1964 warren commission. some are identified to the 1995 white house security review. and others track internal recommendations. what were those recommendations? >> i think there have been many recommendations, certainly over the years, but there are number of things we found in our report that i think have been seen over time, certainly questions about investment in the uniformed division and the importance of giving focus to the uniform division and deciding its role. those issues have been there certainly issues related to excess overtime and insufficient personnel have been identified over time. there are a number of issues we raised in the classified aspects of our reports, ones that have been noted in the past.

>> why do you think a lot of those recommendations were ignored? >> i think the service itself has noted it has not always done what it needed to do in terms of following through on recommendations. the hope is coming out of this report, that there will be a real opportunity to focus on these specific recommendations and follow through with tracking to make sure actually get implement it. if there is a real process, and i am sure this committee will have a role in it and others will have a role in it to ask of the service, and where is that going, and i also assume that this at future presidents will hold them accountable as well. >> the last question, how do you

define that success if you have implemented recommendations properly? >> from our perspective the kind of cultural change in leadership change we've talked about, that really defines the commission paired we talked a little bit in the report say it has been five years that the service submitted to congress looks about the same with little action money on it but we would not have moved the ball forward. >> one thing to add to your last question, there will never be a point in time where the secret service can declare success. every day, they have to get better. it has to be a continual improvement and people have to have it in their dna. there are benchmarks and signals people look to. i do not think the good

leadership or whatever think there is where people can say, we have one, let's take a break, we can take two weeks off, we will have to have a continual improvement just like any successful football team or engineering team or military organization. that is what it takes. >> thank you. i appreciate it. we now recognize miss lawrence for five minutes. >> thank you. after today's hearing my desire is that there will no longer be any legitimate doubt that the secret service needs more resources critical to the mission that you perform. i join with the ranking chair and the chairman of recognizing how important you are and the service that you give. we clearly know there are areas of concern and i feel strongly that the option of continuing

the way we have in the past does not exist. and it will not be something that will be tolerated. i wanted to give you a quote that i would like to be addressed. the ranking member of the committee on homeland security, congressman thompson and i quote, he stated, within the next five years, the secret service will provide protection through two presidential election cycles, two democratic national conventions, two republican national conventions, the 75th anniversary of the united nations, and other national security special events.

events. to his point, on top of your current responsibilities, of protecting the president and protecting your area of responsibility, and we know that there's some problems with leadership resources. we're also entering a period where there's going to be additional demand. my background is in hr, and i know that when you start hiring and training, there is a gap in your resources. so we have to be realistic about that. for us to get to where we need to be we're going to have to pull resources that we already have. do you agree with that? >> i think that's right. one of the concerns that the panel had, and again, pointing to the chart that the chairman put up, when you don't bring on new classes that's going to show up because the average secret service agent takes four to five to six years in the field getting trained before they show up on the president's detail. that gap in hiring is going to show up and be most acute in that four to five years down the road. so

you're right, that an issue with hiring that shows up today, you know, may not have an immediate effect. but will show up in the future. >> so in our planning, in discussing what the expectations are of improvement, giving additional resources, i see with the additional responsibilities coming up, that training gap there is a concern -- additional concern. do you agree with that concern? >> i >> and what is the plan to address that concern, if you agree? >> we do agree with that concern. and i think that's why our proposal of, again, 200 additional uniformed officers and 85 additional special agents, we thought that that would allow the current work force to reach training levels that we thought were acceptable.

it doesn't answer the question of, what is the long-term right size of the organization. and of course, there are, as occurs regularly on four-year cycles, the service both draws from its investigative force for a presidential campaign, but also with these usually receiving additional appropriations every four years, in order to plan for those campaigns, because the amount of travel which is very unpredictable increases. >> so i want to be clear that what we saw in the report will enable us to have an expectation that you will have the resources

to address all of these concerns, because if this report -- your ask for resources only takes you up to a certain point to cover the existing concerns then my concern is that we're going to see additional gaps. and that's my concern right now. and i wanted to be clear that in the proposal, that we don't come back later and say, we still don't have the resources to do the job, knowing that all these additional things and the gap is going to be added. >> as an answer to that question, the proposal we made

in terms of specific numbers was what we thought would address an immediate need. it was not intended to estimate how much the 2016 political campaign would cost, or the 2020 political campaign would cost.

nor was it an attempt to set the sort of long-term size of the service. as we said in the report, we think that a new director needs to do a zero based budget, needs to start from the beginning and define that, and then come again to the executive branch and to congress and justify that. but we do think that that immediate infusion of resources is needed today, recognizing as we said before that it will take some period of time for those people to be able to be deployed at the white house. >> thank the gentle woman. now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to you for your work for your recommendations. miss gray, i want to come to you first. i've received a number of phone calls from agents, male, female, all over the country. they've actually gotten ahold of a member of congress, talked to me. anytime i get a blocked number i know it's them. my concern is, is that it sounds like there's a culture of fear within the rank and file. would you agree with that assessment, having talked to so many people? >> yeah. you know, i think one of the things that we heard from a number of agents is a sense of disappointment in some of their leadership. and i think this goes back to the question that was asked

earlier by congressman cummings about, you know, people finding different outlets, finding a member of congress or going to the media and other things. so that's something that we hope the recommendations that we made in our report that get to a leadership that respects input from the rank and file, that provides opportunities for agents and officers to suggest changes within the organization, but gets to why we think that's very important. >> all right. let me follow up on that. so if we have a culture of fear within the service, and i'm quoting from your report, it says, they do not have the confidence, the discipline is imposed in a fair and consistent manner. that they feel like that some people get off easier or some people get punished. would you agree with that assessment, miss gray? >> we heard a number of agents and officers express disappointment in the transparency around the disciplinary process. you know, and i think over time the service has experimented with different models from having more direct supervisors giving discipline as having discipline imposed more of the central command of the secret service. i think there has been, and we heard a lot of it, a sense of disappointment in the transparency around this process, which leads to some concluding that discipline is not taken seriously. >> all right. so if we have those two issues and if there's essentially another quote from your report a good old boy network in terms of the management, would you agree with that assessment? that that's the feeling within the service? >> you know, we heard a lot of comments. i don't want to >> would that be accurate -- well, i'm taking it from your report, so if there's a good old boy spirit of fear within management, and we're talking about resources. i think they're both democrats and republicans committed to providing the resources to make sure that this agency has what it needs.

but my concern is, the budget last time, under the director that is no longer with the service, actually asked for less money, asked to reduce the level of experience by an average of five years, actually went even further to say that they were going to reduce full-time equivalent people, and part of the people that made up that budget request got a promotion in january of this year. do you find that that would create a real problem? from a morale standpoint? >> absolutely, from a morale standpoint. >> there were people who got a promotion in january. what did the rank and file have to say that? senior level executives. >> we didn't get into discussions about particular individuals, or particular members of the management team.

but we did hear overall a sense of disappointment with the leadership in the agency. and our focus, rather than on individual performance, and individual members of the management team, our focus was much more thinking, you know from the sort of bottom up, what are the qualities that this agency needs to have in its management team. >> let me tell you what i've heard. i've heard from agents that said that the eighth ward, they need to clean house in a lot of those. have you heard similar statements of that? >> one of the most telling things we heard from -- it was remarkable how consistent this was, rank and file saying to us, if what comes of this report is just more money, we need more resources, that's true, but what we really need is leadership.

we need a different dynamic leadership, whether not specified through one particular floor, but a clear sense from the rank and file that their confidence in the organization would really improve only if they saw substantial changes at the top. >> i'm going to close with this because i made a promise to a couple of agents. there is this forcing of transferring of people across the country, where they'll be working for 12 years, 10 years and then they're forced to move somewhere else. and they're encouraged in such a way that if they don't do it, they may lose their clearance. is that something that the panel looked into? >> we heard concerns about the transfer policies, concerns frankly at the management level

as well as from the line level. i think it didn't become a big part of our report, but i do think from a budget and management standpoint, that is one of the issues that we think a new director has got to look at seriously in sort of charting the future course of the organization. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you. >> pardon me. if you could move your microphone just a little bit more central, that would be helpful. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the panel for your excellent report. i think many of us agree with you that you need better leadership. but awfully hard to lead without the appropriate resources. and i want to sort of give you the opportunity to expound what a member earlier in the panel stated about, because other law enforcement agencies like the fbi had increase in funding, therefore the secret service must also have adequate funding. in fact, that's not true, right? haven't the budgets remained largely flat while your missions have actually increased in complexity?

