 2002-2009 but here's the difference between what they did and what we did. we changed how we are doing business. he says we are spending more money but we are spending at a lower rate than either of my predecessors. in the period going up to the great recession they were increasing spending 7.4% per year and our average is less than 2.8%. quite frankly, some of that money is being used to make sure that we honor our commitments to the very workforce tom was talking about. when we inherited this state we had pension plans that were 42% funded. this last year we had a 15.5% return. we are making real progress on reducing our long-term debt. we reduced it by $12 billion. this will pay dividends in the

future, but when a republican says a democrat will do something, let's look at the reality of what happened. i did not drive this state into the ditch that we found it and when nancy and i took office. we are doing our best to work with you, the people of connecticut, to turn it around. do you want your teachers to be laid off? do you want police officers and firefighters to be laid off? that was the choice. when tom ran for governor four years ago he had a plan to follow a $3.6 billion deficit by cutting expenses by $2 billion. that leaves $1.6 billion unresolved but it would have led to losing 36,000 jobs in the state. that's a study uconn did in 2010. we are working hard, folks. i'm doing everything i can to help us get through this and i appreciate the relationship we

have together as we pull together this state. >> mr. malloy, thank you very much. mr. foley, do you have a rebuttal or would you like to move on? >> there he goes blaming his predecessors again. when i'm elected, i will not blame you. >> you're doing enough of that tonight. [laughter] >> well, there is a lot to complain about. >> moving onto the next question. question number three. >> a viewer named christine says she knows people who are moving out of connecticut due to the high tax rate. are there other taxes you would look to reduce in the future? >> we are reducing taxes. we've already reduced taxes since 2011. tom has made some statement about energy costs. for most the time i was governor they were 12% lower from when i was sworn in.

last month electric costs went down 14%. we have policies going forward that will make sure that it happens. with respect to taxes, we have already backed things out of that package in 2011. you will not hear about those things but one was a tax on energy. there was not only a tax on energy, a plan when we came in, but they were going to borrow against the energy bills hiking them up even further. i canceled that. i'm happy we did so we could make progress. we are restoring the deductibility of over-the-counter drugs. you look at those things and some of the others we've done with respect to how we tax pensions, for instance. we are making some real progress. every chance we get to lower taxes we should take it. we have demonstrated a willingness to do that and we have done it each year since 2011 when we have wrestled with

the issue i was talking to the viewers about, the largest per capita deficit in the nation. >> thank you. mr. foley. >> i find it extraordinary the governor thinks he's lowered taxes. you put the largest tax increase in connecticut history on the citizens and now you want spending to grow by $3 billion? you squandered that tax increase. you squandered it. where has the money gone? you talk about electricity rates. you put on an expanded generation charge on people's electric bills that have driven them up by quite a bit. are you talking about the generation tax that you took away? you actually put that on the generators while you were governor. that's like the $55 rebate you gave us and took back. i don't know.

maybe we are living in different states but there are not many i'm talking to who believe you reduced taxes. they remember your tax increase and i think a lot of people suspect that if you are reelected governor you have no plan to reduce spending and no choice but to raise taxes again and i believe them. >> rebuttal. >> we will not raise taxes. i never took a promise not to raise taxes because i knew how bad a job had been done before i got into office. the tough things i'm getting blamed for doing now had not been done. we went back to the table. we cut rejected spending increases and we had to raise revenue. when i became governor, the shortfall was 18%.

if we had done the things my opponent suggested then, and apparently is suggesting now, in your hometown, you would have lost teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators. you would have lost the lease-- polivr officers in places like new haven, hartford, bridgeport where we have cut the crime rate by more than 32%. if you had a fire in your home, you would have been less safe. the reality is we have cut taxes since 2011. the bigger reality is we inherited a gigantic problem and i asked for shared sacrifice and people responded. it did not make anyone happy but it was required. someone had to take charge and make decisions. i'm taking a pledge not to raise taxes but also to make sure we continue to have an efficient state government. that's why you should know that increases in spending are far below the rates of prior administrations during my administration and that's the way it's going to stay. >> mr. foley. >> governor, why should anyone believe you? you have made so many promises you have not delivered on. you said you would not raise taxes, largest increase in state

history. you said you would reduce spending. it's gone up by 16 percent, $3 billion. you said you would bring down electricity bills and you've loaded in all of these electric charges. whose bill is lower today than 3.5 years ago when you were elected? nobody's. why should the citizens believe anything you say particularly with all of the malloy math we've been hearing tonight? you said six or seven things that are simply not true. i hope the media will look into them and vet these things. there's no reason why anyone should believe what you're saying here tonight particularly with respect to raising taxes. you did it seven or more times when you were mayor of stamford. you did it after you were elected governor and you're going to get it again if you are elected governor in november. >> as i pointed out, republican governors have raised taxes substantially in excess of what we raised taxes. that's the reality.

every republican says every democrat is a bad guy because they're going to raise taxes. i suppose what i should point out is if you are going to keep the promises you already made, you're going to have to balance your budget on the backs of local property taxpayers. that's the only way to keep the promises you've done. what we did not do in the state of connecticut, unlike republican-led states like new jersey and others, wisconsin, we did not shift our burden to local taxpayers. why? of all of the taxes paid by people in connecticut, the local property tax is the most damaging. >> mr. foley, anything more to say on this question? >> no. >> we're going to pause for a quick break for we move onto her next set of questions. you are watching fox connecticut 2014 gubernatorial debate at uconn. stay with us. we'll be right back.

welcome back. the next question deals with quality of life in connecticut from jane bernstein. >> mr. foley, both of you are from lower fairfield county, which has endured major traffic tie ups on the merritt parkway. what should be done to fix the state transportation problems not only in fairfield county but the bottlenecks of places like water berry in new haven? how would you pay for it? what role should public transportation play? >> very good question. thank you for that. i think one of the biggest annoyances other than the governor's tax increases are traffic congestion. i drive all around this state and traffic congestion has gotten much worse in the last three and a half years.

i think it is partially because we underinvested in our roads and bridges and we under invested in mass transit. we have problems with our mass transit which has the potential for providing transportation services to people who do not need to use our roads or bridges. the governor instead of using the gas tax, which is dedicated for the maintenance of our roads and bridges raided the special transportation fund. it was set aside by some wise policy people who knew if those taxes, which is a user tax, were put into the general fund, they would not be recommitted to maintaining and improving our roads and bridges so they created a special fund and it was supposed to be to protect that money that was taken from taxpayers and used to maintain the roads and bridges. this governor went in and raided that fund, and took that money to pay for pet projects. i'm not sure where all the money's gone, but it has not

gone to our roads and bridges or mass transit. we've had some major problems on our metro north. >> sorry to cut you off. your time is up. mr. malloy. >> the allegations were investigated by "the hartford courant" and were found to be untruthful. you read the article. you should change your talking points. what we are doing is investing in transportation at unprecedented levels. $500 million more than my predecessor's administration. even more than my democratic colleague, the great governor of connecticut bill o'neill. what we are doing is investing in highways and bridges. bus systems and railroads. we are making a real difference. just today, i was down in

norwalk celebrating the plan to replace the bridge and we received $160 million from the government to help the net cost. i met on multiple occasions with the secretary of transportation. what i like to see is that money come in so it will allow us not just to fix the bridge but free other bridges. i am proud that the head of the commuter council has now endorsed my candidacy and indicated to people that they would be foolish to vote for tom foley. what we're doing in transportation is very important and we will continue the unprecedented investment. >> mr. foley, your rebuttal. >> the "courant" article said you did raid the transportation fund, just not for $189 million as was claimed. $40 million is a lot of money to most people in connecticut. you say you invested a lot of money in our transportation

infrastructure. you drive around connecticut. you see our roads and bridges. you ride on metro-north and other mass transit. do you think a lot of money has been spent on transportation infrastructure? where has the money gone? please explain it to us. we simply do not believe you. i have some ideas to reduce traffic congestion. in other states in some instances, they use tolls for traffic management to reduce congestion and there are other good ideas out there. you're not pursuing any of those ideas for sticking with the plan that's not working. >> your rebuttal? >> no, thank you. >> mr. malloy, the issue of gun control continues to divide the state. should the post-sandy hook changes such as banning certain assault weapons be extended or rolled back? should they be left as they are now?

>> as someone who takes the safety of our citizens seriously, i am proud of the changes we made with respect to gun laws that are making people safer. i'm proud we are going to have universal background checks and limiting the size and capacity of the weapons to get 94 shots off in just a few minutes. that's what happened at sandy hook. we also said in the future we don't want these weapons of mass destruction to be sold in our state. i believe in all of that. i believe we need to invest in mental health and that's why we're doing it as well. my opponent, tom foley, is telling you that he would repeal that law. that law that allowed us to lower homicides by 32% in 2013. that law that's making children safer in schools and on the streets of bridgeport hartford, new haven.

that law which we came together on a bipartisan basis in the minority leader of the state senate championing that legislation. and larry cafero, coming from an urban environment, championed it as well. tom foley will repeal it. i will never, ever do that. >> mr. foley. >> governor malloy is, again, not telling the truth. i never said i would repeal the gun law and i won't. the gun law he passed has not made people in connecticut any safer. we had a terrible tragedy in newtown. i said to the governor through the media, not personally, please, let's fix the problem. let's figure out the cause of the problem and let's address

it. and not do an overreaching gun bill, which is what he did. the source of the problem was mental health. the governor had an opportunity to address mental health issues here in connecticut, which i would like to address as governor. it's a serious problem. there's not enough care for certain people with certain mental health problems. he had an opportunity to take a good policy direction as a result of newtown and instead he went off in a direction that was unnecessary and when he did, he took away the rights of the people who consider those rights important. you recognize in our debate tuesday night that those rights exist and they are important. why did you take them away? we are not any safer? this inconvenienced a lot of people. i want to move on and address things that are more important down the road in the future like jobs, the economy, getting control of spending in the

state. >> mr. malloy, your rebuttal. >> mr. foley, i've had a lot of respect for you over the years. but tonight you've just told everybody in this state something that's not true. you have said repeatedly that you would sign a repeal of the gun law. you said it month after month after month. and now that you understand that people are catching on to what you would do to their children, their streets, their urban environments, and now you want to fishtail around and flop that -- back and forth, have it both ways. let me be clear, ladies and gentlemen, there's only one candidate out of three running for governor who will never sign a repeal, never advocate for repeal. my opponent has done those things. if you believe as i do that these laws are making us safer, that they are connected with a declining homicide rate in our city, then you should vote for

me. if you believe convenience is more important than the laws, then i guess you will vote for someone else. the hunter can still hunt. gun owners can still own their guns. the people who had high-capacity magazines still have them but we are building a safer connecticut. mothers, take care of your children. dads, teach them responsibility. but let's not go back to where we were on december 11. >> governor, when you started the rebuttal, you said let me be perfectly clear and then you said something that was not true. let me tell you what i said. the governor does not make the laws in connecticut. when i was asked if the legislature passed a bill to repeal parts of the gun law or the gun law in its entirety i said i would not veto it. that's not saying i would secret -- seek repeal.

i never said that and i won't. let's be truthful with the audience and the citizens. [laughter] >> audience, please. moving on to question six, unless there is a further rebuttal? jane bernstein. >> this comes from the uconn undergraduate government. how does your plan connect to primary and secondary education in connecticut? >> the governor had an education reform bill that i call education reform lite. it did not include things to have a high impact on educational outcomes like in other states. it mandated a number of things on all schools in connecticut including schools that are doing very well. we have some of the best schools in addition to some that simply do not perform very well.

don't go fixing things that are not broken. he imposed common core standards on schools that are performing different assessments that they are satisfied with. they are doing a good job with educational outcomes. i don't know why he would do that. he imposed evaluations on teachers statewide. they were mandated in school districts and even the local control was working well and they had their own teacher evaluations. i think this governor made a tremendous mistake in both the way his education reform bill was conceived and it was never really implemented properly. it was not funded. he did not fight for funding and the legislature. most of these were never implemented. i do not believe we should mandate common core across the state. i believe that was a mistake. i won't do it when i'm governor.

