met their purpose and need to be retired or modified. use revenues that we generate to reduce corporate tax rate and use that for deficit reduction. number three, look at everything we do and say how do we get better results for less money for everything we do. those are three things i harp on. that we move away from sequestration to allow agencies and departments to say these are the ways we need to allocate resources. that will hopefully enable us to and be able to put less money there with less risk. if you could give me one good idea, it if you could speak very briefly. >> i will start. haveme ways, sir, you

answered my question. you have even my response. it is recognizing this country, there are a number of risks we face. it is a large country. part of the conversation we have to have is with the department of homeland security and the administration, lawmakers, the american public, we cannot mitigate every threat. it is understanding those that will have the most significant consequences and ensuring we have a conversation about how we go about mitigating them, that we have the resources, personnel, to go about doing that. having the conversation that we have today and over the course of time are, i think, what is critical. you have already taken steps by moving away from sequestration. that will be helpful to us as well. i think recognizing we have to -- that we have to manage risk and that we cannot prevent every

incident, and as long as we are adapting ashen >> general? protective federal services is unique that we have both state,ugh local, federal, and civilian environments. we do that with a very small force. your help in helping us -- and your support to help us move and that of a today's areas is critical, quite frankly, because we are trying to look out and predict, if you will, what is coming down the road to keep our people safe. and we really need the support of folks like yourself and this committee to help us see through that and to help us to work through some of these challenges. >>, thank you. that continuing to

evaluate those employees who have access to classified information and to our facilities is critical, and we need to have resources to be able to conduct those evaluations. we need to have access to records that are sometimes publicly available, sometimes not available, in order to do those evaluations. general support for that approach to doing business is essential. >> thanks. i was saying to a senator that we are blessed in this committee four former state attorney generals, and it adds a great deal of expertise to this area. >> thank you. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i wanted to follow-up with you, mr. lewis, and ask you about how other dod policies might affect

the security clearances at facilities, and then those who can gain access to them. in particular, the thought of if there are any regulations the need to be reviewed or revise. for example, the current discharge regulations and how they are implemented. in the case of mr. alexis, had discharged,onorably that would have raised a flag, and that would have gone to correctly to his fitness to hold a security clearance. could you help me understand in light of this case, is this something we need to look at question mark --? one of the things i do not understand as well is the whole break down with the reached out -- that was beyond -- but is there anything we need to do on end?mental health an

is 2020, looking back, so you can see things that you did not see at the time, but is there anything we need to look at internally on this issues from the dod perspective or anything we can do -- i serve on the armed services committee, the committees that we should be doing? believe there are issues with how discharges occur. not to get into specifics, but generally, based on what was known at the time of the discharge, it was not considered to be an unusual determination as an honorable discharge in that particular case. the larger issue is how do we collect, and identify, a wealth of information that allows us to constantly adjust our

perspective about cleared individuals, and individuals who are in and trusted positions -- and trusted positions -- ent rusted positions? continuous evaluation process, not just collecting the information, but having the staff available to evaluate the information and take action on that information, to me that is the real issue here. >> i appreciate it. collins, mccaskill, and high can't say we -- and heitkamp refer to one where there is a lengthy security clearance. i wanted to ask also, mr. lewis, what steps have we taken -- i'm sorry, i meant to call you general patterson -- i apologize

-- general patterson, what the uc as we look at this whole see ason -- what do you we look at this whole situation at the navy yard that you are already implementing to make sure we do not find ourselves in the same situation? you are reviewing the situation and understanding what steps you are taking in a positive action that you can talk about here. >> yes. within the federal protective services we are working closely with our federal partners to look at processes and procedures for folks coming and going into federal buildings. we are also looking at our communications processes as well. one of the challenges during the navy yard was the fact that so ,any of the responding agencies the level of communication and how you do that, so we are looking aggressively at how we