>> i think there has been an increase in mission. what we looked at, and talked about in our report, and something that gave us confidence that the 285 recommendation that we made for immediate needs was adding 85 agents to the present protective detail, would only bring it up to where it was in 2004. and that's not the budget of the entire organization. and there are folks doing the investigative mission. so the organization's budget has increased over time. but for the uniform division adding 200 positions would not even bring it to its high water mark. we thought that was important to do today, but as we said, we think longer term, a new director has got to take a serious look at what is the right size, what are the right missions to keep, and maybe to shed. we think it is going to take more money, once that plan is put together. but it's not to say that all of it is new money.

>> now, i have a question for you. immediately prior member asked a question, and sort of stated that folks last year requested a smaller budget. was that because they were ordered to do so, because of sequestration? they just had to come up with numbers to meet a certain threshold? >> i don't think we can speak really about what happened precisely in another budget process. there's no question that -- and again, i think we talk about this in our report. i think we found that the service did, as perhaps other agencies do, is they look at what they have. they think about what they might be able to get through the agency, the omb, and through congress, and they ask for a little bit more. and they maybe asked for a little bit more in an area that they think might be one that congress is interested in funding. our concern is that over time, what happened with the service is that they weren't continuing to increase their staffing. they weren't asking necessarily modeling, and making decisions about how much they really needed. and at some point, over a number of years, what they had and what they needed really diverged.

and in no small part because the mission continued to increase, the protective mission and investigative division. >> lawrence had read from benny thompson's letter to us. i'm going to read another part of the letter. it says, the budget request combined with the reduction of appropriations have left the agency struggling to meet the multi-faceted mission and failing to meet our expectations. i assume you agree with that? >> yes. >> okay.

so mr. chairman, with unanimous consent, i ask that ranking member thompson's full statement be entered into the official record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> all right. so i'm very pleased that you're here to issue the report, and i hope we can begin the process of restoring both the secret service as well as protections through homeland, and we can do that by first of all passing a clean dhs bill. so i yield back. >> would my friend yield? my friend here? would you yield? >> i will yield. >> i thank my friend. mr. perrelli, in response to mr. lew, the fact that 85 more uniformed personnel would only bring us back to the level of 2004, i for one am stunned by that. but isn't it also about turnover? i mean, part of the problem with the agency is not just how many uniformed people we've got, but how long they're there. they're being raided by other agencies. i'm going to get into inadequate training in my period of time. it's unbelievable -- i mean, the average tenure of a uniformed person is what? >> i don't have that figure at

my fingertips, but turnover is high. you know, in no small part because uniform divisions have a tssi clearance and full polygraph, making them very attractive candidates for other law enforcement jobs as well. there's no question that turnover is high. and that's something that as we talked about in our report, that there is a need to make a decision, make a set of choices about what the uniform division needs to be. and that will drive how you think about investment in the uniform division or how you might change its mission. we propose two different paths in the report. but left it to a new director to make that call. >> thank you. and i thank my colleague. >> if the gentleman will yield i'm sure our chairman will give him more time. i would also like to enter into

the record, consent to enter the department of homeland security appropriations bill. this was may 29th, 2013. i want to read from this. it says, the committee, the appropriations committee, is concerned that the president's budget request creates a pay shortfall, reduction in at least 376 ftes from the secret service in fiscal year 2014, and fundamentally alters the dual mission of the secret service. at the current rate of attrition, by fiscal year 2018 the secret service work force would have been decimated by the loss of more than 1,500 ftes. you can put up the slide here on the funding levels. you'll find that congress actually appropriated more than what the president asked for. it does get to the core of what this panel found, which is, they don't have a zero based budgeting approach. they don't necessarily have the talent in place to do it. when you're entering into a dos operating system, their time codes, they don't know exactly when these people are working. the feedback we both got is they're terribly frustrated. they don't get adequately compensated. nobody understands what they're really trying to go through.

and then they end up with 25 minutes of training time in an entire year. and so we share a responsibility in making sure -- that's why i'm glad we're providing this oversight. the panel has illuminated a lot of these things. i do hope we work in a bipartisan basis to make sure the agents and officers, we understand what they're going through, and that we get those staffing levels up. because you combine the lack of staffing, the drop in that, the drop in reduction in training, and you've got a vortex of vulnerability that is totally unacceptable. with that, my time more than expired, i recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for leading the mission over the secret service

this morning. it was good to see that. i will just comment on the state of the dhs bill in the senate. what you have is a minority of senators taking a position that they will not even allow that bill to be debated. no debate at all. unless the president is allowed to issue 5 million work permits and social security numbers to people in the country illegally, which is, of course, contrary to statute and said something he could not do previously. to me, i think that's absolutely irresponsible that you won't even have this debate. this is a critical constitutional issue. and i think the country deserves better. and so a, quote, clean bill, would not include any funding for this radical policy change. a clean bill would just focus on funding, the core functions of dhs that they had traditionally done without the new policy that the president unilaterally implemented. let me ask you this. this is probably outside of what you guys were tasked with doing. but mr. filip, i'll just ask you to start. how has -- because some of the problems that i think you identified are great. need more leadership, better administrative capacity, too

much insularity, low morale. how has the transition of the secret service from treasury to dhs, i know it's been 12 years, 13 years now, having it being a bigger bureaucracy with more red tape, to me that would exacerbate these problems. can you comment on whether the secret service is better served, having been in dhs? >> thank you, congressman. we did not focus on that question, given that we just had a couple months' time. and we thought we had an awfully big agenda just on the core safety issues. i suspect the agency could be improved within dhs, or within treasury. i'm sure there are strong arguments on each side. and we heard arguments exactly like you just shared to the pro-treasury side. we've heard arguments to the pro-dhs side. >> were these line agents, or people who said that they liked treasury better? were they more administrators? >> it generally -- they were people who brought up the

subject, people who had been with the secret service for a long period of time. and thus, had been in both places. and there were an override as you would expect. but naturally folks who only know one thing, that's what they tend to be what they think about. people with different options see strengths and weaknesses to each. >> mr. hagin, were you working in the white house when this change was made? if i read your bio correctly? >> i was. >> can you comment on looking back, either during the course

of your investigation, or using your experience, because it just seems to me that when you have more bureaucracy, and you put these folks in an even bigger maze, you talk about personnel. the funding is much different when you have all these agencies in dhs than it would have been at treasury. can you provide any insight into how you see that issue? >> there was a decision that all enforcement was leaving treasury. so the question really was, at least in my involvement, was justice department, homeland security, where does the -- where is the natural fit. when you look at the department of homeland security, you have coast guard who regularly on a