>> common core was instituted by the republican governor of connecticut. yes, we are in the process of implementing it. i'm working with school districts all across the state to make that as easy as possible. that's why we've made millions and millions of dollars in technology grants to school systems. that's why we're reaching out even as we speak to the federal government to make sure we can lessen the amount of tests that 11th graders would take. tom talks about teachers, so let me share something with you. two teacher unions have endorsed my candidacy. they did that after they saw what tom wants to do. he wants to get failing grades to schools. he wants to take money away from schools that are poorer performing and give it to other schools in the district. he wants to play a game with language and pretend that high-performing schools are not already busting at the door. he talks about allowing people to go to those schools when i

don't know of a single high-performing school in the state of connecticut that is already not filled. his plan would be a disaster if you live in an urban environment. his plan would be a disaster if you live in the second district or some of the poorer districts that are not urban. i have sent more money to your towns and i'm going to continue to do that if i am governor. that's a promise i'm already kept and will continue to keep in the next four years. >> mr. foley, rebuttal? >> listen. the two things i proposed, this was in my urban plan. most of our underperforming schools are in the cities. i've proposed a system so that parents understand how well the school their child is in is doing, and so they can make a decision about whether or not they want to move them to another school. gov. malloy said i want to give

schools a grade. you said you have already given them an f grade. it was implemented by massachusetts and florida, two states that used to be behind us in our educational outcomes and have since passed us. massachusetts is number one. this is something that has been proven to work. governor, you are talking about taking money away from schools. money follows the child worked. the marketplace works. we do not want to spend taxpayer money supporting schools that are not doing a good job educating our young people. there's no point rewarding failure. you are reconstituting schools under your commissioners network. that's exactly what this would do. if an underperforming school is

not getting the funds it needs, it gets reconstituted and set up to perform better. >> mr. malloy. >> if you want more schools to lose money and get worse as a result, vote for tom foley. if you believe what he is saying with a-f and i have given schools that have competed to be in the commissioners network an f, he simply does not understand what we are already doing. we are proving turnaround models here in connecticut. in some cases they replicate models, in massachusetts and elsewhere, and in some cases they are homegrown by teachers coming up with a plan for higher student achievement. we are working together for the first time in a long time. the battle was tough, but we are there now. graduation rates are going up rapidly particularly in the urban environment like bridgeport, new haven, hartford. they've seen an increasing graduation rates of 10% in the last few years. the things tom is proposing are

dangerous and i urge you not to accept his explanation. if you want your school to get an f, he's your guy. >> mr. foley. >> listen, i understand what you are doing. you're not giving a decent education to 100,000 young people in connecticut. it is absolutely shameful. you should be doing much more. to be claiming credit for what you have done is absurd. listen. you have done exactly what i'm talking about doing, but you do not want to grade everybody and you want to keep giving taxpayer money to schools that are underperforming. this is not solving a problem. you talk about the tough work you've done. this situation is not getting better. you refer only to the 12th grade reading test -- actually, two tests, fourth grade -- that have gotten worse in connecticut while you have been governor.

two beats one, if you understand math. the achievement gap in connecticut is worse since you became governor than three and a half years ago. guess what? connecticut has the worst achievement gap in the country. a little more humility on the progress you've made. you can talk about things you said you are going to do but you've made zero progress on education. >> i will stand by the teachers union, who have looked at your plan. tom, explain to people how taking money away from a poor school will make it better. try that with teachers in the room. try to explain how taking resources from districts already fairly stretched will do that. this is a very important issue. tom talked about where we are. all of the decline occurred under republican administrations. we were number one with a

democratic governor and we will be number one again with a democratic governor. >> mr. foley. >> gov. malloy receives very large contributions from unions, over $900,000 contributed by public-sector unions as an independent expenditure supporting his campaign -- >> i have to cut you off because your three minutes are done for this question. we will take another break. when we come back, more questions and closing statements from the candidates. stay with us. welcome back. the final question has to do with personality and character. chris keating has the next

question. >> mr. malloy, who has been the greatest influence on your decision to go into politics and why? >> my mother was. i grew up with very serious learning and physical disabilities that took years to overcome. some people in those days it referred to me as mentally retarded. my mother knew that it was not true. she also had a different message. "you have an obligation to leave the world a better place than having lived in it." it's what kept me going when i had to listen to all of my textbooks on recorded books for the blind and make a decision about whether i would apply to law school knowing there was via a test one day that i might not pass if i did not make a lot of progress. i graduated magna cum laude from boston college, i went to law school, i took the bar exam in three different states. i was the first to take the exam orally who wasn't blind.

i have done my best to fight for you. this estate was in a lot of trouble, and 18% deficit, a situation i had nothing to do with, and i had not been part of state government with the deficit, but we worked together. those words that my mother said to me almost every day that we shared this earth together, "you have an obligation to leave the world a better place because you were in it." every morning i could look myself in the mirror and say i'm doing my best, mom. >> mr. foley. >> i finally found something we agree on. it was my mother who also got me interested in politics because her family had been very involved in politics in wisconsin. we talked a lot about public service and making our communities and the world a better place and doing that by backing candidates, getting involved in the political process.

no one had ever run. i got to understand how much power it has to shape the future and people's lives. i took a step over and decided to run for office. i have a lot of people i admire who served in public office. teddy roosevelt was an extraordinary person, and of course ronald reagan was an extraordinary person, and going back to our founders and of course president lincoln. the thing i most admired about them or their character. they were honest, truthful with the citizens. they were ethically above reproach and they were guided by principles and they supported the constitution of the united states. they supported the principles that made this country so great. that's what motivated me. those are the people i would look to for guidance as governor

and serving in elected public office. >> hard to imagine you would want to rebut each other, but you do have time left on the clock if there's more you would like to say? >> i would like to say something, tom has attacked my integrity several times tonight and i've kept quiet about it, but i want to say that is not the way we treat one another. certainly someone in a glass house probably should not be throwing stones. i was not the person who was fined by the election commission $16,000. i was the one who did not fail to disclose to the fbi that i he had been arrested. i'm not the one who did not tell the full truth about incidences you struck women in your car going as fast as 50 miles per hour. i'm not the person who denied the ability to get that police report. you've said a lot of things about me, but this is what i

want people to understand. i was a prosecutor. i tried 23 felony cases over 18 months, convictions in 22 of them. a lot of the investigations i did had to do with sexual assault and making people understand the law so we could build a case against perpetrators. i'm proud of that record, what i did in those years when i was in the district attorney's office. it's one of the reasons i took community policing to stamford and brought it to other communities in the state. i have other inspirations but i can look what's going on in other places and understand that people don't always do what you do. they do not bankrupt companies. they do not lay off workers. they do not treat people the way you've treated them in the past. you've questioned me and my integrity. i would not have done that to you nor would i have brought the subject up but for the fact

you've gone a little over the top. >> mr. foley, a response? >> have you seen any of your attack ads? [laughter] you are a prosecutor. you are a better prosecutor then you are governor. you repeatedly have not been truthful about things you said about me including tonight. i think an important aspect of leadership is being truthful. you referred to a fine. i was never fined, but you were investigated for corruption in stamford. you were investigated for corruption. i'm not sure what all of these things were talking about, most of which are not true, but even if they were, they happened 25-30 years ago, have to do with connecticut's future. yet you are telling people on television when i'm sure they would much rather hear about your plan for getting the state back on track and getting the economy going so we can create jobs and get people's lives moving forward.

>> if you believe in telling the truth, tell us how you lost $2.8 million in two years and why you did not pay any income tax in 2011 or 2012? why did you disclose that information to the public so they can put in context what you say is a great business career. that's the second time you brought up the investigation. you should tell the people i was cleared and thanked the prosecutor for my frankness and giving them documents they could not have otherwise received. what you are doing is trying to imply that somehow i'm corrupt. i'm not. people who work with me now know that's the case. they may have disagreements with me. they may not agree with the policies i've implemented. but they understand i worked really, really hard, sometimes too hard. perhaps sometimes i take the work too seriously. that's a charge i will plead guilty to. i've never been charged with hitting another car five times that had two women in it and then lying to the fbi about it.

you did that. you got a job as a result of not disclosing that information and then you told us it was a minor traffic offense. nobody in this room thinks hitting a car at 50 miles an hour five times is minor. >> mr. foley, you have two minutes and 55 seconds of rebuttal time left if you care to. >> the governor is talking about something that happened 30 years ago where there were never any charges filed. it was dismissed. you say to bring up the fact he were investigated for corruption and it was dismissed means i should not bring it up? you are a prosecutor. you know that people do not get investigated when there's not a lot of suspicion or reason to suspect that something went wrong. a lot of people are not charged with things, they just could not get the proof or there was not

enough evidence. listen. we can call a truce on this, which i think would serve the connecticut citizens well, or we can keep it going. i think what the citizens would like to hear is what is your plan going forward? you have not talked about how you will reduce spending. you say you will not increase taxes but without reducing spending, you have to increase taxes. your corporate welfare program is not working. we lost 3600 jobs in august. why don't you tell us how you are going to solve that problem? we are not hearing any new ideas or literally any plans that you have for the state of connecticut if reelected. >> mr. foley, we need to move on to closing statements now. i have to inform you we have enough time left for each of you to take 60 seconds for your closing statement rather than 90. 60 seconds. mr. malloy first. >> thank you for tuning in. we're making progress in connecticut.

tom might try to deny that time after time, but if you look at the cranes up in stamford, you understand things are being built. if you see the cranes in new haven, a company that left years ago is coming back. bioscience is growing rapidly not only in new haven but in farmington. you understand we are making massive new investment in the new london community as well. if you are from torrington, you understand we are investing in your community. if you are in hartford, you are celebrating 1500 units of housing no one ever thought was possible. if you work for united technologies or any one of their 75,000 folks who supply them, you understand striking that deal saved jobs in our state. >> mr. foley. >> in four and a half weeks you will be making a very important decision. do you agree with governor malloy that everything's ok in

connecticut? or do you agree with me that under governor malloy we've lost a lot of ground here in connecticut and we are on the wrong track? governor malloy slapped the largest tax increase on you and your family in connecticut history, slowing down the economy. he's failed to get spending under control. he is wasting billions of your taxpayer dollars giving it to large corporations and the job program simply is not working. he's not talking about any plans he has to fix this. i've talked about lowering taxes, getting control over spending, reducing regulation to get job growth back. with new leadership and smarter policies, we can get this state going again. working together, we can restore pride and prosperity here in connecticut. thank you for listening. >> mr. foley and mr. malloy, thank you very much. that concludes the fox connecticut and "the hartford courant" gubernatorial debate. thanks to the candidates for participating.

thank you to the connecticut daily newspaper association, the league of women voters. and to uconn for letting us use this facility. good night. >> c-span's 2014 coverage continues in arkansas where bill clinton attends a rally for senator mark pryor. that will be live at 1:30 eastern here on c-span. our debate coverage continues tomorrow with the race in north carolina's second congressional district featuring to term republican renee ellmers and clay aiken. you can watch the debate on c-span. >> a few hours ago, the red mask concluded at the cathedral of st. mary apostle. it is a tradition that occurs every year before the supreme

court gets its new term. a number of supreme court justices were in attendance. here's a look outside the theater out -- after the math -- after the mass ended.

>> again, this was the conclusion of the annual red mass that begins every year before the supreme court term. we have reviewed the kinds of cases the court will look at when it against its new term tomorrow. joining us on the phone is adam liptak. the headline this morning, the supreme work's new robust session could define the legacy of the chief justice. let me ask you first about this mass, this tradition, and what

transpires. guest: it's a long-standing tradition where several of them gather for blessings and encouragement at the start of a new term. it is a long-standing catholic tradition to bless those responsible for the administration of justice. there are not a few people who think it is an odd juxtaposition to see this kind of tension between church and state, which some people think you might want to keep separate. religious freedom and the status of jerusalem, among the cases that the hype is expected to take up ash that the high high is -- that the court is expected to take up this season. guest: the status of jerusalem foreign contested policy. it is a clash between two branches of government.

the first amendment to the u.s. constitution, freedom of speech. also another issue in this digital age. guest: the court is looking at whether an estranged husband who, in the persona of a rap star, puts really violent rap lyrics seeming to threaten his wife, whether that is protected by the first amendment or not. this will require the justices, who are not particularly savvy about either popular culture or technology, to make sense of rap lyrics posted on facebook. host: let me ask about the headline you have, that this could be a defining legacy for to -- for chief justice roberts. how so? guest: the court has not accepted the case on same-sex marriage, but it is very likely to do so and to decide this term .

if the court upholds the right to same-sex marriage, as most people think it will, that is going to define the legacy of the roberts court, some say in the same way that the war in -- the warren court was decided in its decisions of a different issue, the rights of african-americans. lurking behind that is a second serious challenge to the affordable care act. chief justice roberts cast the thative vote to uphold law, president obama's signature legislative achievement, a couple years ago, and now we will see whether he is prepared to do so again, should the court take that second case of the affordable care act. host: it is often hard to tell who some of the justices are from the back of their heads. justice anthony kennedy, appointed by ronald reagan, continues to play a key role in this court, does he not? guest: he often casts the decisive vote. he was in the majority in every

single 5-4 case last term. if history is any guide, he will more often side with his conservative colleagues than his liberal ones. host: what are the other big cases you think we should keep an eye on htis year? -- an eye on this year? guest: the hobby lobby case said heldcorporations closely by religious families could deny coverage contraceptive to employees. religiousrs have liberty rights behind bars? the question is whether an arkansas inmate and wants to grow a beard -- an arkansas inmate who wants to grow a beard can grow a beard or whether security concerns override that religious liberty. host: speculation continues over whether ruth bader ginsburg will step down.

how is her health? what has she been telling you and your colleagues? guest: she has been telling everybody all summer long that she is not going anywhere. her health seems to be good. she is in tip top mental shape. she loves the job. she thinks two things, one, that it is unlikely the president could get some unconfirmed to replace her who would be in a similar place on the ideological spectrum, that he can't get, in her words, someone as good as her. second, she seems to think that a democrat, hillary clinton, i suppose, will win in 2016 and get to a point whomever she point whomevero ap she wants. her legal acumen is beyond dispute. it is not as clear that her political instincts will turn out to be correct. headline this morning, the legacy of chief justice john roberts. vinyl question before we let you go -- final western before we

let you go. what is his interaction with his colleagues -- final question before we let you go. what is his interaction like with his colleagues? guest: unlike chief justice erger, he seems to do the job of presenting cases that their private conferences fairly and making assignments fairly. although there are deep disagreements on the court about how to come out on cases, part of the chief justice's job that is distinctly his, he seems to do to the s >> on the next "washington journal" -- daniel weiss will discuss the role of the league of conservator -- conservative voters in election. we will talk more about the supreme court's new term with two former supreme court clerks and we will take your phone

calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. they'll begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday night on "the communicators" -- jeremy grant to my whose agency promotes internet security talks about alternatives to passwords and basic security. x government is not looking to endorse any particular solution, but rather to describe the attributes of what the solution should look alike -- should look like. they have to be interoperable and let that be a bit of a guidepost to start developing solutions. have,g at the pilots we we have some looking at smartphone-based apps, which will basically be used in lieu of a password to log into a different site. others are on different types of i/o metrics -- fingerprints, face, voice recognition.

not that everyone of these is going to be the solution, but they are the kinds of things we are testing out. >> monday night, on "the communicators was quote on c-span2. but congress is at recess, but house oversight committee held a hearing to examine secret service protocol and operations. julia pearson who took questions about a recent security breach at a right -- at the white house for a man with a knife entered the property after jumping north cents. she was asked about a 2011 the currents that involve shots being fired at the white house and the incident going unnoticed by the secret service for several days postop direct your pearson does not -- resigned wednesday after testifying at this hearing. this runs three hours.