do that, not just in the washington, d.c., area, but across the united states because in a crisis situation, communications become critical and as such, wood, timely communication is essential to a positive result. at a variety of areas and taking lessons as they come about from the navy yard as to how we improve processes across the spectrum within the federal protective services. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask you, mr. patterson, is it accurate to say -- is- general patterson it accurate to say that it does toolse a user risk commensurate with the committee standards? i'm trying to understand where we are at this. there was also a report from gao that fps interim assessment tool

was not consistent with this assessment standard because it excludes out sequences from assessments. i want to understand if there is a difference, why isn't there, is it something we should be more uniformly putting in place, or is there a reason for it? >> there is a reason, and we have just dealt what we call a modified infrastructure survey tool, mist. that particular tool was p. protectionm i.[ folks who had about that cool over a time of about six or seven years. we thought that this was a tool that we could modify, because it brought what we believed all of the areas of the isc requirements to bear. our pool is at with specifically vulnerability. that is what the tool is structured for.

separate we also do a threat assessment. we connect with the joint terrorism task force, with local law enforcement, with any number of agencies out there to get what we believe a very in depth comprehensive perspective on a threat that we also provide to our federal partner. the piece that is not part of the process is the consequent piece, and it is not part because we have not figured out how to do that within the federal facilities. >> what does that mean? >> that is one of the things we're working with the isc to better identify. when you ask for consequence within a federal sector, what are you looking for? we know when we help a federal partner to begin to pull together and understand their emergency occupancy plans, that we help them to understand and we go to the consequence p

iece, and when they look to establish the federal security level, we are looking at the consequence peace. we have not figured out how to incorporate that in an outdoor rhythm type method -- in and out are the type method in -- alg ortihm method to provide a reasonable and rational meaning to consequence -- 10 tenets of a lease facility. certain that folks like irs and social security and others have set to the consequences of losing a facility or if there was in the thet something happened to facility. we have not figured out how to incorporate that into a tool. that is what we are working with with isc to figure that out. >> i appreciate your answer, and we look forward to working with you on this important issue. >> thank you, senator. i want to excuse this panel of

witnesses, and thank you for your work. i would say that you have background for work from here. all thosein mind hundreds of families who lost loved ones in oklahoma city, in that bombing. fort hoodnd those in who lost their lives. keep in mind, if you will, the families of the 12 men and women who died at the washington navy yard. and just think of them as you celebrate christmas, or some other way during the holidays, the families sitting around the christmas tree, their dining room table, and there is somebody missing. best every to do our day to ensure that those numbers of empty chairs, people are not

around because of a tragedy like the ones i just mentioned. keep them in mind. keep their families in mind. let that energize our efforts going forward. this is not just about prices or recommendations. this is about saving people's lives and making sure they have a wood life and have a chance to share that life for good time with their families. take that with you. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

to our second and final panel, welcome. we are glad you could join us. we want to introduce you and welcome your statements and have a chance to ask some questions. our first witness is mark goldstein, the director of physical infrastructure issues for the united states government accountability office. is the investigative arm of congress. we are grateful for what you do. he is responsible for their work in the area of government property, and telecommunications.

at the request of this committee, and other gaoressional committees, has conducted 12 reviews of federal substantive the -- federal facility securities as part of the homeland security in 2003. tao room ports on oversight -- gao reports on oversight of guards, budgeting for security, and challenges hampering federal agencies. stgephephenitness is drifter andutive general counsel for the national association of security companies. he has led the association working with congress and federal agencies and the gao on programs of legislation, other issues related to facility security since 2006.