routine basis supports the secret service quite a bit, with aerial support, motorcades other things like that. you have tsa who has been supporting the secret service with magnetometers, especially during political campaigns when they are stretched very, very thin. there's a lot of support from sister agencies within dhs. and that was looked at. >> but you also, the secret service does get support from the fbi and from other agencies who are outside of homeland security, correct? >> not to the extent, i think, that you see with coast guard and tsa. >> do you think that the change, to move the secret service into dhs -- the tsa is a new creation of that, but there was obviously a coast guard before that. so the secret service's interactions with the coast guard and the support that the coast guard has provided has actually been enhanced by having

a department of homeland security? >> the panel didn't look into that question. >> you don't have a personal >> my sense is that the service has -- the cooperation has been enhanced by being within the same agency. >> i guess i'd like to add that i think the panel's conclusion was, we identified a substantial number of issues that needed reform at the service. for those issues, we didn't think moving them from one agency to another would address really any of the issues that we identified. and so while we understand that that was a serious debate, we thought that the focus really needed to be on solving the problems that we found. >> if i could say one more thing. i think one interesting piece on treasury was that, being an older guy, i remember well a lot of the discussion back in those days from within the service about, you know, gosh, treasury officials, wall street guys, finance guys, they really don't understand the enforcement mission well. so over time, you've had complaints about, you know wherever they are, people are going to think it's better somewhere else. and they -- i believe it's correct to say that at that point, the director of the secret service reported to either an assistant secretary or

undersecretary of treasury. and when the change was made there was -- it was clear that the director of the secret service would report directly to the secretary of homeland security. so i think we addressed it properly in the report. >> thank you. thank the gentleman. >> now recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to pick up on that very last point, mr. hagin. one of the reasons it was originally in treasury is because of the dual mission of the secret service. and i want to get into that. your report says the paramount mission is protecting the president and other high-ranking national officials. and we agree. if you look at the secret service's own documents, it says they carry out a unique dual mission of protection and investigation, meaning currency

investigation. in their mission statement their own mission statement, they say the mission is to ensure the security of the president, vice president and their families, et cetera, and protect the integrity of our currency. and investigates crimes against national financial systems committed by criminals around the world. i want to ask, we're all focused on the protection of our senior officials in government, and dignitaries who may visit the united states, but they've got a dual mission. and the question is, is that now, frankly, a problem for the secret service? they're having trouble with the paramount mission you've identified. maybe it's time to reexamine whether the dual mission thing makes sense in the longer -- especially since we moved them out of treasury.

>> congressman, we looked at that issue, and we think that's a very serious question. we think that the investigative mission in some form is consistent with the protective mission. some of those skills, some of those technologies dovetail in very nicely. that said, protecting the financial system of the united states is a massive endeavor. if there aren't bounds and limits put on it. and it's likely the case, and we think this is important, because it also flows through to budgeting and personnel issues that there has to be a very hard, good faith look at whether or not investigative functions enhance the ability to protect or distract. and so the issue you've identified is very real. we share that concern. and that's one of the most important things we think a new director and a new leadership team is going to have to look at. >> let me add that on the question, the -- one of the reasons why you find that the investigative mission supports the protective mission is because of the need for surge capacity, or additional capacity

when the president or other protectees travel, particularly foreign travel, as well as certainly during political campaigns, the arrival of the pope in the united states, and those kinds of things where you need to be able to draw on a significant force. you also need a period of time those four or five years in the field, to train. and then ultimately come to washington to be part of the protective detail. if you didn't have the investigative mission, you would have a very different looking organization. really focused solely on protection. and that, i think, is -- would be a very substantial change with a variety of pros and cons. ultimately as a panel, we decided that we think, as mr. filip said, that the investigative mission does support that protective mission, but that because we believe that the protective mission is paramount, a new director has to make some serious -

>> my time's going to run out. and i really appreciate mr. filip's candor. the currency side is a massive enterprise. and i don't know that it makes sense any longer to marry the two. it may have once. i agree the spillover and positive investigative part, but frankly, the protective vision should not preclude it. the opposite, i called the secret service on occasion to ask them to investigate a potential threat against a public official, including the president of the united states. they already have that capacity. not tied necessarily to the currency part. now, and i would say to the chairman, who's invited bipartisan cooperation here, this may be something, mr. chairman, we really need to look into. whether this continues to make any sense. i would yield if my time could be frozen. >> yes. your time can certainly be frozen. >> i think it was frozen at 55. no, go ahead. >> our staff has been working together.

i do agree with you that i think we should seriously look at separating out the currency -- the protection of the currency the investigation of that. i do think the secret service does need an investigative arm. it does go hand in glove with their mission. but separating out the currency and giving that responsibility to the treasury is something we should revisit. and we will continue to work with you and your staff. we may very well jointly introduce something on it later. >> thank you. i welcome that. i absolutely welcome working with you and the ranking member on that. this is something that has bothered me for a long time. final question, because i'm going to run out of time, and i thank the chair. training. your report is very troubling. you actually say, training's diminished to the point of being far below acceptable levels. that just sent a chill down my spine when i read it. what could go wrong with that. and i wonder if you could just elaborate a little bit on, what can we do efficaciously to turn that around and get it to far above acceptable levels?

>> thank you for the question. you know, i think it's -- i want to be -- >> sorry, you've got to straighten out that mic. there you go. all right. >> okay. i think it's important to be very clear about what we're talking about. both agents and the ppd and officers in the uniform division, when they first go to the protective detail, there's hundreds of hours of training, you know, when they're first

brought on. so really what we're talking about is in-service training the kind of training to keep you sharp, to hone instincts, to train together in an integrated way, and the new threat scenarios. in terms of what can we do about it, one thing that we strived to do in our report was to set a benchmark, to have a standard that leaders could be measured against, whether or not they were seeking to fulfill that standard, and to have a staffing model to support actually implementation of that. so we set two benchmarks. we set a return to the fourth shift concept for the ppd. and, you know, we said -- we took a look at large metropolitan police forces. similar federal agencies of the protective mission. their training levels are between 5% and 25%. and we thought as a panel, you know, at least 10% for the uniform division, which if you think about it is about two days a month, is something that we should want to aspire to. so we think setting benchmarks

will go a long way. >> thank the gentleman. >> recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the panel. your report noted that there was a common critique that you heard that the service was too insular. what are the areas of greatest concern in which the agency needs to improve? >> i think these go to the leadership question, congressman. the insularity i think goes at least in substantial part to the idea of kind of an old boys network, for want of a better term, that discipline is not always transparent, or perhaps even uniform, based on whether or not people have served together in the past, or have familiarity with each other. the insularity also goes to the point of reaching out to a broader intelligence community and law enforcement community, to gain insights about new technologies and new techniques that are available. perhaps even going so far as to reach out to sister agencies at friendly allied nations, you know, whether it be the israelis or the british secret service equivalents, to find what techniques they found helpful in real threat environments. in the past, that had been done, and it seemed that coordination with other folks who might have insights and experts had diminished. so those were the main sort of insularities that i think we

were looking at. part of it also was infusing outside expertise in areas like human resources, budgeting technology, congressional relations, that leadership might come in those areas that's more effective than folks trained in a protective our law enforcement background. >> who are the main individuals or groups that are bringing these concerns to you? were these coming from agents on the line?