>> the oversight committee exists to preserve to fundamentals -- one americans have the right to know that the money that's taken from them as well spent stop second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works well for them. our duty on this committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. it is our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission, and today's hearing follows one of the most important parts of that mission.

one point $5 billion spent by the secret service, nearly $1 billion of that spent on retention of the first family, the second emily, former presidents, and presidential candidates, the united states alwaysservice was considered to be the elite law enforcement agency made up of men and women who were highly regarded, highly respected, and highly trusted. has placed great faith and trust in the secret service. the agents of the uniform division, their officers, and secret service agents have a monumental task. that of protecting the nation's presidents, past, present and future. they do so honorably and not without considerable personal sacrifice.

they ensure the safety of the first and second family, yes, and the safety of foreign dignitaries throughout washington and at times, the -- around the world. everynsure the safety of man and woman who enters the white house and accompanying buildings. history of misbehavior, security failures, has clearly blemished that record. on september 19 thomas omar gonzalez jumped the north fence, ran across the white house lawn, up the steps of the north were to go and into the front door of the white house. he was armed with a three inch serrated knife. he entered through an unlocked the staircase to the presidential residence and into the east room of the white house. that wasd gentlemen, the part of my opening statement that was changed last night when

the early false report that in fact he had been apprehended just inside the front door was turned upside down by a revelation that in fact, he and a traded much further into the white house. secret service officers only subdued him after he was clearly well inside the white house will not an intruder walked in the front door of the white house and that is unacceptable. common sense tells us there were a series of security failures, not an instance of praiseworthy restraint. inexplicably, omar gonzalez breached five rings of security on september 19. the white house is supposed to be one of america's most secure facilities and in fact, one of the world's most secure facilities. how on earth did it happen? this failure was once again tested -- has tested the trust

of the american people in the secret service -- a trust we clearly depend on to protect the president. after allowing a paparazzi-crazed reality tv star to crash a state dinner, after engaging prostitutes in carnahan after- cartagena, excessive drinking and an agent falling asleep outside his room in the netherlands, and yes, ther the mishandling of mishandling of the 11-11 event, a gunman who sprayed bullets has caused over $100,000 in damage. not properly reported in real-time or understood, it is understandable the morale but he agency appears it appears to decline in news report. in light of the recent break in

him a we have to ask whether the culture at the secret service and possible declining morale have an impact in operation, and those are some of the questions today. the appointment of director pearson wrought nouveau the agency would reclaim the noble image but to recent events have so troubled us that in fact we have called the director here to face tough questions. how could mr. gonzales faced the fence -- scaled the fence? people try to scale the fence often. but how is it that was as ordinarily happen, agents did not immediately apprehend him? how was he able to sprint 70 yards, almost the entire length of the football field without

being intercepted by guards at the fence? why didn't security guards stopped him at the fence? what about sniper rifles? why were there no guard stations at the front door of the white house? and yes, how much would it cost to law the front door of the white house? the secret service must show how there is a clear path back to public trust. the purpose to today's hearings is to gain answers to the many questions plaguing the secret service. today we will hear from experts on both the agency protocol, foreign and domestic, but most importantly, we will hear from the secret service your herself on her plans to improve the agency's performance.

americans face real danger as we serve abroad, especially those serviced at -- stationed at our embassies. it is a time of great peril. we are engaged in the battle against isis as we speak i'm above that is not limited to foreign soil. americans know the next attempt to take white house may not be by a crazed solo knife wielding veteran with ptsd. it could be a planned attack

from terrorist organization. the fact is the system broke down on september 19. as it did when they crashed the state dinner in 2009. as it did when ortega oaks hernandez successfully shot the white house on november 11, 2011. as it did in cartagena when agents paid for prostitutes and compromise security, as it did in the netherlands in 2014. we cannot further allow this. more importantly, the secret service relies on two important scales or fax. the skill, the capability to protect the president must be at the highest level because they cannot succeed 99% because 1% failure is not an option come up

but they also rely on the good faith belief i most people they should not even try, but this is the hardest target on earth. we need to make sure the second hardest target on earth is through with reality and in the minds of anyone who might take on the secret service to get to the president or first family. without a recognized the member for his opening statement. >> thank you. we begin with an obvious premise. no individual should be allowed to feel -- scaled the fence at the white house, sprint across the north lawn, and burst into the residence of the first family with 11. no one. our goal today is also clear, to determine how this happened and make sure it never happens again. this is our watch. this recent incident unfortunately causes many people to ask whether or not there is a much broader problem with the secret service. last night the washington post reported omar gonzalez made his

way into the east room. another incident in 2011 about a shooting raises more questions about the competency and culture of this delete agency. what concerns me most about this report is agents said they were hesitant. agents in this agency said they were hesitant to raise security concerns with their supervisors. ladies and gentlemen, something is awfully wrong with that picture. the secret service is supposed to be the most elite, protective force in the world, yet four days went by before they discover the white house had been shot seven times. in 2012 there was the prostitution scandal in columbia. although it had little to do with tactical protection issues, it seriously damaged the agency's credibility. the secret service must not only

carry out its duties with the highest degree of excellence and effectiveness, but it also must maintain a reputation that matches the performance. as the chairman has said, much of what deters people from trying to pierce the protective veil of the secret service is the reputation. that reputation must be one of excellence and effectiveness. today's witness, mrs. georgia pearson was appointed director of the secret service last year to help restore the agency standing. she has had a distinguished 30 year career with the agency. to her credit, she immediately ordered an internal review and agreed to testify. with respect to the most recent incident, i have key questions that i know i share with many people across the country. did the secret service have specific protocols by handling this type of specific perimeter breach? is so, where they followed in this case, and if they work him and do they need to change in light of what happened. if they were not followed why? and how can we have confidence that it will be followed in the

future? i also want to understand what happened drier to the incident? gonzalez was arrested in virginia two months earlier on july 19. mr. chairman, i would like to enter into the records an inventory sheet provided to us by the virginia state police. it lists the contents, which included an arsenal of 11 firearms, including sniper rifles and a shot that stalled off shotgun. it also -- without objection the entire report be placed in the record. it also included the content of the car, which included a small arsenal of 11 firearms, including sniper rifles and a sawed-off shotgun.

it also included a map of washington, d.c., with a line drawn to the white house. according to the virginia state police, the bureau of alcohol and tobacco firearms and explosives concluded there was no information in gonzalez history that prohibited him from owning the firearms, get, he was severely mentally ill in the military psychiatrist reportedly traded him for posttraumatic stress disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. mr. chairman, i hate to even imagine what could have happened

if gonzalez had been carrying a gun instead of a knife when he burst inside the white house. that possibility is extremely unsettling. today our workspaces to challenges. first, the secret service has not yet completed the internal view. i understand the director will provide us with a status update but the final results are not yet in. second, some of the information

is classified so we cannot yet discuss it in public. the very last thing we want to do is give people like gonzalez a roadmap for how to attack the president or other officials protected by the secret service. the director sent a letter friday not only offering to testify today in the public setting but also to provide all of us with a classified briefing. the chairman has agreed to hold the classified session in a separate room directly after this hearing concludes. let me close on making the final point. this is not a democratic issue. this is not a republican issue, this is an american issue. this is also an issue of national security. the vast majority of men and women who served in the secret service are dedicated, experienced public servants who

are willing to lay down their lives for their country. on behalf of a grateful congress and a grateful nation, i think -- thank everyone of them. they have an extremely difficult job. like others in difficult positions, they are required to make instant life and death decisions in extremely stressful situations. astrid the capitol police shot and killed an unarmed woman with a one-year-old girl in the back seat of her car. some praised their cooked -- quick responses, others criticized but they acted based upon their first-hand experience the capital one another deranged and eventual first through the doors into -- till two capitol police officers. the secret service has a high profile job, but it is critically important and requires accountability.

mr. chairman, i look forward to the testimony. i thank you for bringing us back to the hearing, and i look forward to the questions i have artie raised and others being answered. with that, i yield back. >> enqueue. i now recognize the gentleman from utah. the subcommittee chairman on national security for his opening statement. >> i think -- thank the chairman and chairman cummings. it is an american issue. i do not want it to be the political football. we are self-critical. the beauty of the nation as we do hold ourselves accountable. i do appreciate you holding this hearing. we have wonderful men and women who serve this nation. they walk away from families and spouses. they do not know what the day

will bring them and they do so in a very honorable way, and we thank them for their service and dedication but i have serious concerns about the current leadership, training and heard a call. -- protocol. since the current director has taken on the role, it is important to note she was chief of staff in 2008. so the past several years is not good enough to simply excuse as something she was trying to clean up before because she was chief of staff in 2008. i am concerned about leadership in mixed messages to those who

serve. after the fence jumping incident the secret service was very quick to put out a statement that honored the officers and agents for their quote tremendous restraint. that is not what we are looking for. tremendous restraint is not the goal of the objective. it sends a very mixed message. it should be overwhelming force. if one person can hop the fence and run unimpeded all the way through an open door of the white house, do not praise them for tremendous restraint. that is not the goal and not what we looking for. if there were alarms inside the door that were muted or sidelined, i want to know why that is. who makes that call and decision? i think as some point we need to go back and revisit two thousand 13 inspector general report that says there is not a problem but over 1000 indications of security concern. in the opening statements they would have to be 100% right all of the time. everyone agrees with that. the inspector general's report, pretty damning. very concerned about the 2011

incident. thanks all for the washington post report. the best i can tell, as well as the article in " the washington post" the event in 2011 were eight shots were fired at the white house, no less than five secret service agents reported they thought they heard shots rate -- shots fired. you had someone on twitter report they saw someone shot -- at the white house.

blocks away moments later someone crashes a vehicle and an assault rifle is in there in the secret service is on the scene and no one ties them together. i don't understand that. later, the arlington county police detain this person. he had been positively identified based on the vehicle but no one put it into the system to put him on the watch list. carly -- consequently when arlington county police pulled him over they took his picture and let him go. it was only the pennsylvania police five days later that find the person. now he is serving 25 years in jail but could have done a lot more damage. if the director is going to take full responsibility, i think the opening statement should also talk about leadership. as i talked to the whistleblower and others come at they are concerned about leadership, and training.

as i look at the 2015 budget request, page 39 there is a basic total and i want to run through the numbers because it is important. under special agent basic classes there were eight classes. 2010 eight classes. 2000 11 five classes. 2012 milk labs says. -- 2011 five clases. 2012 no classes. then in 2012 there was one class. 2013 one class. look at the budget line appropriation, it did not go down. it was basically the same. why did the training diminish? again, i mentioned protocol. if you project week ms., it invites tax.

we want to see overwhelming force. the would-be intruder was not stopped by a dog or person perhaps lethal force is necessary. i want the secret service agents and officers to know at least this member of congress has their back. do not let someone get close to the president, the family, get in the white house ever. if they have to take action that is lethal, i will have their back. at this day and age with 30 bombs in terrorist, we do not know what is owing on underneath that person's clothing. if they want to penetrate that, they need to know they will perhaps be killed. that is the message we should be sending every single time, and that is the kind of secret service that i expect. i thank them for the service and dedication. we love them and care for them but we need better leadership and it is not happening. we yield back. >> we now recognize the gentlelady for her opening statement. >> thank you very much. thank you for this hearing. my respect for the secret service goes back to when i was growing up as a child in the district of columbia and continues to this very day. but today we must ask recent events call for recent unprecedented events call for an unprecedented response. first, an increasing number of white house jumpers, including the most recent this month, was able to get deeper into the interior of the white house. before that in 2011 multiple shots into the living quarters of the first family discovered only four days later not by secret service investigation but by white house staff. beyond these failures, in the core mission of the secret service to protect the white house and the first family is an unsettling failure to disclose, perhaps even understand, what

has occurred or to promptly investigate -- together this combination of failure suggest wrongly the time is right for a 21st-century makeover of the secret service. i do not regard this matter as a mere question of personnel. i believe it goes far deeper than that. moreover, the stunning events have occurred during a time when the united states, and by definition, the white house and even the president, are being targeted by domestic and international terrorists. according to threat assessments, this president has had three times as many threats as his predecessors. just as troubling have been indications of unwarranted

secrecy in the secret service. the secret service is not a secret society. if there is a willing avoidance of needed transparency, that in itself poses a danger to the white house. for example, when noises were heard that could be gunfire at the white house, others believed is automobile that buyer. others believe gain gunfire -- gang gun fire, isn't it the job of the secret service to presume such a sound is gunfire until an immediate investigation shows it was not? when officers close to the sound have to become whistleblowers have active suppression of information becomes yet another threat to the white house, worse such failures such that some are in denial of danger, perhaps posing the greatest risk to the white house. particularly troubling in light of such unanswered questions would be a rush to quick fixes such as suppression of public

access to the area around the white house without a thorough investigation. the white house and lafayette park just like the congress, our first in the area and the public must be allowed to express grievances has -- as they always have been. in light of the seriousness of recent breaches, the investigation at the first instance of the department of homeland security should go well be on the details of these events. they are merely the most recent raw data for a top to bottom investigation of secret service operations at the white house.