the final witness, david wright, he is the president of the federal protective service union, the american federation of government employees. mr. wright has served in his capacity since 2006. mr. wright is a 27-year veteran of the detective services. his last 12 years he performed as inspector. responding to crimes to performing facility security assessments. mr. wright brings a welcomed amount of experience to this committee to find solutions to problems facing the federal protective services. tank you for that. we welcome you. we ask you to take about five minutes to make your prepared statement. thank you for joining us today. a question -- were you here for the first panel -- raise your

hand. that is great. thanks for staying. your recognize. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning about the protection of federal disn ability -- buildings. we are responsible for protecting nine thousand 600 federal facilities under the gao. recent incidents at facilities demonstrate vulnerability to acts of violence. fpselp publish its mission, conducts assessments and has 13,500 contract security guards. my testimony discusses challenges fps faces in injuring contract guards that are deployed to federal facilities and properly trained and conducting risk assessments at federal facilities. it is based on work through 2013 assessments risk

and results of gao's ongoing work to select federal agency risk assessment methodology aligned with standards. our findings are as follows -- injuring challenges contract guards have been properly trained and certified before being deployed to facilities. in our september 2000 30 report, we found providing active shooter spots and screening is a challenge. according to guard companies, their contract guards have not received training on how to respond during incidents involving an active shooter. without ensuring all guards received training on how to respond to incidents, involving an active shooter, fps has limited assurance that guards are prepared for this thread. an official from one contract itsany stated that 133 of

350 guards have never received screener training. guards employed to federal training -- facilities may be using equipment, but they are not qualified to use, which raises their questions about being able to screen access to facilities. gao was unable to determine the extent to which the guards have received training in part s lacks a system for guard oversight. fps agreed with that recommendations and have taken steps to identify guards that require training and provided it to them. fps continues to lack management controls to ensure its guards have met requirements. although fps agreed with our 2012 reclamation in developing comprehensive system for managing information on guards training, altercations, it does

not yet have a system. fps also continues to face challenges assessing risk at federal facilities. is notorted in 2012 fps assessing risk in a manner consistent with federal standards. gao's results indicate it is still a challenge for fps in several facilities. federal standards such as a national infrastructure managementplan, risk frame and can state that risk assessment should include threat, vulnerability, and consequent assessments. this helps decision makers identify and evaluate risks and implement measures to mitigate that risk. instead of conduct thing assessments, fps has been using a tool referred to as a modified infrastructure survey tool to a set -- to assess facilities. mist does not possess the consequence, the level,

duration, and nature of potential loss, resulting from an undesired event. fps agreed that a tool that does not make consequence is not allow an agency to fully access -- assess its risk. fps official stated they did not include consequence information. gao will continue to monitor this issue and plans to issue a report early next year. in response to our recent reports, dhs and fps have agreed with the recommendations in the 2012 and 2013 reports to improve guard processes. this concludes my opening statement. i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. mr. amitay? name is stephen amitay, and i am the executive director for nasco.

country's largest trade association, employing over 300,000 security officers, servicing urschel and governmental clients. nasco works with legislators and officials to put in place higher standards and requirements for security companies and private street officers. of most relevant to the hearing, 2007 we have worked on issues related to legislation related to federal retentive services retentive security officer program. nasco also work with the federal security committee on its 2013 best practices for armed security officers in federal facilities. not including the military services, there are approximately 30 5000 contract security offers across the

federal government, and use of contract security is a proven and cost-efficient counter measure. to further ensure security, fps and contractors need to work together to address challenges with a program that gao has identified over the last several years. improvements need to be made in the risk assessment process for federal facilities. these helmets are governed by isc standards. has found out, often requirements of the isc are not met by federal facilities. one critical element in this process is the decision to implement security countermeasures for its facilities. in gsa owned or leased buildings, fps irresponsible for conducting the facility's security assessment and recommending countermeasures. but as you noted in your opening

remarks, the decision to implement those recommendations -- or the decision to mitigate risk or accept risk is solely up to the facility's security committee which is made up of representatives from facilities'tenant agencies. tenant agent representatives to not have any security knowledge or sprints, but are expected to make security decisions for their respective agencies. the lack of experienced decision-makers on fsc's is something security contractors have witnessed, and calls into aretion whether fsc's making informed decisions regarding the mitigation or acceptance of risk. tightened budgets have put research -- pressure on agencies. countermeasures should not be rejected because of lack of understanding or an unwillingness to provide