>> yes, sir. but we also would hear admissions to that effect, statements to that effect from senior people. it was a uniform -- there were a lot of voices to that effect. >> you noted here that the secret service would send low-level representatives with little authority to the interagency meetings, and that they were, in your words hamstrung from deriving benefits from their participation. who at the service was responsible for this practice? and i guess the other question is, why? >> i think it would be sort of deputy level folks within their subject matter areas would select the people who would go to those meetings. why? i think it was just a lack of priority being placed on, or maybe a failure to appreciate the benefits that could come from being in dialogues with other parts of the law enforcement, and intelligence community in the u.s. >> and that's a problem of insularity then. >> yes, sir. >> didn't want to branch out and find anything different than what was normal? >> i think, sir, at its most benign form, is that folks are proud of their own organization. but, you know, pride can be a virtue and pride can be a failing, too. there needs to be humility and appreciation that you can gain a lot from other folks, too. >> how far down the chain of command does this extend, does

that attitude extend? >> i think it's probably not uniform with each and every person. it's certainly something that the organization has had for some time. i think there's some people at senior levels who are more open to outside perspectives. some people at junior levels with the same dynamic. it's certainly something that is prevalent enough, that a new director and a new leadership team has to, we think, respectfully pay serious attention to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentle woman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ranking member for holding this hearing on really a critical issue. the security of the leaders of our country. incredibly important. i thank all the panelists for being here today. and all your hard work. you would not have to be a security, or a law enforcement professional to recognize that

there are some very serious problems with your department, with the united states secret service. you would just have to read a newspaper, or have some common sense to see that you are an agency in deep trouble. the repeated headlines about tawdry scandals with prostitutes, and secret service professionals, the horrendous lapses of judgment, and high-profile breaches of security, including breaking into the president of the united states' home. all these examples make it clear that something is seriously wrong in the culture and in the management of the secret service. in any organization, it is not fair to assume that the bad behavior of a few is representative of the many. but we also understand that this is not just any organization. this is the united states secret service. it used to be one of the most respected agencies in our government. and you are tasked with some of

the most critical law enforcement missions in our country. among them, and first and foremost, is protecting the president of the united states the commander in chief, and the leader of the free world. there is no margin for error in your job. there is no slack to be granted, and there is absolutely no possibilities for do-overs. so far more important today than just fixing the blame, and talking about all of these reports, is fixing the problem. now, the question that i hear from my constituents is, how in the world did someone jump over the fence, break into the white house, roam around the home where our president sleeps, and roam around rooms where his children play, how in the world did that happen? i don't want to know specifics. i just want to know in an overall statement, can we go to bed tonight and feel that the secret service is going to protect the president of the united states? and i'm going to ask ms. gray. >> thank you for the question. i think our panel believes that the secret service is doing a job protecting the president and the president ultimately is

safe. there are a mult billion layers around his protection. your question about how could something like that happen, that you hear from your constituents, and the like, i think the report by deputy secretary detailed a series of lapses and also failures in training and communication led to that event. and that's something that, you know, we hope our recommendations going forward can try to address. >> how can we make sure that there's no longer failures in communication, and there are no longer lapses in protecting -- i find that the people are so concerned about it, because the number one goal of government is to protect our citizens. and to protect our population. and we created the homeland security, we took many strong steps in a bipartisan way after 9/11 to better protect our citizens. but when our citizens see the president's home broken into it's very terrifying to them. because they put themselves in the same situation, of being afraid of someone breaking into their home. and i just find it startling

that this ever happened in the first place. and i also find your recommendation, calling for a new director from outside of the secret service, i've never heard of an agency basically saying, we can't handle it ourselves, we have to have someone from the outside come in and tell us how to handle it. can you explain why you made this recommendation, and why do you think it's going to work, and why do you think that someone with the ability -- it's very difficult to get in the secret service. and the training and everything else you have, that someone from the service cannot run the service. and do you now have a separate agency that's looking at protecting the president, the vice president as they move around in their homes? ms. gray again. and then anyone else who wants to come in. >> sure. i think our assessment of the need for an outside director is that we thought that many of the challenges that will actually lead to addressing some of these issues in the future, uniquely at this point in time, could

benefit from outlied leadership. one of the things we say in our report is that was not always true in the secret service. but given the need to have a staffing model so they can make decisions, that will select actually the mission given some of the prioritization issues we've been talking about, how do you make sure that protection of the white house compound and the president are a priority every year, and that, you know, the mission creep with other areas is not infecting the organization. all of those challenges we thought could benefit from outside leadership at this time.

>> thank the gentle woman. now recognize the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, panel, for being here today. i want to talk a little bit about what appears to be the number one glaring concern with the fence jumper. but i also want to talk about that from a budget perspective. so let me make sure that i'm clear on this. in your opinion, the fence breach was caused because of insufficient training, is that correct? >> i think we think that -- this, i think, is detailed in the deputy's report, that training and communications issues were a substantial

component of that. of allowing that individual to get as far as they did. we make a number of recommendations both in our unclassified and classified portions of the report that would address some of those issues. we also think that, increasing the -- changing and increasing the height of the fence would decrease the ability of somebody to get over the fence at all much less get as far as that individual did. >> sure. but a couple times this morning i've heard it try to be tied into some kind of budgetary issue. my question would be, if one of you guys saw someone jump the fence, would you know what to do? >> there's no question that -- and i think the service has -- if you talk to people rank and file across the service, they would have said, i think many individuals would say, yes, i know what i would have done. i think there is -- what we did find, though, is there was disagreement about that. in other words, there were

certainly individuals in the service who thought they would have immediately deployed lethal force. others said lethal force was not appropriate. many said putting hands on and tackling the person was the right approach. the concern that led to for us was that there was a lack of training so that you would know in the instant that you needed to react what you were supposed to do. >> sure. but we cannot correlate to that budgetary issues. we passed a human trafficking bill that will train tens of thousands of agents. there's no additional funding for it. so sometimes training to me has no boundary. i mean, from the sense it's connected with the funding. is that a fair statement in your report? >> i think where budget and training go together is the concern that because of the -- training has really disappeared because of, or at least in no small part because of, the excess overtime that individuals

are working. they've canceled in-service training, particularly for the uniform division. now the training is to an unacceptable level and those folks are working very, very long hours. there is an aspect of this that i think relates to resources, as i think we tried to make clear in the report. we do think that long-term, a new director is going to have to come define the priorities and the mission in the way the service hasn't to date. i think the chairman put up a slide about funding. it's not -- it has not been a question of congress not appropriating funds. the service not coming to congress and saying what it needed. as well as making some of the hard choices about other aspects of the mission.

>> granted. but miss gray, i believe you even used the term part of the responsibility was to keep sharp and to hone instincts. i don't see where that necessarily ties into more funding. i believe that training can be done without additional resources. is that part of your report? do you think that's fair? >> i think our view is that the reason why training has reduced so significantly, is because the work force is so overstretched. so we do think that you need more personnel at the white house, both in the uniform division and special agent population, and i do think that means more resources in the near term. >> let me use the last bit of my time to talk about budget transparency. were you surprised that no one in the secret service could answer some of the budgetary questions that you proposed? >> we were concerned about that. and as we indicated, the service needs to professionalize those aspects of the service, so that they can justify within the administration as well as here the needs that they have. because we did the best that we could to identify what we thought was a reasonable number of an increase that they needed in the immediate term. >> true. >> but i think our word was, we were hamstrung in making more definitive -- >> could we maybe say that was one of your largest surprises, that there was no go-to person when you had budgetary questions? >> we were certainly disappointed that we could not get a number of questions answered.