this is not a mere question of personnel. changing people at the top or in between will not solve the issue i think we are presented. we must learn whether today's secret service as structured, for example, could stop five or six men jumping at the same time. intent on harm to the white house and president. not just a demented war vet who even alone might have succeeded. no scenario should be off the table for unneeded 21st-century study of secret service operations in the age of terrorism. director pearson has shown accomplishments and her 18 months as director. the heroism of the secret service is the a gone debate. the white house and intruder was brought down by an agent.

at the white house and president have been sprung into a new era of danger. the secret service should welcome an outside investigation to assure the necessary resources and the expert backup and structure for the 21st century is necessary to do its job. >> enqueue. >> members may have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. i now ask for unanimous consent that are calling, the gentlelady from texas comments jackson lee be allowed to participate in the

hearing. additionally, unanimous consent that our calling, the gentleman for mr.'s -- missouri be allowed to participate. we now welcome our panel of witnesses, the honorable julia pearson is the director of the united states secret service. the director is the former director of the united states secret service, and currently up partner at command consulting group. the honorable todd keele is the former assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the united states department of homeland security and currently a senior advisor to touchtone page, pursuant to the committee

rules i when asked that you please all rise and raise your right hand to take the oath. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to get will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seated. but the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow a sufficient time for discussions and questions, please limit your testimony to five minutes. the entire opening statement will be made a permanent part of the record. with that, director pearson is recognized. >> good morning chairman isaf, ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee. i'm here to address the concern we all share following september 19 at the white house. it is clear the security plan was not properly executed. this is unacceptable, and i take full responsibility and make sure it does not happen again. as director my primary concern is ensuring the operational

readiness of the workforce. i have been address it -- aggressive and injuring professionalism and developing leaders through active engagement with agency supervisors and employees i have made it clear my expectations for professionalism and personal accountability. much of what we do to protect the president that involves information that is highly classified. so i will be limited what i can say in a public hearing. on to number 19 a man skilled at north fence of the white house and crossed the lawn, entered through the front door and was subsequently arrested on the state floor. immediately that night i ordered enhancements around the complex and in consultation with the secretary initiated a comprehensive warm -- review of the incident to ensure it will not happen again. the review began when the physical assessment of the state and personnel issues. all the personnel that evening are being evaluated. i am committed to the following, a complete and thorough investigation of the facts of the incident, a complete and thorough review of policies, procedures, protocols and place,

and the response to this incident and based on the result of that review, coordinated, informed effort to make any and all adjustments for training and personal actions that are necessary to properly secure the safety of the family and president and white house. the white house emergency action plans are multifaceted. the secret service has apprehended 16 individuals who jump the fence -- jump the fence over the past five years. in fact, on september 11, 2014, we prior to this event, officers apprehended an individual seconds after he scaled the fence. in addition, hundreds of individuals have approached the white house parameter, verbalize and threats or acting in a suspicious manner. officers routinely leverage decisions to arrest or transfer them to appropriate facilities for mental health evaluations. protecting the white house complex is a challenge and any threat environment. in addition to a national icon, it consists of public spaces, executive officers, and the private residence of the president and first family. ensuring the safety of all who live and work in the white house while preserving access to the millions of visitors each year's -- each year requires a unique balance. in this environment we are never satisfied by the status quo in constantly reviewing security

protocols. with the help of congress we have enhanced security features of the white house. in the past five years the secret service has upgraded perimeter cameras, and command and control systems along with enhancements to highly classified programs. we have generated many of the new security enhancements in direct response to direct the intelligent tactics. i think congress for the support of the time of constrained resources. beyond technology approximately 75% of annual budget is dedicated to payroll cost that supports the most valuable assets, our people. the agency relies heavily on the training and experience and judgment of the when -- men and women. with respect to the questions and opinions raised, i do not want to get ahead of the investigation underway. the secret service has had its share of challenges in the recent years, and some during my tenure. i intend to leave the secret service or the challenge us and it restore the reputation to the level of excellence the american public expects. i am proud of the workforce to serve each day with honor and distinction. last week our employees successfully implemented security operations in conjunction with the 69 united nations general assembly in new york.

over the past 12 months they have completed over 5600 protect -- successful missions. it is my responsibility to ensure they have the resources and training they need to succeed. as director i have worked with department of homeland security, the administration and congress to include members of this committee to develop a comprehensive forward leaning strategy to form -- further enhance the workforce and operational capabilities. we remain dedicated and committed to protecting the family in president. i think the committee for the opportunity to appear and look or word to your questions. -- i thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. ranking member cummings. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective on the recent events at the white house, and more broadly the state of the agency i care deeply about, the united date secret service. i look forward to discussing how the recent incident highlights some of the challenges the secret service has long faced at the white house complex and balancing desired levels of security come along with the functional needs of those who live and work in the complex and the practical realities of the thriving city it resides within

and the historic symbolism and imagery of the people's house. this exposes steps the secret service got right and those they got wrong and will identify corrective measures and additional resources that can be considered. this also poses difficult questions for all of us on the issue. like the use of the legal force and tolerance and additional fortifications around the white house complex. the questions do not have easy answers and the consequences must be thought through. let us also be mindful that while our analysis has the benefits of days of hindsight in consideration, everyone who has served on protective detail most decision-making in a natural event with life and death consequences is measured in milliseconds. those who were on duty during the incident had a much harder job in trying to get it right and we do today. my perspective is one that is shaped by a career of over 30 years in the secret service but also for my experiences at the head of operational components within department of homeland insecurity. now where i remain deeply

involved in the security issues and implementation of international best practices as it relates to protection of individuals and high valued assets. i had the honor of joining the secret service in 1971 and i enjoyed a challenging and very interesting career, including being on protective detail for and ricketts injured, vice president bush, and countless dignitaries. later, president clinton afforded me director as the training center and eventually retired to washington after september 11 attacks to help start a transportation security administration. i rejoined secret service in 2003 when i was honored to serve former three years. i subsequently was appointed by president bush to serve as commissioner of the united states customs and border protection of the largest law

enforcement agency in the united states. i remained in that position at the obama administration at the request of secretary napolitano. upon retiring from the government in 2009 i helped to found the security of that work for government sector and private clients. therefore, the viewpoint i will share today is informed largely by men experience with the secret service and the benefits of having worked for and many other eu leak security organizations around the world for almost 40 years. let me commend the members for the time and interest you are showing on the subject, especially at this juncture when there are so many pressing security concerns to which our government must pay attention. it goes without saying the reset incident with the individual crossing the fence and making inside the white house is unprecedented him and unacceptable. this is not just my view, but it is the directors view that it is unacceptable as well as the rank-and-file. this is critically and portman this incident. we could easily be discussing why an iraqi veteran possibly suffering through posttraumatic stress disorder armed with only a pocket knife was shot dead on the north wall -- not -- north lawn. the secret service, split second decisions made will thoroughly be examined, procedure debated, training altered and in the end, the secret service will learn valuable lessons as they have been doing throughout their history of protecting the president and his family. this is an agency that will never been reluctant to read team incidents, those of high consequences and those of less importance. to find opportunities for improvement in the way it conducts business and the way it

trains people in the tools it uses to accomplish the mission. my confidence remains high that this aspect remains as strong today as it has ever been. i know the agency will learn valuable lessons i can apply immediately to improve security at the white house and other settings. i would urge the committee to keep in mind when examining any incidents that the broader context in which the secret service operates is not one that is valued on security alone. the service has to ensure the president and other protect these and the facilities in which they live and work are safe and secure but do so in the context of important american values like freedom and openness and in close coordination and cooperation and almost always in negotiation with the myriad of other stakeholder -- stakeholders and decision-makers who have responsibilities and viewpoints. this dynamic is in fact more

true when it comes to the area surrounding the white house complex than any other.

as much as i may have wished it when i was the director, the secret service absolutely cannot unilaterally when it comes to almost any security feature in and around the white house. stakeholders with a voice including the government district of columbia, as mr. norton would recognize. national historical society, gsa and others who provide input into any architectural changes and improvements and new changes in appearance. of prime example is the closure of present -- pennsylvania avenue to vehicular traffic. imperative from the services perspective for many years. it was politically impossible until the oklahoma city bombing in 1995 made the impact of

vehicle borne exposure to a government building. even then it was not until 2004 when i was director that we were able to complete the project converting the course to a pedestrian mall. at this aspect remains as strong today as it has ever been. agency will learn valuable lessons i can apply immediately to improve security at the white house and other settings. i would urge the committee to keep in mind when examining any incidents that the broader context in which the secret service operates is not one that is valued on security alone. the service has to ensure the president and other protect these and the facilities in which they live and work are safe and secure but do so in the context of important american values like freedom and openness and in close coordination and cooperation and almost always in negotiation with the myriad of other stakeholder --

stakeholders and decision-makers who have responsibilities and viewpoints. this dynamic is in fact more true when it comes to the area surrounding the white house complex than any other. as much as i may have wished it when i was the director, the secret service absolutely cannot unilaterally when it comes to almost any security feature in and around the white house. stakeholders with a voice including the government mr.rict of columbia, as norton would recognize. national historical society, gsa and others who provide input into any architectural changes and improvements and new changes in appearance. of prime example is the closure of present -- pennsylvania avenue to vehicular traffic. imperative from the services perspective for many years. it was politically impossible until the oklahoma city bombing in 1995 made the impact of

vehicle borne exposure to a government building. even then it was not until 2004 when i was director that we were able to complete the project converting the course to a pedestrian mall. i might add, there are those that believe the avenue should be reopened in spite of the irrefutable evidence of the extreme risk such a move would put the first family and hundreds of employees who work there. i can also tell you there have been numerous studies conducted by the secret service and at the secret service respect -- request to conduct them at the white house, motivated in part by concerns about the inadequacy of the current white house fence as an outer perimeter for a complex given the ability of an individual or group of

individuals to quickly scale it and be on white house grounds. while multiple improvements have been made, especially over the past decade to the security of the white house complex, there have been several improvements desired that have not been possible in light of other considerations given the level of funding provided to the agency for such capital improvements. let me be clear, i am not in anyway trivializing the importance of the considerations importance of the considerations. there have almost always been things i'd like to do for security purposes but could not because of limited funding or other factors. that will always be the case. it is always keep in mind the white house is an important symbol for the american people. it is obviously critically important to be kept safe but the security must be accomplished in a way that does not jeopardize the very values we seek to protect and the

buildings themselves in deed symbolized. i ask that you keep this in context when looking at this particular incident and examining how something could have happened or how it could be and should be presented in the future. today i want to make sure the committee is aware of another fundamental principle in which the secret service and any good security organization to protect the methodology is based. it is called defense in depth. law enforcement usually referred to as multilayered security. when it comes to protecting the president or white house complex, there are many layers of protection for which an attacker must travel in order to it chief -- achieve a desired objective. the entry of an individual into the white house -- >> could you summarize? you are at twice five minutes. >> having said that, i am ready to take questions. >> thank you, chairman issa.

inviting me to testify today regarding the u.s. secret services security protocols. i believe i can offer unique perspective on protecting high visibility targeted as a ladies after spending nearly 23 years after the department of state diplomatic security service with responsibility for developing and implementing security programs for u.s. personnel, embassies, consulates and other officials around the world. i have also spent numerous years in the private sector working in and advising corporate security and management. from late 2009 until early 2000 well i was the assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the department of homeland security. i was responsible for public/private partnerships in a regulatory program to protect critical assets of the united states. asked year i was selected and served on the benghazi accountability review board number recommended independent panel on best practices, which

was established to identify best practices from across u.s. government agencies. and allied countries on management and operation and high threat/high risk locations globally. mr. chairman, the united states secret service has a proud history of protecting the most important government leaders of our country, the white house and other official facilities and conducting criminal thestigations to protect banking systems and financial communications and cyber security. and women on the from line every day keeping our men and women safe do a tremendous job. the agents and officers of the secret service are constantly in the spotlight, especially serving at the white house, one ofthe most prominent signals our nation strength and democracy. leo them a debt of gratitude. every organization, even those with a century and a

half of history must be willing to learn. those who wish to do us harm possiblynpredictable mentally unstable person to an organized terror group meant on -- bent on unleashing an attack typically have the element of surprise. our country faces a very dynamic and fluid and evolving threat environment in which the aggressors have become very patient, resilient and determined. we have to be better than they are. to counter this threat, security intelligence and law enforcement agencies like the secret service must have strategical and tactical leadership, focus on the primary mission and provide the people with the best training and resources, and possibly most importantly be ready to act aggressively when faced with a threat. the secret service like any successful organization must be willing to continuously eat all and improved to adapt the agency ahead of the threat curve.