funding. nasco supports requiring training for fsc members as well challengen able to osc. both these provisions were included in legislation that was passed last congress in committee. after addressing the program that gao has identified, as well as other issues of the program, fps pace is not as fast as others or by, the commitment to improve the program is not questionable and there have been substantial progress made. since the appointment of the director, the degree of dialogue and breads of cooperation between contractors has been unparalleled, and currently fps and contractors are working on initiatives. to address the lack of fps resources to provide

training, fps is about to launch a program that will train and certify contractor instructors so they can provide this important training. fps is moving to increase active shooter trading for pso's, and they are looking at what other agencies are doing in this area come as well as seeking input from contractors. fps is working to revise and standardize the lesson plans in its plan to require that circularly contractors decertify. fps is coming out with a needed revision for guard manuals. s how to act,pso' not following it is considered a contract violation. the format will allow for making revisions as needed. one area that needs review is the instruction elated to a pso's ability and authority to

act and liability to act in active shooter situations. congress might want to consider providing dhs with authority to authorize pso's to make arrests on federal property. psois working to improve post orders and improve its management of training and certification data. for this latter effort nasco recommends fps explore commercially available technologies. much needs to be done to address the pso program issues raised by gao. fps has come a long way in the past decade with it secured a force. nasco looks forward to working improve and congress to security in federal facilities. >> thank you. you are now recognized. make sure your microphone is on, please. we want to hear every word. >> thank you for the opportunity

to testify at this important hearing. i am david wright, president of the american federation of government employees, local 91 eight, which represents federal protective service officers nationwide. we are committed to critical homeland security mission of securing our nation toss federal buildings -- nation's federal buildings. federal employees and facilities are extremely vulnerable to attack from criminal and terrorist traits. fpsant to assure you my law enforcement officers are committed to respond to active shooter attacks. i am appalled that bureaucracy and inefficiency restricted our fps law enforcement officers whose office is less than one mile away from navy yard from assisting with the pursuit of the active shooter. it is because the navy does not

recognize the security piece of the fps. this must be viewed in the context of the leadership required to a commerce the fps mission, which remains unfocused if not broken. at all levels. fiscal security place a significant role in protection of all documents of federal buildings, but the frustrating inefficient and outright wasteful bureaucratic system of determining physical security countermeasures through a flawed facility assessment progress -- process and implementation by a facilities pretty committee who has to diverge their mission funding is i can think and not true security. security in the dirksen senate office building is not based on individual senate office's ability to pay. why should other federal facilities the different? the fps workforce is beleaguered by new and modified security assessment programs and individual conflicting

management danced throughout the assessment process. i have lost confidence -- confidence in the ability of the national director to resolve this wasteful process. i understand the department's science and technology director has offered to make the integrated rapid visual screening tool implied with the isc. it was tested by both general services administration and officials at the federal protective service. that would be a good start to remedying our assessment problems. the use of product contract security guards is a race. they're basically limited to the arrest powers of the citizen. the proactive law enforcement control and weapons screening at this building is a commerce by federal police officers who have tot authority to respond active shooters, and how can we demand less the federal buildings with thousands of occupants? 740 officersthe

and agents providing the critical law enforcement reduction of federal buildings? overall, quite well, given the dynamic mission, the headquarters staff with very littlefield experience. how is fps management doing? not so well. can we do better? absolutely. any organization is in trouble when leaders are not held accountable. a recent disclosure reveals that a regional director file dated rules when he arranged by a system -- violated rules when he arranged by system from a neighbor on the half of the government. i've been told there are other incidents of this content by equal and higher-ranked officials. after accountability is established, performance can improve, with focused,

