mr. perrelli? okay. thank you. you're now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member cummings and members of the committee. i'm tom perrelli, one of the members of the secret service protection mission panel and the panel asked me to make brief opening remarks today. at the outset, we want to express echoing both the chairman and the ranking member our appreciation for their extraordinary work and dedication of the men and women of the secret service. they work long hours in a mission that has no tolerance for error and do so without desire for fame or fortune. they deserve all of our thanks and support. the secretary of the department of homeland security asked the panel to do a review of the secret service's protection of the white house following the events of september 19 2014. we did not focus solely on that event but looked more broadly at concerns about thor is chris that had been raised by this committee and others. from october to when we were commissioned to the issuance of our report on december 15th the panel talked to dozens of memb

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 yo

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 m

mr. perrelli indicated. we viewed this as sort of key and animate and many of the of the decisions that the service has to think about from stepping to management of overtime and the like. as your chart is consistent with what we found in our findings, that training has fallen below acceptable levels. there have been a number of reasons that were advanced to us in the course of a of the review to explain why that is so from the increased activities of the secret service and omissions, the number of protected visits that secret service members are staffing and the like, reductions in staffing and the force overtime issues. regardless of those different causes, i think we are all in agreement that the levels are unacceptably low. the number in our report that we emphasized looking at fiscal year '13 dated the average agent trained about 46 hours in fiscal year '13. the average uniformed division officer trained about 25 minutes on average. >> for three-year? >> for the year. and so by any account those numbers