i foundut my career government agencies and private sector organizations were at the top of the game become complacent. time tends to unknowingly you wrote and blunt the end of this year. way wely on this is the have always done it or we know how to do it best so they are unwilling or unable to change. the secret service, i believe, would benefit from new and emerging technologies to assist with protect of responsibilities . when i was at the department of homeland security the secret service partner with my office and dhs office of science and technology to research and develop cutting-edge technology. now is the time for the department of homeland security to bring some of those technological enhancements out of the lab and expand their use in the secret service toolkit. in addition, management and leadership of an organization change, andhem a

improve. deployment of personnel and resources should be understood -- under constant scrutiny and exercise based on real world scenarios. officers are some of the best this country has to offer and they deserve the strategic and tactical leadership to match. all too often after something has gone wrong the cry is for more money, more personnel and a larger physical setback. this is really the correct answer. -- rarely the correct answer. throwing more money and people at the problem will only existinge week mean -- weaknesses. post incidentss are typical in the u.s. government from agency to agency but from my experience the reviews are impacted by intentional or unintentional arsenal or professional bias and are often informed by the same agencies cultural and management gaps that may have been the

contributing factor in the original incidents. the department of homeland security and the secret service now have unique opportunity and critical moment in time to obtain an unbiased, independent top to bottom review focusing on management and policies and procedures related to the incident on september 19. i strongly recommend the secretary of homeland security appoint a panel of independent experts to conduct the review in the group should be tasked with providing advice, guidance and formal recommendations to dhs and the secret service. in fact, the faneuil -- panel i by markas chaired sullivan. throughout my career i have always been proud to work colleagues. my the united states secret service is a recognize world-class organization and i am confident will learn from the most recent incident and innovate, strengthen and improve to keep the country and leader safe. thank you.

you, mr. kyle. i will recognize myself now. --hink the first question you can put up the map of the white house. first question, if you look at the firstportion, question the american people crasho know is is there a button, and had it been punished, what is locked the front door that is marked as the ?ntrance hall apc the front door at the time did not have an automatic locking mechanism. it required an individual to lock the front door. click so we have an automated system. 800 million per year, millions of dollars more during your tenure each year at the president's request, and that door was unlocked with no one standing at it when mr. gonzales

came through? is that correct? unlocked at the time of mr. gonzales's entry. that is correct. >> ok. earlier there was a report and that he was apprehended at the entrance hall. isn't it true today that we understand it was not true, he was apprehended at the green room, correct? if i may clarify my first answer, the front door consists of two doors. which isan outer door, class almost described as a storm door, and an air door that is a historic door. the outer door was not locked. the internal wood door was in the process of being hand locked. lex bottom line, automated locking is in a capability at

the white house but not of that entrance at that time. >> not at that time but has since been installed in effective today. >> the second paul, east room and arrested in the passivity of the green room? - in the vicinity of the green room? >> according to your map-- >> i want a short answer. the federal indictment showed he was apprehended in one place. >> as mr. gonzales entered the door he knocked back the officer standing at the doorway. the officer engaged mr. gonzales. they crossed the east entrance hall to the other. they made the left turn down the

cross paul, they stepped momentarily into the east room. another officer rendered aid and was placed on the ground in the carpet and handcuffed on the cross paul to us outside of the green room. , the federal complaint in the earlier reports were not accurate, correct? yes or no, please go >> i think the original complaint is accurate that he scaled the fence. lex i have very little time, and the american people want to know , is the president safe? i want to know if we can rely on reports from your agency. going back to mr. hernandez. drain your watch as chief of staff to the director, is it reported,in fact as agents falsely assumed they were

not gunshots when they were gunshots? were standdown orders to people who had aarti full shotguns out. in fact, the bullets were not discovered to have hit the white house in real-time within a 24 hour or greater. by the secret service. yes or no, please. >> you are referring to the in 2011.ooting >> yes. >> at that time, it is my understanding that there was reports of shots being fired in proximity to constitution avenue. 'am.amma -- ma i want to be considerate to you, you have a hard job. but you have an agency whose morale has gone down. it is lower than other comical federal agencies. it has had a series of embarrassments out. we've had two cases in which the reporting is evolving. only last night to the public learn that in fact, it was far

worse, or at least somewhat worse, on september 19. only recently has it been revealed, and you said you wanted to correct the record. the washington post makes it clear, from what i read, that in 11, 2011,ovember shots were fired. the assailant left. the secret service supervisor shutdown the response of people who believe rightfully very gunshots fired. the follow-up did not discover the damage to the white house, and the actual shots in real-time. , ortegaally, mr. ortega hernandez is how i have a written, would not have been apprehended except he had a car accident. and when he did, it was not immediately linked to his criminal activity. in fact, the system at the white

house did not detect the actual shots fired and begin the pursuit of somebody who had provided legal -- lethal force against the facility of the white house. is that correct? you work chief of staff at the time. allow yout, i will whatever time you need to properly explain whatever happened on november 11, 2011. so the american people can understand that september 19 is not the first time there is been considerable lapse, as i see it. and in fact, during a long theod of time we have had kinds of things we should be concerned about for protecting the president. please tell us, in whatever time you need, about november 11, 2011. whether the washington post is right or wrong. this is your chance. >> thank you. as chief of staff

-- >> in the might close. >> my primary responsibilities at that time were business transformation. and i.t. transformation for the organization. my focus was on the business operations of the organization. to my knowledge, and based on the briefings i have received of this three-year-old investigation that occurred in november of 2011, that appeared in the washington post on sunday, i had been aware that a apresentative had asked with data inquiry, and we responded to the committee on september 12. we responded him detailed responses. shots were reported by the united states secret service officers in the area of constitution avenue and 15th. there were witness accounts of a black vehicle that had fired

shots. there was confusion at the time on the part of the witnesses as to what they had witnessed, and what they had saw. witnesses putse out twitter accounts of what they had witnessed. they were subsequently located, interviewed, and recanted those statements. the actual shots that were fired come in proximity to constitution avenue and 16th, the vehicle sped away. it went westbound on constitution, erratically driving, and struck a light post. mr. tager then fled the vehicle. ortega then fled the vehicle. the vehicle was left with an ak-47 in the front seat. had us possibility over the traffic accident. >> i will give you all the time you need.

but where are the inconsistencies with what we now know from the washington post? you said they got the story wrong, they were misstating it, they were mischaracterizing it. i would like to hear the inconsistencies. so far you are corroborating that in fact, the understanding of the series of failures in real-time to protect the white house are in fact correct, according to the washington post. please tell us where they are not correct. the course of this, there was a command post established on constitution avenue and 23rd street. metropolitan police department, the u.s. park police, united states secret service were their attention to resolve or understand it from witness accounts what happened along constitution avenue. at the white house, individuals had heard what they believed to be shots. to secret service, according the records that i have been able to locate on this three-year-old investigation, did respond properly. the emergency response teams and their officers did a protective sweep of the area to make sure

that we did not have any intruders, or obvious signs of any things that had been damaged. investigation with the park police, they were unable to resolve at that time whether or not these were shots being fired at other vehicles, or shots being fired at the white house. that took some time to understand. the ushersntil office were preparing for the return of the first family that they identified damage on the truman balcony. further to investigation, that led to us contacting the federal bureau of investigation to initiate a full investigation. >> thank you. mr. cummings, i thank you for your understanding. let me relate some in the ui discussed yesterday, if i may. in washington dc, and around the country, there are a number of systems that we all know. baltimore has it too. rhey are microphones that hea

gunshots, can identify the direction, can quickly and without human intervention figure out whether or not a real shot has been fired, confirm it, and often give a very accurate direction. that kind of technology isn't so odd that we don't see it in our cities. i think that is the reason i went on so long with this question. know, knows this. the district does have a sophisticated system. i think the committee will want to make sure that not only does the white house have a higher level of awareness of the system, but that the district system be enhanced if necessary to make sure that something like this never happens again. i think the john the first patients. >> thank you mr. chairman. -- piersonarson , i've thought about this long and hard. tohink my major concern goes

the culture. to knowry disturbing that secret service agents in the most elite protective agency in the world feel more telling things, and coming to you and members in the agency. -- when i boil all this down, that to me is dangerous. it has to go against the route. -- against morality. i don't see how good decisions can be made if your own people don't feel a level of comfort. or they feel fear, that they are

going to be able to talk about the things that concern them. i just want to go through some questions. i want to give you a chance to address that. to me, when all the dust settles, that is a problem. this november 11, 2011 incident. i know you were not the director. i understand that. thet of people talk about culture problem with the secret service. , of all theports press reports the one that itcerns me is that in 2011, says officers who were on the scene, who thought gunfire had probably hit the house that night, were largely ignored. dispute were afraid to their bosses conclusions.

did you see that report, are you aware of this incident? >> ranking member cummings, i too read that newspaper article, and was troubled by those accounts. i have asked my office of professional responsibility to retrieve the file, and those records. of what we know, and when we knew it, if this young officer had made such a statement. i did find a statement, with theyyoung officer alleges were reluctant to report it to their supervisor to be criticized. i believe that was the statement. it troubles me as well. >> that is a major problem. >> i'm going to office -- ask my office to read interview that officer. they remain on the job today. to determine whether that officer would be more competent today, or what were some of those problems that she felt like she could not say that. that externally troubles me. -- it's said that she

heard shots and what she thought was debris falling overhead. she drew her hand gun and took cover, then heard a radio call reporting possible shots fired. new the south grounds. called the joint operations center to report that she was breaking into the gun box near her post, pulling out her shotgun. according to this article, she replaced the buckshot inside inh a more powerful slug case you needed to engage in attacker. but then, the call came over the radio to stand down. thing, the officer, and i quote -- listened during roll call before her shift, saturday afternoon, as the supervisors explained that the gunshots were two people into cars -- in

cars shooting at each other. the report said that she told several senior officers friday night that she thought the house had been hit. she did notday, challenge her supervisors for fear of being criticized. she later told investigators. pierson, as a former field agent and as head is the -- head of the agency, that must concern you. >> it does. it is an acceptable. -- unacceptable. somees it trouble you that of your own agents do not feel couple raising security concerns? and this is just one person. there are others who again, would rather be whistleblowers

-- and i have no problem with whistleblowers. we do every thing in our power to protect them. but in this agency, they would rather be a whistleblower than to bring their concerns to you -- you started off saying that you are going to make sure this never happens again. let me tell you what the problem is here. if you are heading in agency where the folks are not providing you with the information to do the right thing, to make the changes, how do you even know what the problems are? do you follow me? help me with this. -- yes, sir. any time in any organization, you start to make significant changes, some people will have resistance. some will push back.

however, i will continue to lead and transform the secret service, to ensure we are prepared for our mission. and ensure we can restore our reputation with the american public. over the last 18 months that i have been serving as director, and over the last six months, i have been personally with over 1500 supervisors and employees. i have had a number of engagement sessions, and spent over an hour with each of them, advising them of what my expectations are. what their performance requirements are. what personal accountability is. how to manage this workforce. how to ensure that we are performing at the highest levels in everything that we do. that we are operationally ready, that we are training, the we are evaluating each other, and that we are constantly looking at our mission to make sure we are being effective in everything that we do. i can't speak for what is happen

-- has happened in the past. as we move into the future, and while i am director, i will not missteps,ersonnel were people fail to act or do not support the workforce, or do not work in unison. i would say that there are many people who are still pushing back, and i will continue to lead forward. officer,oblem is that she was right. and that was the morning after the shooting. yet it took four days for the housekeepers to discover that the bullets that struck the building. isn't that right? in other words, the officer was right. >> yes. ultimately, the officer was right. >> the washington post story says this agent subsequently reported her concerns to investigators. was there and after accident report about the 2011 shooting? did it include recommendations related to agents reporting

their concerns without fear of being criticized? do you know? >> i don't know. i would say that the officers statement to our interviews, that occurred when secret service employees, are different than the officers statements to the fbi and officers conducting the investigation. i have asked them to go back and have a robust conversation with unemployed make sure she feels we wantd, knows that her to come forward with information, and that we understand what some of the impediments may be with the management team. feel like we can make improvements to make sure that never happens again. >> let me say this, and then i will close. sullivan, director invited me a few years ago. you may have been there. to speak before top agents. after the columbia situation.

with the prostitutes. said tohe things that i mym back then -- i expressed tremendous respect and appreciation. i also told them that i don't --t anyone to imagine imagining that they can pierce the protective veil of the secret service. period. i firmly believe that the reputation is so very, very, very important. -- that culture thing is an issue. i'm sure that others will question you about that. thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize myself. following up on raking member cummings. i sent you a letter, director,

specifically asking for details about the situation in 2011. i ask unanimous consent and written to the records of it all members can see it, the unclassified spot report on the incident in november of 2011. director, why is it that when i look at this report, there isn't even a mention of officer carrie johnson? and yet the washington post this toher detailing headquarters. wise and her name mentioned -- why isn't her name is mentioned? >> it reflects the active information. i don't know what information you have relatives officer johnson's reporting. >> you gave us this report. this is minute by minute. minute by minute what happened in the situation. are you telling me that the

washington post is wrong, that she didn't call in to headquarters? i'm confused by your statement about colin to headquarters. >> she reported that she was opening a box, getting out a shotgun, all those details. >> that is the confusion that i have with the washington post article. typically, when there is an emergency happening around the made,house, or alerts are much like shots being fired on november 11, i would expect officers to react according to their security protocols. >> she says she called in to headquarters. there is no mention of that. other officers are mentioned, but it is not acceptable to not even mention the action she took in the washington post could get that, but congress couldn't. let's go back to the fence jumping situation.

police had detained a person who had a map in the car, all the weapons that country from cummings had talked about, suspicious behavior. my understanding is three officers spotted him that day and did not report it. i want to know if that is true as we go along. the fence failed, officers that chased him didn't catch him, the sniper was in position, no shots were fired. dogs were out there, weren't released. counter surveillance is understaffed. nobody shot anything. there was nobody who was intercepted. the doors were unlocked. an officer was overwhelmed. the crash box was evidently science -- silence. the secret service but that is stationed -- put out a statement saying they offered tremendous restraint. do those officers have your authority to use lethal force to prevent somebody from entering the white house?