professional, and ethical management that builds on best practices in the regions. policer inspectors and officers adequate staff, tools that work, and direction on priorities, and we will make sure the job is done. in conclusion, federal employees and the public they serve deserve the best and most effective protection week can divide. they're not eating it now, and expeditious -- they are not getting it now, and expeditious action by congress is required. i thank you for this opportunity, and i am available for questions. senatorl yield to ayotte for the first round of questions. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. , wanted to ask mr. goldstein particularly on the gao report, and what you have found. it really troubles me when we think about that there is no comprehensive -- i believe you

described it as a strategy or oversight model -- and then the fact that we are not sure, the people are receiving. there are a category that are not receiving active-duty shooter training and or screener training. how can we, from the gao perspective, what is your recommendation in terms of from the policy perspective, how we can move this as quickly as possible to address this problem? >> thank you. we have been very concerned with respect active shooter training and training on magnetometer's that fps has not been done a good enough job to ensure its contract guard workforce is able to get that training. one of the problems with the active shooter training, which people do not understand here, it is only a small part of one part of the training they receive any how. they get what how the -- they

get a special training of two hours which covers special events of various kinds of might occur in the building. out of the 120 hours they receive in training overall, only two hours good to special events, and only a fraction of that two hours covers active shooter training. i think it is important to contract guards are not really getting active shooter training for the most part. we're concerned they do not have enough training in that area. the same is true for magnetometers. the testing in federal buildings in 2009 and penetrated all buildings that we try to get into in a friday of different cities, with all making materials, we found that time that guards did not have the requisite training to be at post, and we find now several years later that many arts still do not have that. >> and these are the contract guards, correct? >> yes, ma'am. with your site to

the agencies that can pay the fee, how does your training differ? how does the training of the individuals that understand would work -- and maybe i have this wrong -- but would work on the federal protective services end -- do you know how the training differs? >> as federal law enforcement officers, we complete our training at the federal law- enforcement training center. >> you would goes to the same training as any other federal officer? >> yes, and there is a slight difference. we are talking contract guards. they are stationary at their posts, whereas our federal protective service inspectors and police officers are mobile. >> and if you were to the point of your testimony -- if you were to provide the services, for example, at the navy yard, that the federal protective service

-- so i understand -- would you do more of a roaming capacity? you would not do the who stands. i am trying to understand what this looks like. >> that is the model i would look for, is a model that works here at the capitol and the capitol buildings, that you would have federal officers begin their career at the magnetometer, at the x-rays, before they promote up and gain seniority and go out into the field. , is want to understand there other agencies with regard to this training issue on the fps contracting issues them is this something we are facing beyond the navy yard? i assume this contracting issue in terms of the training issue goes well beyond the navy yard facility. is that true? >> the work we have done here

focuses on fps. more broadly.nt we have not looked at contract guard situations and what funding made the -- >> so just focus on the navy yard. >> we have found the kind of training overall that fbs gives it -- fps gives its contract arts that similar training is given by the pentagon protection, kennedy center, and they are aligned in early with the training you would give to a contract guard at a federal facility, but the problem is implementing it. it is where we seem to see the falloff, ensuring that the guards are actually getting it. >> there's basically no credibility. we can check off the training box, but nobody is saying this person has actually done it, that we are attracting them. basically, in a law-enforcement setting, you have to do a certain amount of training, that you have to complete every year, an part of that is being a

in that position. that is not happening? >> as senator coburn noted, there is a contract requirement to have your protective security officers have to require training and certifications, and it would be a contract violation. >> so we are entering contracts where we do not have the required to train screening? >> the requirements are in the contract. with the x and magnetometer ofining, of the 132 hours required training for protective security officers, the contract guards, 16 hours are provided by fps. screening.ich is mag it is for their personnel to provide that training is an issue that the gao has noted. that is not a matter of the security contractors providing the training that they are required to provide. providing the