>> is that part of the reason you're recommending a director from the outside, someone who would bring a completely different perspective, not just the ve secret service side, the protective side, but the budgetary side. >> we do believe they need real experts from that area and pulling from the current population was not the way. >> recognize mr. hight from georgia. >> thank you to the panel for showing up. one question that i had, that i'm still, frankly, trying to wrap my mind around in rels to what you were just referring to. the panel found that the secret service does not have in place a system budgetarily in order to even make the most prudent budget decisions. and yet at the same time, of course, we need to provide more resources, so i'm trying to wrap my mind around this whole understanding of how can we say conclusively that more resources are needed when we are likewise admitting that they don't have a system of tracking the budget

that they have. they don't even know how to manage and spend the money they're already receiving. can you just clarify that? >> certainly. it's not so much about tracking the money that they receive. but it is a work force and staffing model to make decisions about how to deploy the resources that they have. again, it's more in the planning side where we found, i think -- and the retention of the capturing of the data side we found deficiencies. i think on this question of more resources, i go back to, for us, training really drove resources. if we wanted to -- we were unable to do the analysis to say, if we want to bring everyone down to a 55-hour week,

how would you do it. what we were able to look at was, if we wanted to bring everyone up to an appropriate level of training, pursuant to the benchmarks ms. gray talked to earlier, that analysis we were able to do. and that is the basis for the 200 additional uniform division and 85 additional agents. >> on the training issue, i think all of us are stunned and appalled by the fact that something as simple as an incident someone jumping over the fence, so many people didn't know information that every agent wants to know. also the panel looked boointo training conditions that replicate the environment that the agents are operating. it was during that incident that reported they were not aware of the lay outs on the white house. what plan is there in the training aspect, if any, to not only provide more training but specific train where thing as are from. >> our report attempts to

address what i would call the quality of training issues that you were raising in sort of two different ways. one is more integrated training. one of the things that deputy found is that some of the uniform division officers were not fully aware of the roles that other officers were playing. they were standing at posts at the door. that part reflects a lack of sufficient integrated training. training together as teams. that's one recommendation that goes to that. there was indication that deputy secretary report that members of the secret service that rere

responding are not familiar. one of our recommendations, this should be very hard to do but one of our recommendations is that this service invest in a replica so you can have training in realtime environment. >> okay. thank you. i want to go to mr. phillip. you mentioned a while ago that the human resources issue and the fact that you believe that there needs to be a human resource director from the outside coming in, i'm assuming from that that the method up into this point has been agents from within who have been overseeing how many resources. is that true?

>> yes, sir. historically the agents have occupied senior leadership positions in a number of areas that perhaps their background and experience doesn't best prepare them toerer perform. the fbi benefits substantially. we think there's a consensus on that by bringing in folks from the outside who have spent their careers in those areas perhaps outside in the private industry. we think that would be beneficial here. >> one final question. i understand there's been changing over the last several years in the hiring process. among other things online hiring. who has been pushing these changes? are you able to, where has this been coming from? >> i don't think we got a keen sense in time we're looking at where the changes were coming from. it seems as though people were trying to find methods that would be better and they did not work. that's part of the reason we think bringing in somebody from the outside who does this for a living will be able to improve things. i don't want to have us fighting the people on this.

the events of the fence jumper were a failure. we're not part of the secret service but the secret service doesn't dispute those events were a failure. maybe things would have been different. under ready scenario they were a failure. we're not trying to say there was a fence jumper. there should never be a situation where anybody gets in the front door of the white house with a knife or otherwise. i don't want to leave the impression that we have any ambiguity about that. it obviously can never happen again. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> recognize the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes. >> i appreciate the hard work that the panel has done. i think it's off the task that

you have dug into in a great bipartisan fashion. my questions was focussed specifically on the training aspects because i think that's what's crucial ultimately in getting the job done. if the personnel currently are too deployed to train how will the additional uniform that other agents will trained? >> i think this is where our staffing recommendations and our training inging recommendations interlink. part of what we were attempting to do is start with asking the question what would be the ideal training benchmarks that we want to achieve and try to back out of the staffing numbers. without having to navigate around forced overtime in other staffing issues. i think that's the answer to that. >> with the increase in the additional agents, obviously you're going to be have to absorb those to train them which will, it's almost counterproductive because they're too deployed.

you're going to make the recommendation that new agents happen. how would that be absorbed? >> probably the way this would happen, we'd like the new leadership team to make specific choices about this. what those individuals would come on board, they would go out to the field and begin their four to five year training period. then you would bring individuals in from the field to increase the levels at the white house for the special agents. >> thank you. >> i think all of us are just taking aback by the 25 minutes of average training. as a former combat instrument that's astounding when you're

entrusted with so many things where you may have to protect somebody's life. that seems totally inadequate pm did any of that 25 minutes of training include sustaining the accurate employment of firearms? >> the data that we were given from the secret service did not include the time spent on firearm qualifications and the like. the numbers that we provided in our report, 42 hours of training fiscal year 2013 and 25 minutes on average for the uniform division was a part from firearms. >> what specifically was the training focused on if it was, if you had other aspects of training, you're quoteing 25 minutes but obviously firearms training or protecting people that have been injured or whatever it might be, what

aspects of training were you looking at? >> the data we received gave us the aggregate training. we briefed on some of the different training protocols in the classified setting. we want to be careful about that here. >> i think, for example, just to give an example of one of the things in my report talked about lack of training around communications equipment and how to properly use communications equipment. that's like an appropriate subject of training. i think there's indication there's not been a lot of that in recent years. >> then were there any training recommendations that you made focused on proper reduction of threats and uniform rules of engagement? >> i think we looked at this question of the use of force policy, for example, which had been discussed quite a bit.

i think what we found was very different views notwithstanding the same word onss on the page. i think we felt that both additional training on that was needed but also that they needed integrated training so each individual knew what their role was. who was the person the last line of defense at the door. who is the person doing the tackling? all of those, how do you work in an environment where a canine has been released. >> there are parts of the report that speak to threat reduction. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the sensitivity on that. my question was focused did you recommend a standard uniforms rule of engagement? >> the rule that the secret

service uses comes from supreme court law about dealing with appropriate use of force that's pretty uniform whether we're looking at the metropolitan police in a big city or the secret service or the fbi or whatnot. it's not so much that there's ambiguity about the policy. it's the execution. >> that answers it. thank you. i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i think this is a basicig area that needs to be continued to looked at. the use of force had got to be well understood by every single person. we can never make a mistake. in this day and age if isil and other terrorists, you don't know what's underneath them. it's terrible to assume nobody

has nothing underneath their clothing. it brings up a good point. >> i want to concentrate on staffing. can you tell me how we're doing? are we getting new recruits in? >> at the out set there was a period of time where the services hiring process was not functioning as intended whether for budgetary or other reasons. they were not getting classes through. our sense is that has improved. they are using different hiring practices again.

we think that is improving. we continue to believe that having some of the mistakes made in the past related to not having professionalize human resources function or led by professionals in that area, we think that's an important change going forward. >> you're acknowledging there's been a decrease in the number of new hires, people coming in? >> there was a gap two or three years there where they were not bringing classes through at the levels they needed to sustain the work force. >> your assertion is that was not caused by a lack of interest of applyicants but by the hiring process itself? >> i think there were budgetary issues. you would have people start the process. >> hang with me real quick.

what about the forces that it is today. where are we at with our labor pool? what percentage will we see retiring in the next five to ten or be eligible to retire. i'm worried about the fact that we're going to get into a situation where we don't have enough secret service agents. >> i think our concern was looking at that gap that, really looking three or four years out from now where the individuals in an ordinary or would have been hired and weren't would be starting their reation in washington as part of the president or vice president's protective detail. we think a new director needs to start planning now for that. that also includes, as you look forward, 2020 will be a year with the 75th anniversary of the u.n., a presidential campaign. that's going to be a year where as much as will be quite busy mp they need to make sure they have the personnel ready to go and trained.