>> those officers do have the authority to use independent judgment to leverage lethal force when appropriate. >> is that true when someone is getting at the president? >> that is always true. they are law enforcement officers. >> it is always true when some but he is trying to penetrate the white house late they can use lethal force. >> as appropriate within the confines of the law. that.lain the details of if somebody is approaching the white house, has penetrated the security, making a run for the white house, no apparent weapon -- can they take that person down? >> the law requires that law-enforcement officers ensure that they are in imminent danger n imminentare i danger before they can leverage lethal force. >> if the person is running at the white house with no apparent weapon, they can or cannot use

lethal force. >> those will be independent decisions made by officer based on the totality of circumstances. >> how does the officer know if they have an ample buys -- and provides explosive? should they assume that this person has an intention? >> law enforcement officers are trained in observation skills. i would assess they are constantly looking at people for intentions. >> i think it is confusing. this is part of what they have to deal with. there making split-second decisions. i wanted to be crystal clear. you make a -- at the white house, we are going to take you down. i want overwhelming force. you disagree with me? >> i want officers and agents to exercise appropriate force. >> we have to explore this further. the secret service put out a they talked to the

associated press. 20, reported on september said the man appeared to be unarmed to officers, who spotted him climbing the fence. a search of the subject turned up no weapons. why would he say there was no weapons? ask mr. donovan that question. >> you haven't done that? was know when mr. gonzales placed into custody, he was found to have a folded knife in his right front pants pocket. >> do you consider that a weapon? >> that is a weapon. >> why would the secret service -- to the associated press did you correct the associated press? did you call them back and say got that wrong? >> i have no knowledge of that. >> you just let it linger out

there that there was no weapon. that was wrong. that was inaccurate. correct? know there has been a lot of information in this case. that is why we are doing a robust review. i can't speak for conversations that i was not part of. or the press is interest in this. >> did you read the press release before it went out? >> i read the press release before it went out. officers agree that showed tremendous restraint and discipline? i do think, based on the totality of the circumstances, 'arrest, mr. gonzales these officers did use her strained in making a difficult decision in whether to employ lethal force, or subdue and arrest him. >> do think they responded appropriate and? the security plan was

not appropriate executed. i am conducting a review of what happened, so i have all the facts, and so i can make a decision about what the facts were on the night. >> thank you, i've gone well past my time at. i recognize the gentleman from the district of columbia. >> we recognized horse for. see here? >> thank you. i want to thank director pierson for her 30 years of service at the secret service, for rising through the ranks to become the first woman director. i'm aware of what she has inherited. and after many a compliments. director pierson, i want to ask you about the rumors that have been out there about what the secret service may do.

when pennsylvania avenue was closed down after oakland the city, -- oklahoma city, there was examples of how public access can remain. i was heartbroken. both sides of the white house were closed down. i worked with the clinton administration on e street. on the backside of the white house. only for its vista, but because it is a major thoroughfare. it affected the entire region. that was summarily closed down. testified, inand front of the white house, though cars can no longer go there, people can go there. park.ially, it was made a a walkway. none of my constituents, no one says it should be reopened. because that would mean cars, not people. my concern is whether or not

people will continue to have access around the white house. i walked through the white house yesterday. i was pleased to find not only tourists and protesters as usual. , you testified 16 jumpers, and only five years. there has been an increase in fence jumpers. i want to know whether you have simplyred before today, fence beat a higher built. one that for example could curve. the curve going outward, so maybe you would damage a body

part if you try to get over it. are off the these top of my head, multilayered glass behind the fence that guns orsist blasts from bombs. since there have been 16 in five years, at least i think many more over the years -- have you considered such common sense so that thehat, public would still have access, but the president of the united states and his family would be protected? have you ever recommended that? >> we do want to work in partnership to ensure that the people have access in proximity to the white house, and the historic nature, and the natural

significance. i do look forward to continuing to work with you and the administration, and the department, to look at what additional security features can --put in place not only to for white house fence jumpers, but for the other challenges that face us in securing public areas. that most ofe, these are harmless. i am worried about multiple fence jumpers, and whether you have the resources and staff heard there were six of them to come across the fence. calculations, you are down more than 250 agents in the uniformed services in the last two, since the sequester and the cuts. is that the case? >> yes. ae secret service has had

reduction in its staffing as a result of sequestration, and other fiscal constraints. we are close to 550 employees below our optimal level. understand the staff has had to be brought in from other units, who may not have been as familiar with the white house because of the shortage of staff. is that the case? earlier this summer, based upon the work requirement the secret service's face with in the month of september, i made the decision to bring in special agents from around the country to support some of the uniformed division posting assignments in proximity to the white house tours. that has provided some relief for our universe -- uniform division. >> i realize my time is gone. i do think that congress has to take some responsibility for the sequester, when across the

board, including police agencies like the secret service. thank you. >> recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> director, i am a fan of law enforcement. i don't take any delight in asking the questions i'm going to ask you. law enforcement are given unique powers, and and with that response ability. i can think of any resort to believe greater than guarding our president and his family. several agents thought there was shots fired, a supervisor concluded it was a vehicle backfiring. even if that were true, even given the very small investment of resources, when i investigate shots fired? representative, i think that is where some of the confusion starts to come out of the story is in the washington post. >> i'm not asking you about a washington post or, i'm asking

you about why a housekeeper, who doesn't spend 14 weeks in training, who doesn't have 18 weeks of training thereafter, found glass, and your agents did not. they didn't come from the washington post. is that true? did a housekeeper find evidence of the shooting, and your agents did not? >> the housekeeper was able to on thefragments of glass truman balcony, which is not an area that is frequented by security personnel. >> i didn't ask you who was frequented. i asked you -- there was a spontaneous conclusion that shots were fired. there were officers who believed they smelled gunpowder. theirfficers drew weapons. that is how seriously they took it. i'm not interested in cursory searches. when did your agency find evidence of the shooting?

the 15theve it was on or 14th of november. >> hominy days after the shooting? -- how many days after the shooting?\ >> three to four days later. >> you have officers taking cover because they believe shot were fired. you have officers at the white house drawing their weapons because they believe shots were fired. give me all the evidence to support a vehicle backfiring. sure youentative, i'm are familiar with law enforcement in downtown areas. there is sound attenuation. often times -- >> i have never heard a car backfire 68 times. have you? >> i've heard car backfires -- 6 to 8 times. a housekeeper found the

evidence of the shooting, and your agency did not. i will give you credit, it was brought up by a colleague. i have colleagues who are obsessed with sequestration. we can't have any hearing without it coming up. but you were not going to sit there and tell us that sequestration is the reason your agency did not find evidence of the shooting, are you? >> no, i am not. >> i will give you credit for that. i was stunned that one of my colleagues would try to conflate sequestration with the fact that a law enforcement agency waited for or five days to find evidence of a shooting in the housekeeper found. give me all the evidence to back the vehicle backfiring narrative. we already know all the other evidence. give me all the evidence that major department so sure that it was a vehicle backfire that you didn't even search the white house.

the secret service was actively engaged with the united states park police in an effort to determine where and in what direction shots were fired on constitution avenue. >> madame director. you reached the conclusion that it was a vehicle backfiring as opposed to shots fired. haveis the third time i asked. give me all the evidence to support that supervisors conclusion that it was not shots fired, despite all the contemporaneous claims that it was, despite all of the reaction of your agents that it was. give me all the evidence to support the theory that it was a vehicle backfire. and then, tell me why not invest the very minimal resources required to exhaustively search the white house. representative, often times in these cases, there are a number of different people that make different statements. what i can tell you is the uniformed division officers on constitution avenue heard on fire and reported gunfire.

can't speak to the specificity of the individual you are talking about the reported it -- >> can you speak to why a housekeeper found it and your department did not? >> housekeepers routinely work in the private residence of the president and first family. >> even when there is overwhelming -- was just a suspicion. we want the overwhelming evidence, that would require you to search the present -- the residence. you don't go through every inch of that residence? i want you to imagine a prosecutor in front of a jury. this is where these cases wind up sometimes. you explain to the jury why a housekeeper found evidence of the shooting, and your agency did not. >> representative, again, this case has been prosecuted in federal court. those expirations were made in

front of a federal prosecutor. evidencethe lord the was sufficient for a jury. and what you make it -- i want you to make it sufficient for commerce. >> it was difficult to see at night. officers heard the shots, officers reacted, picked up security positions, swept the area, looking for any type of injury or intruder. it was not known until days later that the shots and actually struck the upper level, the third floor level of the white house. >> i will end, i'm out of time. why not search every inch of the white house, given the very small investment of resources? i went on your website, i saw you have training for psychology, you have training for survival skills, none of which i minimize. all of which i'm sure is important. this is just processing a crime

scene. this is not high math. it is processing a crime scene. you actually don't need 18 weeks of training to be able to do that. just need to walk around. so why was it done -- why wasn't it done? >> it was my understanding that a perimeter sweep was done. was it as thorough as it needed to be black evidently not. security.gnize the >> i think all the witnesses here this morning. preventions.out if you look back in july, several months before the incidents, when the promoter was understanding our was stopped by virginia state police. they found at least 11 weapons and a map with a line drawn directly to the white house. is that your understanding? >> it was a regional map with a line pointed to the memorial

area of the mall, including the white house and the other historic monuments. >> our reports are that the virginia state police and the atf then referred that matter to the secret service, because presumably because of that line. >> that is correct. >> secret service had an interview with mr. gonzales at that time. is that correct? >> yes. the case was later referred to the secret service for an interview of mr. gonzales. >> how thorough without interview have been, according to protocols? how deeply they have gone into their examination of mr. gonzales? >> they had a very thorough initial interview with mr. gonzales. they initiated contact with his family members, his mental health history, and the police reports. >> they determined he had a mental health history? >> key technology had a mental

health history as a veteran suffering from ptsd. >> do protocols allow you to obtain his records? >> if the individual consents to the release of their medical records, we do pursue that. in this case, mr. gonzales consented the release of his military medical records. >> you had all of his medical records to review. i assume you did review them? >> they were obtained over a. of time, and they have been reviewed. >> despite all that, what happened? you didn't take any action, he didn't have him arrested. >> representative, it is a very difficult thing for people dealing with disabilities on and people dealing with mental illness, when they don't exhibit any unusual direction of interest. mr. gonzales, at the time, denied any interest or any intent to harm anyone. he indicated that his

information relative to the map at his car was given to him by another individual. who had recommended places in washington dc to sightsee. bash onded to go to camping trips. he wanted to go to the valley forge, pennsylvania area. >> was the individual ever questioned? >> not to my knowledge. >> how does that conform with protocol? >> i know investigators are as thorough as they can possibly be an investigation like this to make sure that we have a good understanding. >> the individual wasn't available? >> i do not know the specifics. >> that would be an indication if they were as thorough as they should have been. not withstanding that, there was a second incident before the perimeter was breached by mr. gonzales, where he was found walking in front of the white house with a hatchet in his belt. is that correct? >> mr. gonzales was observed on

august 25, on the south fence line. >> he was interviewed again by secret service agents? >> he was interviewed by uniformed officers of the secret service and special agents of the secret service. >> his name was run against the database? >> yes. >> the database indicated the earlier incident? >> yes. the database provided information of the original contact with mr. gonzales. >> at that time, they knew he had been arrested in virginia, had a map pointing towards the area of the white house, ammunition in his car, watching -- walking with a hatchet, we knew had mental health problems. what happened then? >> officers and agents made contact with mr. gonzales. asked him about the hatchet he was carrying. he indicated he had been camping

in the area of lake prince william county around quantico. the agents and officers had asked him for consent search of his vehicle. he agreed. he was going to return the hatchet to the vehicle. they went back, they look through the vehicle. mr. gonzales was extreme the cooperative. this build in a concerns of the officers had. he had camping gear and camping equipment in his car. he appeared to be living out of his car. so they just let him go. >> mr. gonzales had not violated any laws. he had to be released. >> did they have any follow-up? did anyone talk to any other agencies in the washington area about observing this individual? making sure somebody knew what his behavior was after that second incident? >> the second incident was also passed into our analysis desktop , so it could be analyzed. >> what happened at the end of that evaluation?

>>. not committed any violations, nothing -- he was under mental health evaluations by the military v.a.. no further action could be taken by the secret service other than to continue to monitor his behavior through his family. >> is that the only way they could monitor it through his family? there was no other agency that could monitor his activity? >> he was on bond pending charges to the state police. the incident that brought them to our attention -- there was criminal contact on the state level, and he was returning to that area. the case was still under evaluation as to what mr. gonzales's mental history was, and whether or not he was going to come to our attention again. >> it was your understanding that you thought it was particularly appropriate that the service did nothing else and regards to making sure this individual was monitored in his behavior. it is very difficult for the secret service, when these individuals come to our attention.

day,ny as 300 year, or a or being evaluated by our office of protective intelligence. have been in history twice picked up with weapons heading to the white house? >> many of them are brought to our attention by making a direct threat. many of them are mentally ill. they have a long mental health passed. some are more cooperative than others. in the specific case of mr. gonzales, he was being very cooperative. his family had been contacted by investigators. the family members indicated that he was cooperative, that he did not have a violent past. his mental health records, to my flectstanding, did not re that any of his mental health contexts body was a danger to himself or others. >> thinks the gentle man.

-- thank the gentleman. it is my understanding that people and told us there were three different officers that theseen him, recognized him day that the incident happened. the but did not report it. is that true? >> it is my understanding, based on how i have been breached, that two of the officers recognize mr. gonzales. in the area of the white house, on september 19, and observed him for some time. they remembered him from the contact they had had with him on august 5. when he was on the south fence line. they observed him for some time, he wasn't acting inappropriately, he didn't violate any laws. >> they did not report that, and they did not approach him, correct? >> they noted that, but did not approach him. >> they did not approach -- remote -- report him? >> not to my knowledge.