training to security contractors, but we should be reviewing these contracts to make sure that we are properly higher are teasing what type of agreement we are brokering in terms of the requirements for background and training, should we? >> yes. a couple issues. as mr. amitay says correctly, protective services not providing the training they are obligated to provide in the contract. on the other hand, fps is not gaining the assurance that it needs that the contract guard companies themselves are providing the training that they are obligated to provide. they are not doing enough of the checks and certification. >> who is watching this? you're watching it? who within the chain of command, meaning the management of this, is making sure this is getting done? >> each region is investigatory process to assure themselves and do checks and do audits. some regions have not done it. some regions have not done it or

any random fashion at all where they can gain assurance. when we have looked at what they have done, not only did we find our breaches in many cases of guards standing without the proper certifications, we found disparities between our reviewed and the review that fps had done as well. >> i think some of those disparities are disparities in the documentation. there are instances where the guards have received required training. they have their cards or vacations. but there are issues with the documentations. for instance, with certain medical requirements, some statements of work require a licensed physician to sign off on those medical requirements. on others, it could be a nurse practitioner. gao might come in and look at what the current requirements are for licensed physician and was signedhis pso

-- by a nurse protection or practitioner, so that is in violation. >> wet we are talking about is the documentation on the training for -- what we're talking about is that the condition for the on the training for the screening an active shooter training. variety of wide issues. we found not just the magnetometer and the active shooter training, but we found 23% of files we reviewed contained no documentation for required training and certification in a variety of areas, firearms training, drug testing him no indication fps had monitored firearms qualifications. it is across the spectrum of the kinds of certifications that guards need. >> my time is up, so i will -- >> thank you. thank you for those questions. i will ask two questions. is last one, the second one,

i like to ask them in a situation like this, a couple from panels, different points of view, a rock range of perspectives from which to testify and answer questions. i want you to each pic maybe two -- go back to what you heard one another saying in response. it could be response to your testimony, questions. the impact of the first panel, some things they said, things they said in the testimony in response to our questions, and think about the ways for us on the side of the dais, that you would just like to put an exclamation point behind and say as he goat out of this room d's sake, keep this in mind. these are good takeaways. that is my second question. think about that. i first question is i have is for mr. goldstein.

talked to this to some extent. i will come back and revisit it very briefly. in the past decade or so, you have overseen 12 independent reports of federal facility security. you have looked at the armed guard programs, you have collaborated with state and local law enforcement and the human capital planning. gao has also conducted what we call them covert testing. you talked about some of that that is going on of federal facilities. in other words, you try to penetrate federal facilities to test how security works. it is like what we do in the nuclear power plant world. again, for the record, how would you assess federal facility security today? over 30,000 feet, how would you assess federal facility security today, realizing we are on a

where folksum, focus on this, going back to 1995, oklahoma city -- is it getting better, worse, it is uneven? >> i think it is very uneven, mr. chairman. yes, there have been improvements since oklahoma city and since the twin towers, of course. we have had more focus on this area. we have more physical protections in many places. we have more intelligence as well. but some of the basic issues stormy unresolved, the kinds of issues that you have brought up in some of your witnesses have brought up this morning. there is still inadequate attention to many of the things that are in the forefront of what we need to do in terms of getting into a federal building and making sure that not only that the people who stand on the front lines in federal buildings are qualified to be there and can do the service that they are that taxpayerso,

are paying them for, but more broadly that we are wising using -- wisely using government resources in this area because we have not effectively adapted a risk management process to the federal portfolio. virtually every building at a level three or a level for security risk is treated in the same fashion, and we did not prioritize across that portfolio in an effective way to make sure that we are effectively spending government resources. so i think we would still have a long way to go, sir. -- ifollow-up question you had to pick the next thing or the first thing that the federal protective services are doing in order to further improve federal facility security as expeditiously as possible? i do not know if that is a fair question. >> sure. we have talked a lot this morning about two fundamental