>> would you say the white house recognizes this? it's my understanding the last budgets submitted that congress has put more money in there in order to address this scenario. >> it wasn't that congress was saying we're not going to provide the president's budget. it was that as this was working up through the process the service was approaching its budget by saying here is how much we have. we asked for a little bit more rather than saying here is what the mission is. here's what we need to achieve it and pursuing those resources.

>> well, for myself and i suspect, and i hope for you as well, one of the most disappointing things that occurred was low morale. what happened? >> one, these folks are working extremely long hours. we talked about the lack of confidence in the work force about disciplinary and other decisions which has been impact -- been an impact there. we met with uniform division sergeants just shortly before thanksgiving. they take a toll on the

workforce. >> i'm business owner. that sounds like a management problem. that needs to be addressed immediately. thank you again for everything you've done. we appreciate your efforts. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you. now recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your consistently hard work on this issue. while you've been the chairman and when you were on the committee. explain how working counterfeit cases prepares you for personal protection. >> when a new agent comes out of basic training, they're assigned to a field office for four to five years. during that assignment they have various investigative roles. they are also serving as

manpower for protective stops. if the president, vice president, any of the protectees come into your region, you're part of the manpower squad which is how they start to become familiar with protective operations. >> i get how practicing protection details help you with protection details. i'm trying to figure out how investigating someone using an ink jet printer to print counterfeit hundred dollar bills prepares you for that. i'm trying to understand how those two missions are combined. >> they develop law enforcement skills. they develop the sense of when someone is lying and when someone is to be -- >> which leads to this question. your applicant pool, do you draw heavily from those women and men already in law enforcement and

already have those skills? >> i believe in the previous hiring practices over the last few years that's not the case. they were hiring off of usa jobs. >> why not hire ex-military? i know there's an age cut off but why not hire ex-military state, local law enforcement. a field that already has that skill. instead of hiring an accounting major. i think you're likely to see with the change in hiring prosayspro process to shift to drawing military has been prior to the period when we think the hiring practices really became problematic. >> i'm sure the four of you know this.

the u.s. marshals have the broadest of any federal law enforcement agency. they just don't use it. they search for fugitives. they provide security in the courtroom. they provide security for courthouses. they have very broad jurisdiction. they just don't use it. they have become experts in narrower field. i loved all of my years working in the secret service. i thought they were really good on the currency and counterfeiting cases. i never understood how those two skills go together. i don't see how those skill sets go together. it seems to me y'all are already on top of that. one question that arose with the former director that i'm not sure y'all got a good answer to.

the housekeeper who did not train at either glenco or quantico knew enough. you might want to search this part of the white house. if you have to be trained to search a crime scene you're probably not in the right line of work. >> there are adequate explanations for failure to secure that evidence of the

shooting up in the residents nor you can talk about things forever. you can talk about training forever. if there were never another hour of training for ten years, no one should get in the front door of the white house again. we're not here to defend either of those. those were grave mistakes and neither one should have happened. >> i appreciate your candor and the work you did. the secret service has a very rich, deep, good reputation and history. i would like to see it get back to the days where i remember it. it's a very important agency. we have to get it right. >> recognize the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you. you mentioned the accessive amounts of over excessive amounts of overtime. do you have any idea how many overtime hours are being worked annually? >> i think when we looked at with respect to the agent population, we don't think there are actually accurate

records for that. we think the accurate records for that are difficult to find. >> let me ask you this, if the agents are not logging the hours they're working, does that mean they're uncompensated for overtime? >> they are getting paid for their eight hours and l.e.a. pay. we want a high performing culture. i don't think they view it as uncompensated time. certainly they are working extraordinarily long hours well beyond what anybody has measured. >> i don't think i'm communicating this correctly.

what i'm trying to find out is within your budget process you have so much budgeted for salaries and benefits and certain professions when you work beyond 40 hours you're compensated for your overtime. it's time and a half. some is straight time. that's what i'm trying to find out. >> in the uniform division they are compensated for overtime. what we found in the uniform division side is that there were wide variations. some people were working extraordinary amounts of overtime. >> that's almost 50% more of what they should work. that has implications for

stamina overtime. we're paying for this. does it make sense to be paying for overtime when we can convert wa what we're spending on that to new personnel? >> i think that's a finding of our report. the personnel did not keep increasing and they substituted overtime for bringing on new personnel. you're looking at the chairman's chart if you see the gap this

hiring and the number of classes that go through, that's made up through overtime. we think a less tired work force would, some of that would be compensated and bringing on new people having a less tired work force. >> even on the training side you could have them trained up but if you're working that many hours you're reducing their effectiveness. the thing that gets me is it's a management issue is you're spending money on overtime. someone's making a decision to pay overtime rather than bring in the new hires which would reduce the demand on your personnel. that just doesn't make sense. >> we agree with that. >> the clock changed on me. i thought i was out of time. the thing that keeps coming up is there seems to be an overall

decline in morale in the service. i commend you for the work you're doing. i don't know how much input you had into the report we read on the recommendations for reforms. i wholeheartedly support what's in the report particularly bring in someone from the outside. i'm a big believer in bringing people from the outside into a huge organization because they can see things that nobody else inside sees. you develop a culture over time where you start to miss the obvious. i want to encourage whoever needs to be encouraged to pursue someone from outside the agency, at least in a transitional type setting to be able to come in and make the changes that will bring the agency back up to the standard of excellence that you've enjoyed for years and years and that we all expect.bring the agency back up to the standard of excellence

that you've enjoyed for years and years and that we all expect. >> hit the talk button be you could. thank you. >> very good. i got a couple of questions. first of all, thanks for spending so much time with you today. really appreciate you doing that that. obviously there's a lot of discussion about who the new director is going to be. there's a feeling he ought to come from outside the agtsency. -- agency. i want your opinions. why do you believe the next director should come from outside the agency? >> maybe we all should speak to that. i'll take the first crack at it. we think that all things equal , it's easier for an outsider to achieve some of the things that are important. taking a fresh look at priorities. having consistent discipline making tough personnel decisions, bringing in outside folks in the hr.

again, obviously that's the president's choice ultimately. sometimes all things aren't equal in the world and someone from the inside brings in an outside leadership team with him or her and they're the right person at the right time. we'll support whoever the president chooses to extent. we be supportive of that. with think an outsider would be able to do some of those other things easier. >> i would agree with that. the only other thing i would add is our report goes into detail in some of the budget and administrative functions of the organization that really need to have a priority in order to support it and i think we think an outside director can really bring a fresh perspective to that. >> i would echo that. one of the opportunities we had

is to talk broadly across the federal government and we think there's a lot of talent that could help the service and we think that while promoting from within for certain positions is important. we think there should be more people at senior levels who come from outside the service with different backgrounds. >> having one who has the experience at changing an organization and being able to aggressively drive the changes that are needed here to both the use of technology, the management of technology, the human resource and budget issues really need a change agent. there are a lot of really great people in the secret service. i think that we met and talked with quite a few people who we feel that with some further experience and education in terms of management training

would be great directors of the service going forward. at this point in their history they need somebody who can aggressively drive change and our view was that person best come from the outside. >> that's kind of illuminating. usually people are afraid of somebody from the outside. you guys would not -- you feel somebody other than active director that the outside view would been an improvement? >> we did not do any sort of personnel review of acting director clancy. he's done a great job and been a great public servant. we didn't do a review to that affect. there's certain parts of this job that are easier for an outsider. i think we all have great respect for him. >> right now you fly in agents. it's very expensive.