>> i think there are several concerns, i think one of the things i agree wholeheartedly about,e ranking member this is something that we are talking about the white house. it is a world icon. you think of america, you think of the white house. one of the concerns i have come and we have been mentioning many of the issues here recently, different events -- the issue is not the protocols that have been put in place now. it's the issues of why are there so many instances on a foundational level. ay the doesn't seem to be willingness to report. why there doesn't seem to be a willingness to exercise -- a willingness to say this is something i have noticed. the officer said she didn't feel she could report it. if there are issues where the and otheroverseas

places, there seems to be a foundational issue we have to address. not only from your perspective, but from here. you made a statement of moment 300 you said we get suspicious people a year, and 300 a day in the same sentence. which is it? >> talking to protective intelligence, as of yesterday, they were directly overseeing 300 and 27 investigations. to 27.otality, three 327.three hitter 27 -- it is very visual. there is are the been a new police line perimeter put in place. is that correct? temporary rack to provide us a standout area while

this investigation is underway. >> i thank you for the long answer to guess. i have several things i want to ask. you have made several comments that we are doing an investigation, we are saying why these protocols were breached. you also said we don't want to rush, we don't want to change things. we have already started with putting a perimeter fence, or at least a barrier back from the fence currently. i'm wondering here if the problem doesn't seem to be the fence area the problem seems to be the fact that someone jumped the fence, ran 70 yards, got into the white house with nobody's stopping them. you made a comment, my father is in law enforcement. this is hard for me to look at this. you made an analogy that i'm not sure is accurate. you talked about discretion and restraint. police officers do this all the time it. they do this on the side of the road when they have made a stop. you are talking about officers

who are protecting a national icon. when they jumped the fence, there should be an immediate understanding that this person should not be here. there should be an immediate understanding that there is not a restraint factor here. this is not the nice, cuddly secret service. someone -- i'm having trouble how you correlate restraint and discretion in a traffic situation, which is way they came across. to someone actually going after the president's home. statedesentative, i have that they did not properly execute the security protocols that were appropriate to respond -- >> you believe that was because of the information and guidance they have gotten from the top of that they were not sure what to do. told to exercise restraint in these measures? have they been told exercise protection? >> those officers have the authority to take legal law

enforcement action as individuals. i'm conducting an investigation to find out the decisions that were made, what are the facts in the totality of the circumstances those officers saw. >> i want to give ms. pierson a break. this issue of putting the fence line in front, or at least a police barrier, and looking at this area -- we are trying to make ourselves appear better as we are working on it. say, this that is to president and his family deserve to be protected. it is concerning to me they were not told about the shooting until many days later. that is just mind-boggling to me. especially when their daughter was actually in the residence that night. >> i do have a question. explain to me, is putting the fence you are the only fix? help me outcome is there a better way to go about this?

my perspective, protecting u.s. embassies around the world, it is a concentric ring of security. layers of security. the fence typically is one of the last things. typically, fences are meant to keep good people out. bad people find ways over fences. you can't simply rely on the fence as a last resort. >> i think the issue that has come as we go forward here is the protection, of this world icon. in the threat environment we are in, it's very concerning. we get half-truths to start with, more truth is leaking out. wants toa group that say what is the issue, why are we not doing it the proper way? putting of a visual, we are doing something, that is not right. the foundation has to be wrote -- has to be laid. that is the bigger issue, along with protocols not being followed. i yield. >> i just want to make sure one

thing was clear. director, the failure to apprehend mr. gonzales before he got well into the white house -- the change of further setback or fence, since you successfully stopped the 16 jumpers in the , was there any reason you couldn't have stopped to 17? you are taking the american people's space with this additional fence and the proposal for a setback that would include pennsylvania and lafayette being restricted. and yet you have made no case here today that you couldn't have had 17 out of 17 apprehensions, if not for outright human error and procedural failures for it. is that true? >> the placement of the buy crack to provide a buffer zone is to allow us time to do this analysis to make sure that personnel and procedures are going to be effective with the time constraints that

individuals have to make an effective tactical response to runners or fence jumpers. >> i get it. you are not up to snuff to the level you would like to be. until you are sure you are, you want to have that exit timing. i sort of get that. that is a little concerning. >> thank you. i think the witnesses. es.i think the witness >> i want to go over the prior contacts between mr. gonzales and the secret service. noted, there was a prior contact with mr. gonzales back in july of 2014. he had been pulled over. he had a small arsenal of weapons in the car. want to explore when does the red flag come up for the secret service. informedt service was that he had 11 weapons in the car.

i want to go over that i have the evidence list from the state police that was provided to the secret service. mr. gonzales had a mossberg maverick 12 bird -- 12 gauge pump shotgun in the car. he had a winchester with the scope. he had another gun with the scope here in. he had a 12 gauge shotgun. he had an ar-15, a pretty sophisticated weapon. with a flashlight and scope. boltd a weatherby vanguard action rifle with a scope. he had a smith & wesson 380 caliber automatic black handgun.

he had a glock 45 in the car with an empty magazine, although later, we found he had 800 rounds of ammunition. revolver asnum 357 well. caliber, andr 45 he also had a map. this is the evidence list. you seem to be minimizing all this stuff. of washington dc with writing and align it drawn to the white house. have with oure introduction to mr. gonzales here in. that, we know he has a history of mental illness. he shows up at the white house in august of 2014. he has a hatchet in his belt. no red flags, we let him go. then there is the day he jumps

the fence and runs into the white house. i want to talk about that. you say he came into the front gate. he went through the front door of the portico. and was wrestled to the ground, to the carpet, wrestled down to the road new the green room. -- rug near the green room. the distance from the front of the white house to the green room is about 80 feet. the width of this room right here is 60 feet. [inaudible] yards, 30 yards inside the house. i have been there many times. about somebody singsgressing -- transver

the white house for your bash to the -- foyer, american public, that would be half of one white house tour. that isn't just getting inside, that's half of the white house tour to the american public. you keep minimizing this. i'm just wondering when to the red flags go up. you have a lot of wonderful people over there. but this is not their best work. here.e a serious issue about protecting the president and his family. this is disgraceful. this is absolutely disgraceful. mentioneven going to the fact that it took us four days to figure out that somebody

had shot seven rounds into the white house. this is beyond the pale. i have listened to your testimony very deliberately. that you protected the white house like you are protecting your reputation here today. i wish you spent that time in that effort to protect the american president and his family, like i am hearing people covering for the lapses of the secret service on the several occasions. i really do. what are we going to do -- look. this whole thing is -- the hased states secret service one mentally challenged man. one man with mental illness, that you knew had mental illness. the secret service against one individual with mental illness.

you had three chances, and he got it the green room. what happens when you have a sophisticated organization with nefarious intent and resources going up against the secret service? what happens then? time isentleman's expired. if the gentlelady has any answers to his questions, i would appreciate hearing them. >> let me be clear. united states secret service does not take any of these incidents highly. >> with all due respect, that is my point. as a casual observer to what has happened here, i do not think the circular -- the secret service is taking their duty to

protect the american president and her family at the white house -- i do not think you are taking it seriously. that is exactly my point. based on the evidence, and the series of lapses. unfortunately, that is the conclusion i arrive at, that you're not taking your job seriously. i am sorry. i hate to be critical. but we got a lot at stake here. i know people are dancing around this issue, but i got to call it like it is. inave very low confidence the secret service under your leadership. i have to say that. that is not an easy thing for me to say. but based on the evidence, that is how we have to call it here. based on the evidence, my confidence in you protecting the american president right now at the white house, supposed to be one of the most secure buildings of the country, if not the world, a confidence in you doing that is very, very low right now. >> i thank the gentleman.

the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. n. thank you, mr. chairma you were pointed in 2014, is that correct? >> yes. >> what three things have you done to improve the culture since you got in there? briefly. what three things have you done to improve the culture, because that has been brought up, that there is a culture problem? >> we have instituted an office professional integrity, a new discipline process so discipline is done in a more transparent and consistent way, we have initiated training for supervisors, and work in file workforce. >> so you have done some training in new positions, because i'm concerned. when that question came up, i watch people all the time, and no less than four people here with you today agree that you have a cultural problem, and you could tell from the responses

that there is an issue within the agency. i also wanted to go back and give you a chance to correct your testimony. i thought i heard earlier that you said you were short 500 uniformed secret service people --e to secret station due to sequestration. >> across the organization, the secret service is down 550 personnel. >> with the gentleman yield per second. please stop the clock rate the amount of people in the u.s. see secret service, the day you were sworn in, and the day-to-day, because these numbers are full-time equivalents is. all of us have a right to understand what the impact is on the day you were sworn in. >> i do not have those specific numbers for you today. representative chafe at brought up the fact that there had not

been any training classes in fiscal year 2030. >-- 2013. >> that cannot be right. >> that is correct. >> let me tell you why it is confusing, because i am looking at your budget request the last year, and it says in here in your request that you planned to 376ce the staffing by full-time equivalents. why would you do that? in your budget request, why would you request 376 full-time equivalent reductions? i'm confused. wouldn't you be confused? in your budget request, you also said we need to be reducing the number of years of experience by five years over the next four years. i'm confused. why would we want less experienced secret service

agents, director? these are your numbers. do you have an answer? >> i do know we have provided a human capital strategy to the congress at their request, that outlines -- >> but these are your requests. it says the congressional committee is concern the budget request creates a page shortfall that will result in the reduction of at least 376 full-time equivalents and that this will fundamentally affected dual mission within the secret service. the committee was recognizing in this, not you. do you not think that creates a cultural problem when you are seeking reductions and you are testifying today that you have too few people? do you see the high democracy in -- dohat's the hypocrisy

you see the hypocrisy in that? >> i see the difficulty in running an agency in times of fiscal constraint. >> since you're talking about fiscal constraints, because i look at this quickly, we need to make sure that you change the culture and protect our president. i started looking at it. but i was concerned to find a whistleblower came to us and said that you spent over $1 million on an executive luxury suite. is that correct, on the eighth floor, on your eighth flow, over a million dollars spent on a luxury suite since you have come to power? >> i do not know what that is in reference to -- >> did you spend a million dollars or more on a conference room outfitting it, a luxury suite, on the eighth floor, yes

or no? >> no. what we have done is spend money to transform our director's crisis center -- >> which is on the ninth floor, now we have done it again on the eighth floor. we have locators on the 20 those floors. is that correct? that is what the whistleblowers tell me. >> the information he has talks about the integration of both the director's crisis center -- >> how do you know, because the whistleblower talked to us. i know what we have done in terms of installation in our office. >> do you have a locator on your eighth floor now? >> yes. is that a secure area? >> yes. >> is the eighth for a secure area where vendors do not have classified -- can they go in and out if they do not have clearance, on the eighth floor? >> all vendors are either escorted or have clearance, in a

locator is a is not a classified document. it tells you where the president and the vice president and all relative people are. it is a locator, right? >> it is a reference point for our management-- >> why would you need another one of these when he already had two? why would you need another one up one floor down in your luxury suite? isthe gentleman's time expired. the gentlelady may answer. >> we need to have instant information for us to make informed decisions to the management team, and having quick access and being able to leverage technology and look at camera views and information provided to us real time from our protective missions is critically important to me. and critically important to my staff. this is an area where some of those key decisions are made and it is integrated with other systems throughout the building. >> ideal back.

i think we need to explore this further, though. >> i thank the gentlemen, and for the direct, we are going to try to get more accurately the correct number, because i have got to tell you, from the dais, all us want to understand this 500. authorized0 uniformed officers, 1300 on hand, and we do not show that as an appreciable drop during your tenure as your budget has gone .p, with 2200 agents so we are trying to find where the 500 represents a shortfall in full-time equivalent other than a legacy of perhaps never filling the authorized slots. and i'm going to give the additional time to the gentleman from virginia. if you answer one question, isn't it typical that although your budget are increasing that the 20s up going into

16th or a presidential cycle, and that is when you want to peak, and you have lesser requirements when you do not have presidential candidates and so on, because i'm concerned about coming before congress at a time when we are giving you more money than you are asking for an complaining about sequestration and limited resources. so be prepared to answer that. i will not take the time right now. it is the gentleman from , but thosetime questions will continue throughout the hearing, and we will follow up in writing afterwards. the gentleman from virginia, mr. conley, is recognize. >> thank you. son, in light of the facts that have come out and in light of your review thus far, had the first family been in the family quarters or anywhere in the white house, would you conclude professionally that there was a threat to the first family? >> yes.