could you comment on that practice? >> it does reflect an effort by the service to address short term trying to ensure they have adequate manpower at the white house. that's not a cost effective and long term strategy for dealing with these issues. that's why we recommend them bringing on more people permanent hires, the 200 additional units, the 85 special agents. we think that's a better way to do this than more expensive ways to do that then really only for short term. >> ok. you feel we're spending money unnecessarily by doing this? >> that's right. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for all you've done.

i want to zero in on something we have not spent a lot of time on. when i was the chairman of the subcommittee over maritime transportation in the coast guard, under the transportation committee we had a situation where the coast guard was purchasing boats that didn't float, literally. what we discovered was that the coast guard did not, the way they instructed their contracts and did their procurement, the major problem is they didn't have people in house who knew about it which is incredible. we literally lost hundreds of

millions of dollars that takes me back to maybe we need to have people in certain areas to do that. then i was listening to what the chairman was reading. i asked myself, how does those things happen. i was wondering how significant is that. sounds like what they do is they take agents and put them in these positions that they may not, i don't want to say might not be qualified for but probably people who have trained in those expertise that would be better in that.

can you tell me the significance of that? have i got that right? >> you do, sir. i think the significance of it is real. i guess the way i would put it i guess nicest way to put it is in life you try to put people in position where they have the best chance of succeeding for themselves and the organization. if you have somebody who is an a plus protective person or law enforcement person they may not be an a plus person aptt media relations. we all have our strengths and weaknesses. what the fbi did under director muller and it seemed to be a material improvement was try to recruit, it's not always easy. it's hard the get people the leave their positions and move things but put a real focus on recruiting experts who would come into the secret service.

they were attracted to the mission. it was a way to engage in public service. it was way to make a difference in america and be involved in human relations. be involved in i.t. efforts for the bureau. it's a we publicized history where it wasn't that great at i.t. for a while. they had a lot of expensive challenges and failures. they got better. we think respectfully, again that this is an area that would merit serious consideration because bringing in senior level people in human resources and budgeting and technology would really move the needle for the whole organization and great public service for the senior folks who came in. >> to be fair, the service does employ experts in human resources technology and other areas. that do not ever occupy the senior most spot. it's hard when the top guy is

not holding that spot. >> you needs to bring in the experts and give them a seat at the leadership table. >> we talk about morale. one of the things we find in hiring people even hear on the helm, people like know they have a chance to move up in the organization. the people that you've talked to, the agents, did they say they would prefer somebody from the outside?

>> we got a mix of views on that. i think very, very telling that there were a number of individuals who talked to us who said that we really need, that would be a sign of change and that we think as an organization we would benefit from that. we did get a mix of views on that. there's within the aging population was this one being fairly applied. that's something the director has to regain the confidence on the work force on. on the uniform size there's been errors in the secret service where it was possible to move up from the uniform division up through the special agent ranks. we see to the that the pathway is not really open. i think a new director has to think about opening that up again. >> the chairman and i have been working very hard on this issue. your report has been a guidesing

-- guiding light. i cannot tell you how much we appreciate it. it's allowed us to delve into some things we probably would not have known about. all your recommendations will help us tremendously. it's the kind of thing we probably need to start with so that we can then delve even deeper. i want to thank you. i want you to know that i think what you've done will make the secret service a much stronger organization. restore the on thorough that we have known for many, many years.

thank you. >> i have a couple of questions you and then we'll wrap up. they made this a priority and made it happen and smart enough to engage you all. it's a first rate panel. we appreciate the depth in which you were able to get information and the report is so valuable to us. you as you thank you for your as you time. what types of dms thatocuments were you able to, the size, the quantity. >> thousands of pages of documents. everything from prior reports,

sort of the kind in the 1990s, for example, there was the plane that went down on the white house property. there were a series of reports that came out of that. as well as lots of budgetary documents and manuals about everything from training to how to undertake certain operational activities. >> how were they produced to you, paper, electronically? >> i think both. >> how long did it take until you actually got the documents? >> i think we got terrific response from the service when we asked for things. i think we were very happy with the responsiveness of the documents and frankly folks came to us with a lot of candor and gave us their unvarnished view. >> if you were to ask for documents how long would that take to get back? >> i'd probably have to ask our staff about time frames.

i probably wasn't on focused. >> you started your work. day one was? >> we were brought on board at the end of the october and we worked through december 15th. >> that's an amazing amount of time. did the secret service ever complain about giving you these documents? >> no, sir. >> any challenges with getting these documents? any personnel issues that they cited? >> i think we indicated, i think

one of the challenges was to get kind of budget, the kind of resource documents with respect to evaluating some of the staffing issues that we were concerned about. trying to get that information was challenging. i don't think they have it in a form that's sort of useful to use. i would identify that as a challenge that we had. >> the budget? >> those documents. because it was difficult to get information about manpower usage and particular staffing as i think i indicated to one member we were able to assess from the bottom up what you would need to bring the training up. >> thank you for your good work. you've made quite a service. it's truly valuable.

i think the service is listening to you, homeland security. we certainly are. i hope you find all of these recommendations are implemented. we thank you again for your participation today. >> there is for our own sake. mr. phillip, you were talking about, you were answering a question and talking about the president making a selection. then you went onto say we would support that. what does that mean? not necessarily that particular question. what do you see as you all's role now? that's what i'm trying to get to.

>> i don't mean to sort of elevate our exper expertise. we hope we generated some insights that are useful. if it's useful for them to meet with us, so long as it's okay under the rules of appointment and all that, i can speak with great confidence for everybody involved that we would be happy to try to be supportive and useful to them. >> was it your understanding when you were appointed ta that would be part of it or is that something you're aing we're willing to do? >> i think we just want to do it. we have developed a great respect for the secret service in this process. obviously this is an issue that anybody who cares about the country and we all truly do in the most bipartisan way that you

all have embodied can feel very proud to have any small contribution towards and if we can make any further small contribution we'd be proud to do it. >> that makes me quadruple my thanks. i am serious. that you would do your duty and then say that we're willing to follow up to help make this organization the very best it can be. i think this is what america is all about. this is what you all or what makes this country the great country that it is. i don't say that lightly. i really appreciate it. i know our committee does too. >> we thank you. we thank your staff. we appreciate the great work that was done. this committee stands. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> issued a, the chairman release a statement after the president's appointment to head out the secret service. this from the committee's website.

panel made it crystal clear that only a director from outside meet the needs of the agency today. someone with a fresh perspective from allegiance leaves -- allegiance these. coming up today, national security adviser susan rice of the cap began of the three-day white house conference on combating extremism. they're talking about ways to contract terrorism. we have her remarks live on c-span. here's what president obama had to say during an early session of the summit today. >> these terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like isis, represent islam. that is a fallacy that embraces the terrorist narrative. at present, we must acknowledge

that groups like al qaeda and i sold -- isil are targeting their propaganda to muslim communities, particularly muslim youth. also committee's including scholars, therefore have irresponsibility to push back not just on twisted of islam but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations. that america and the west are somehow at war with islam. or seek to suppress muslims. or that we are because of every ill in the middle east. that narrative sometimes extends far beyond terrorist organizations. that narrative becomes the foundation upon which terrorists build their ideology and by which they try to justify their violence and doctors all of us including islam and especially muslims.

who are the ones most likely to be killed. i briefly, there is a complicated history between -- obviously, there's a couple get a distributor in the middle east, the west, and none of us should be immune from criticism in terms of specific policies that the notion that the west is at war with islam is an ugly life. all of us regardless of our faith have irresponsibility to reject it. -- a responsibility to reject it. format extremists have the opportunity to speak out and think the truth about terrorist groups. often times, they can be powerful messengers in debunking these ideologies. one said this was not what we came for, to kill other muslims.