i think mr. gonzales coming into the main floor of the mansion is a threat. i think it is important to i was a freshman in high school in november 1963, and all of us who lived at a time remembered where we i was n high school were when we heard the terrible news from dallas. that secretnd is service agent mr. hill who threw car thatn the speeding contained the president, the first lady, and used his body to shield her. mission theed secret service has. it is not an easy mission. troubling to all americans that our duly elected

president and his family were actually potentially in real jeopardy on the white house grounds itself. i wonder whether you would agree that when you look at every aspect of this, sadly, it represents a comprehensive failure. they add up one by one. i think there was a failure frankly to take the gonzales threat seriously after the information provided by the virginia state police. we knew he had a history of mental omelettes. we knew that -- mental illness. we knew that he was loaded up with guns. had a map ofhe washington. you indicate that that map was described as just a tourist map looking at places he might go. that might make sense, except

for the fact that he was loaded up with ammunition and weapons in his car at the time. utah hasriend from made headlines and made a statement here today that he believes your reaction should be one of maximum force. i guess we should read that to mean that he should be shot on fence,hen he crosses the when he goes over the fence. i am reluctant to join him in that kind of advice to the secret service because there is a first family at the white house. there are guests in the white house. it is a busy and bustling place, and the idea we are going to have a shootout on the white to begrounds seems to me a last resort, not a first resort, and i'm not sure members of congress ought to be in the business of actually spelling out secret service protocols for you. our not sure that is

response validity. having said that, one can still conclude that the reaction of wassecret service on site profoundly inadequate and actually intentionally put the first family in direct jeopardy, physical harm. and i do not sense from you, sense ofpierson, a outrage about that. a sense of mission that you want thisform and correct cascading set of mistakes that led to potentially a catastrophe for the united states. could you comment? >> i'm sorry you do not get but since for me. i've spent a career in the united states secret service for taking presidents, their families, and the white house complex in addition to our other missions. there is nothing more sacred any secret service agent, uniformed

division officer, or administrative technical rational employee than our response validity for mission success. we do not take it lightly. we do it under difficult and challenging conditions. there's not a lot we can do in managing individuals mental illness who do not commit a put themselves in a position where the secret service can take further actions against them. we are limited by the system that we have to work within, the laws of our country. do not doubtn, i for a minute your sincerity. what i said is i do not sense any sense of outrage about what happened. we are all outrage within the secret service and how this incident came to pass. that is why i have asked for a full we are review. it is obvious, it is obvious that mistakes were made. it is self-evident that mistakes were made. we must identify what the facts are, learn from the facts,

assess, and make changes to enhance training. the secret service has a product history of making sure that we go back and look and do after actions after every incident so we can apply better security measures to ensure the protection of those we are bound to protect. >> that is real important, and i think it is really important in this discussion and this hearing that we remember there are real human beings who safety and security is at stake. it just so happens one of those human beings was elected not once, but twice, by majority of this country to be its president. and that sacred responsibility has to be uppermost in our minds, even if that means that reputations fall, curis get interrupted, demotions occur, or people get fired. and that of his family, is paramount concern,

and that is what we need to be concerned about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we now to a gentleman who served in fairly difficult conditions, both in vietnam and in iraq, and with all due respect, i think he will object your calling working at the white house a difficult environment. the gentleman from michigan is recognize. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you. there we go. thank you. , thank you very much for your server. the secret service, one of the premier law enforcement agencies an aspiration many years ago, from investigating counterfeiters to protecting the president. you all for your dedicated service to the past. basham, in your introduction

, you said, you went from -- wel l, we have an intruder that went into the white house, went 30 yards, was finally apprehended, and we have a hearing about that right now. and you said we would have a hearing as well had we shot him once he jumped the fence, and you are absolutely right. in you onlyained use as much force that is necessary to subdue or fix the problem, never any more unforced methods, which is a difficult challenge in that of itself, is a not? theave dogs patrolling white house, and you have forgotten about 10 other probably protocols you could have used to subdue that person before they went into the white house, correct? >>. yes >> in the after action review, or any of those considered, and

actions could they have taken to stop this intruder, before he entered the white house? >> clearly, as the director has stated, there were mistakes, failures. there were opportunities to take this individual down based upon the reactions of the officers that were in place at the time, and they clearly did not take those actions. that is why the director has -- and the staff has to determine why they made the decisions or lack of making those decisions and understand what was going through their minds, what was going on in the white house grounds of the time, what was the clutter situation. they need to have the time to do the investigation to determine what circumstances were on the ground. had the opportunity to do in the big east against -- to do an investigation -- they

found out that mr. gonzález had guns in his car, had a map to the white house. i would be asking a lot more questions other than just letting him go. i wasn't he brought in for further questioning by the secret service? just the map alone, if the lawyers call that preponderance of evidence, indicating that he had some intent in doing something wrong, illegal, jeopardizing the president of the united states and the white house. why was he not brought in for questioning? >> i believe the director stated that the individual was interviewed and that the agents made a determination, which is a very difficult determination to make as to whether the individual truly represents a threat to the president of united -- >> are we privy to those questions in that report, mr. chairman? do we have access to that report? >> in an appropriate time, we

will make that available. >> unless he is breaking the law, there is no power with the secret service has to taken into custody, and that is the difficulty that they face. with the agree representative that i do not want the secret service's first action on the white house grounds when someone climbs of the fence, 16 times in the last five years, that the secret service's verse reaction is to kill that person. that is in my mind not acceptable to me nor to the american people. >> but there is an element of -- there is responses that are well within the power of the secret service's first action on the white house grounds when someone protect the intruderto when they jumped the fence, use of dogs, for instance, amas masf secret service agents to take

down the individual, but at the same time with it could be a diverse and so there are a lot of things going on, when you have an intruder like that. i just have a -- >> in 1976 there was an individual who came over the fence them apparently was carrying some type of device that appeared to be a weapon, turned out to be a pipe, and they shot him. and there was criticism for that shooting in 1976. this is a difficult, difficult balance to strike. >> i understand. i am out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> protect the we now go to then from pennsylvania. , you served in the secret service for 30 years. under both republican and democratic administrations. and so you know and you have

stated publicly that this recent security reach was unacceptable, and whatever other adjectives here today from both sides of the dais, per family in adequate, checking -- shocking, disgraceful, outrageous. is there any one of those adjectives you disagree with? >> no. >> thank you. and there have been some discussion about what we knew about the person leading up to the incident, where he jumped the fence and crashed the white house. we actually had his medical records, did we not, before he jumped the fence? had received the medical records and they were being reviewed prior to him jumping the fence. knew, weverything we

stopped him, he had a carload of high-offensive ammunition and guns, and he had a map of the white house. wasknow, he just about wearing a hat saying i am the most dangerous person who could come to the white house, and yet all of these things happened. and not to put too fine a point there wereierson, numerous layers of security that he was able to flummox. a surveillance team outside the fence reportedly did not spot mr. gonzales quickly enough to give an early warning. and often stir station in the garden booth as well as a swat team on the north want to not react in time. a dog trained to intercept intruders reportedly was not released. no officer reportedly was stationed outside the front entrance of the white house, and

the door was left unlocked. just yesterday press accounts reported that mr. gonzales made it all the way to the east room and that the alarms had been silenced. to me, all of those adjectives apply. this was a stunning, outrageous, disgraceful breach, and i know you cannot discuss the specific details, and we are going to go into executive session so you can be more forthcoming about the tactics and procedures, but i want to start here with broader questions. the secretsumed that service has a specific protocol or multiple protocols for handling these types of breaches. that?orrect in >> yes, sir >> and without getting to the protocols and provide any buddy at large a roadmap, and you tell us whether they were followed in this that?

>> yes, sir case? >> no, they were not. >> and why were they not irson?ed, ms. perison >> i do not know, and that is one of the main issues i hope to resolve to the course of this investigation. well, i think we have said multiple times here that you have been on the job for about a year and a half now, and you are on the job to reestablish the credibility and the reputation of the secret service as the finest, most formidable protective force on the face of the earth. is that a fair statement? >> yes, sir. >> if someone wants to do us all of us tooves remember that right now you are protecting the most threatened american president in our nation's history.

it is kind of a bad time to have something like this happen, pierson? ms. >> it is never acceptable to have somebody preach the white house. whatuld you explain to me you have done since becoming the new director of the secret service to turn this agency around and prevent things like this from happening? >> from the start of my appointment, i have made it perfectly clear to the workforce my expectations for professionalism and accountability. how that was accomplished by the establishment of a new office of integrity, the establishment of new penalties for a discipline ross that is more transparent and consistent -- process that more transparent and

consistent. i have a zero-tolerance level when it comes to misconduct. in addition, trying to develop leaders is critically important. here we have established a log in-service training for the workforce. it is specialized training for our leadership. i have had personal engagement with supervisors and the workforce. when i became director i had supervisoryessional positions that were vacant. i made those promotions. i offered orientation to those new supervisors and have continued to make sure that there is no doubt that we are going to be held to the highest standard that the american public expects. i do understand when you start to bring change into an organization there is pushed back. we are going to continue to improve. this incident is an operational incident. or side effect of other cultural problems. i looked at this as a strict tactical concern.

we have a security procedure that was not followed. one week prior and individual had climbed the fence and was arrested within seconds. why did that same activity not happen on the night of september 19? i agree mistakes were made in the proper protocols were not followed. it is unacceptable. >> my time is up and i look forward to closer questioning in the executive session. i yield back. >> i think the witness and recognize the demo from florida. you saidor pierson, this was an operational failure. others talk about salary, number of personnel, budgets. this november 19 failure was in no way related to a lack of funding or personnel, is that accurate to say? is accurate to say that the

officers on duty that night failed to execute the security protocols that they should have. isbut you are not saying it 100% operational failure? you are not ruling out that this may be a resource issue, correct? >> i believe we need to look at our training protocols and our staffing protocols, so, yes, that would refer back to resourcing. >> and budgets that have been mentioned, the budget request for fiscal year 2014 the agency $822 million. there's a disconnect here, and i think that -- let me ask you this rating to this. -- relating to this. you have a guy, gonzáles, all the agents know who is is by this time. he had been arrested in virginia. he had with him and white house

map. he was able to leap defense cannot, get deep inside the white house. secret service agents stood between him and penetrating that first -- and getting in? were there not enough people there? how many people were there? isthe white house complex secured and the building is defended by the united states uniformed secret service division. >> how many -- >> i can provide you information in a different setting as to the location numbers of personnel. hearing,ce for this there was a request of the sergeant at arms for people to accompany you to this hearing, and i believe they are probably sitting behind you. how many people have accompanied you to this hearing today, do you know? >> i would believe 12 of my senior management persons. >> we had a request for a team personnel. at least 12, maybe more, are

accompanying you here for testimony which is important, but it kind of cuts against this idea that we are at a manpower shortage, especially in some of the numbers that we have been doing. let me ask you this, about the culture of the agency. now, there is a number of instances that have been raised. you have a celebrity crashing the white house dinner a few years back. the 2011 shooting incident, the agency's pours response. you had the 2013 may incidents at the hotel involving an agent. miami 2014, a car accident involving agents without all suspected. the netherlands, 2014, excessive drinking. some had to be sent home. what got the most obesity is the 2012 incident in columbia -- what got the most coverage is that 2012 incident in colombia.

you do not say that the september 19 reach is a result of that culture. how do you assess that health of the culture in the secret service right now? >> since becoming director, we have established an office of integrity. onave made my position known the level of professionalism that is expected, accountability at all levels. i have met personally with every front-line supervisors and provided them had additional training to ensure that they know how to lead, that they know how to manage them and they know how to work with this dedicated workforce. at the same time, we are providing training for the workforce. we are it at the same time that we are meeting very difficult protective requirements and requirements around the world. i believe we have started to make a pretty significant transition within the organization of recognizing we have made missteps and we need

to learn from these incidents and improve. >> and you think the steps you have taken have resulted in discernible improvement in the culture? >> i think these steps along with the continuing to promote and support new management will help us in that process. >> thank you. >> i yield to the gentleman. let me ask a follow-up, because it gets back to this bunch question. under your direction, was there a reduction in the countersurveillance manpower under your directorship? i under my directorship, established a new permanent division -- >> was there a reduction, yes or no? >> i do not believe there was a reduction. >> the whistleblower seem to indicate that there was a stuttering -- study that there hundred people per

countersurveillance, and you made the decision to cut that by 1/3. is that a correct? >> the witness can answer, and the time has expired. will you answer, please? >> yes. i would like to review that study. i know that we have asked for a study in the past that related to countersurveillance and countersurveillance methodologies to be a ploy by the secret service in the con capitalthe national region, and we established a countersurveillance division and staffed it with what are appropriate resources for this time and will go back and look at the process and see how we need to continue to resource it as appropriate. thank the witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have respect for the numbers of the secret service and cannot believe i am about to begin the fun of questioning is a member of congress, because it should

have never gotten this point where i have to ask you these questions. i would like to touch on your aar process. do you conduct aar's? you mentioned you did, but do you? >> yes. findings atnduct all level, for example, following the herd and is shooting incident, -- the herd nandez shooting incident, maybe the next morning at the next shift change, and then all the way up to the region and director level, would you be a normal course of action? >> yes, it would. >> at the fact-finding sessions, once you discover something that is deficient, and you then change a procedure based on what you learn in the fact-finding session? >> yes, we would. have you changed your

procedures for when the white house comes under a shooting incident? if the shooting happened at 9:00 p.m. at night and it was too dark, i am not sure you have access to flashlights and spotlights to check the white house in the evening. it was too dark. do you now have a procedure for checking the entire building, including the third floor, grad night or the next day? is that not part of the new procedures? >> yes, it is, and that night, it is a three-story building, so oftentimes it would require lift trucks, but we have a better protocol to ensure that proper switch are done across the complex. >> it is the people's house. i think the american public would begrudge a lift truck. do you have that procedure in place. there is a suspected shooting , and three or four days

before we find the bulletin the side of the white house, because of the new procedures? >> yes, ma'am, lessons learned. mr. ortiz, the recent breach that just happened to him he was apprehended, and he had this story, was information of that apprehension or that discussion that the agents had with him, was that shared, would have been shared as part of fact-finding the next day? with pictures of him been shown to the officers coming on shift on the next shift? we stopped this guy, he had an ax and will he stand -- in his waistband, what's up for him. was that ever done? understanding that he was observed by the countersurveillance division,