those voices have to be amplified. governments have a role to play at minimum as a basic first step. we other spots ability to cut off funding that feels hatred and perhaps young minds and endangers us all. we need to do more to help lift up voices of tolerance and peace , especially online. that is why the united states is rejoining, for example with the uae to create a new digital communication hub to work with religious and civil society and committee leaders to counterterrorist up again. -- to counter terrorist propaganda. efforts will be led by our new coordinator and i'm grateful that my envoy has agreed to

serve in this new role. the u.s. will do more to counter hateful all the elegies. i -- ideologies. i urge your nations to join us. >> you can feel what the president had he said the conference tonight at 11:15 on c-span. mike mccall issued this statement about the white house conference. sadly, this was a summit without substance. the president spent more time talking about how america is not at war with islam that needed why not a credible strategy for defeating the jihadists. we will not defeat these fanatics if we refuse to define them for what they are -- violent, islamic extremists. coming up up at five clobbered former officials from the obama and george w. bush administrations join in a

discussion on, you terrorism including groups like isis. bob schieffer moderates. that will be live on our companion network, c-span2 starting at 5:30 eastern. part of yesterday's summit on combating violent extremism with muslim community leaders, law enforcement officials come and international participants including the mayor of paris. they examined radicalization and recruiting as well as state and federal court nation. -- coordination. >> i am of the islam civic society of america. it is my honor and privilege to

greet all of the distinguished guests with a greeting of peace. peace be with you all. first, i would like to welcome members of the world peace organization to begin with verses from the koran.

>> those verses made whoever kills a soul for corruption in the land has slain mankind entirely. clever saves one life has saved

mankind entirely. this is a vehicle of hope. a moral compass for the muslim communities. as religious leaders we value engagement and creating a platform for facilitating dialogue between the u.s. government's and the muslim community. undoubtedly, a transparent to a committee geisha and leads to better understanding of issues of concern. in partnership with credible committee representatives, there is an opportunity to strengthen the capacity of the minnesota somali community in a positive way. the peace, safety comes security of the united states are among

importance to the muslim america community. we believe in the rights of all people to live in peace and security. we continue to denounce anyone who tries to use the religion of islam to support terrorism. we want to work with all minnesotans to stop terror commitments while at the same time protecting civil rights and civil liberties. on behalf of the world these organization, -- peace organization this is an umbrella of life.

you are brothers and sisters. thank you [applause] so much. [applause] >> good morning and thank you for your kind words. i am a minneapolis city council member. i would like to describe my community. it is a patriotic, vibrant, and hide working -- hard-working. we have spent the last few months working to create our pilot program.

it is entitled building community resilience. we are here in support of this effort, which we have developed together. partnership that when the community and law enforcement offices. our u.s. attorney will provide a brief overview of our program. thank you. [applause] >> we begin our community meetings with a prayer for peace. i am happy they could do so today. this is a plan we build with the somali community. our committee has struggled with the cycle of recruiting by overseas terrorists. for the past number of months, we have a meeting with the community with hundreds of community members. minnesota somali community told us what it would take to combat

this. the program consists of three main components. first, we increase committee engagement by our local law enforcement. over the years, our police and sheriffs have built relationships of trust. the community wants to increase those efforts. second, together, we will address the root causes of radicalization and minnesota. the community described for us these root causes. an identity crisis among somalis , a lack of job opportunity, the need for more mentors, a shortage of effective afterschool programs, and a disconnect between many youth and their religious leaders. as you will hear, our pilot program addresses each of these causes. third, our partners will develop community led intervention teams, working at the earliest signs of radicalization.

relatives and friends of those who have joined isil told us they did not know where to turn when they saw a change. they were embarrassed sometimes to admit what was happening. the community once you build early intervention efforts at our pilot program helps. with these strategies, we believe our pilot program will up the community break the cycle of quicker than. -- of recruitment. our law -- first up will be rick norton. the task force hass been investigating the travel. beginning in 2007, more 25 somali americans left minnesota in order to train and fight on

behalf of al-shabaab. one of these men it was un-american citizen born in somalia who on -- became america's first documented suicide bombing after detonating an ied in northern somalia. more than 20 young somalis have been charged in court in minnesota on terrorism charges. some of the travelers who remain in smalley are still actively recruiting minnesotans. al-shabaab has targeted minnesota somali recruitments, encouraging our youth through videos and social media to join the fight overseas or to conduct an attack in the united states. in late 2013, the fbi became aware of young minnesota-based somali americans traveling overseas to join a terrorist organization.

instead of al-shabaab, it was isil. over the past 15 months, is a connecticut number of than a soda -- minnesota-based somalia men and women have made preparations to travel to join isil. so far, for minnesota-based somali americans have been charged with violating federal law in connection with their travel or attempted travel to join isil. the fbi is committed to disrupting his activity. this includes building's document in to prevent radicalization and separately, through an investigation of federal law. we want to work with the somali committee to break the cycle of recruitment. >> thank you. tom smith will tell us about the work he has been doing in st. paul. >> the pilot program is built on

solid foundation established a local law enforcement and other stakeholders. the police department has a long history of community policing focused on the east african immigrant population. in 2004, our department has worked to decrease the involvement of immigrant citizens working with local government. somali community leaders have trained over 600 officers in the st. paul police department. we meet with advisory councils participate in committee meetings and hosed large multicultural events exchanging valuable information and creating trusting relationships with our committee. several of our youth ended up as new hires with the st. paul police department. the community has told us these efforts are working and most importantly, that they want more of this work.

i am here to tell you that is what we are doing. a key component of our work is increasing the number of american somali police officers using our entry-level positions. they are known as community liaison officers. this gives students the opportunity to obtain their law-enforcement degree in minnesota 12 working and having a salary. most importantly, it gives us an opportunity to mentor and guide what local police officers with our somali youth. as with many departments, our budget has recorded -- has precluded us from expanding these opportunities. we are committed to increasing the number of somali committee members working within the st. paul police department. we can increase the number of positions available and further strengthen the bonds of trust. i confidently attest to you the success of our efforts and the

great future potential this type of work holds. i would tell you many success stories. minnesota's immigrant amenities from areas where law enforcement is not widely trusted. it is up to us to build a partnership. it is up to us to build that trust so we may keep all of our members of our community safe. during this pilot program, we will increase our efforts by holding additional youth summits that will bring young somalis together with bond force meant to increase the foundation of trust and we are committed to increase the presence of committee members within our department. >> thank you. this is the largest county in minnesota and onto the largest somali population. share, please tell us about your work. >> it is a honor and privilege to be here this morning with my law-enforcement colleagues. i am glad you had a chance to hear from them.

at first additional methods for building communities of trust were not working. we had language and cultural barriers that require new strategies. translations are difficult at best. men did not want women at meetings. the greatest area or of all -- they were distrustful of law-enforcement because and their home country, law enforcement often operates under the arm of an oppressive government. the key to overcoming these was a one-on-one personal development. he lent credibility to our efforts. others trusted us because he trusted us. he became our sponsor in the community. personally asked members to attend academies customized for the somali committee.

the agenda was tailored to fit the interests and needs of the community. with translators. we learned is critical not to be seen as playing favorites. we let everyone know we would be working with the entire we hired the first sworn deputy sheriff in minnesota. we added a somali community member in our community engagement team. he works to build relationships between the community and my office. example of our new level of engagement, a woman assisted us in adopting a new policy on religious head coverings in our jail. this is one way for my office to show we are asking. with the guidance, one of the most important members of our engagement team is me.