issues, risk assessments and contract guards. while they are moving slowly, they're trying to move in the right direction in both of those areas. i think the area that still is with the security humidity is a three legged stool between gsa, the federal security committees, trying to figure out the best way to get security at federal buildings. should there really be a significant role for individual agencies within a specific building for people who do not have a lot of security background? should they be making decisions about the government's buildings? i think, while the isc has developed standards to try to improve the level of and effectiveness of the federal committees, that is an area where they need to spend time out to figure out if that is the this way to

protect federal buildings. >> good, thanks. thanks very much. i asked you, mr. amitay, to respond to my first question again. a point you would really like to say, for god sakes, do not forget this, and there's probably more than a few things that we ought to keep in mind, and we will. one or two, if you would. there you go. >> if you will indulge. hearing -- theis focus at this hearing was an navy yard tragedy. in regard active shooter, look at our jurisdiction authority. our guys responded to the navy yard. we were less than two minutes away, and we had people at the of and the department transportation facility across the street, ready to activate and use their training and

equipment. we were held back. real low-level stuff. i need you to demand accountability. referred toee, as by mr. goldstein, in 2009, after they penetrated 10 of our buildings, or fps director sat here and committed to this committee that he would fix the national weapons detection training program. to this day, that program is not complete. >> are they making any progress? >> uneven. it is scattered across the nation. i think the big problems with visionyou finally have a visioneast somewhat of a

, a headquarters, and i guarantee you once that vision leaves headquarters, goes down to 11 different regions, i think 3, 4, 5 different senior executives service officials and the message gets lost, thereby, once again reducing any semblance of accountability. andave 11 different regions 11 different ways of doing business regardless of what our headquarters says. >> ok. thank you. mr. amitay? >> yes, thank you. going off what david just said, it is true that there is a vision now at headquarters. art of that vision is to standardize the training him and to increase the training, and the lines of communication with the regions do need to be

improved. that has always been a problem that it hase fact had to deal with 11 different regions. i think you will see fps -- david mentioned the national weapons training protective program which is the x-ray and magnetometer training program pso's. this will require additional training. compare that to the current requirement of eight hours training and eight hours that is combined with 40 hours of refresher training every three years. that is a positive development. the delivery of this training -- that has been a problem and it has been slow getting it out. stretched-thine inspectors should not be doing training. that should be their mission, and they are starting to turn over tor sp1 to turn it certified contract security instructors, and we think that is a great idea that will allow

for cost efficient and faster training. an active shooter training -- f ps needs to be doing more with that. other agencies are well ahead of fps in terms of training their contract security officers to respond to active shooter incidents. i have talked with several contractors, and they basically say that with those instructions and post orders, there is some confusion for pso's as to what they can do in an active shooter situation. obviously, as the instructions do say, when you're faced with an active shooter and the loss of life, you can engage him. are they able to be more aggressive in terms of maybe detecting an active shooter, if a person comes in as being really suspicious, can make it into a guy's face and see what he is doing? to delete the active shooter policy for this officers is do

not let the threat continue, period. i think fps is working to improve the training, to bring it up to a higher quality. they're working also, as mark said, to try to monitor better their certification and training on themand, mark, stay with that, because we do think that there is technology out there. i sometimes cringe when they say we are working with the science and technology directorate, to basically try to come up with a data management system, something that, as mr. coburn pointed out, that contractors must have. there should be greater integration and terms of the comprehensive data management system. so that fps and contractors can whoho has the -- can know has the qualifications. >> mr. goldstein, last word?

>> one quick quotation for dr. coburn. gao's recommendations -- there've been 26 and only four are in process and have only been in process for about four weeks, meaning there are 22 still open, and we will provide your staff with the exact information on those. >> they're interesting. andrew for the clarification. >> some points that have not been brought up that are relevant. the first, as mr. amitay has said, it is important that there be better clarity in terms of contractors liabilities. we have interviewed dozens of contract guards over the last decade all of whom have felt they do not have clarity on what responsibilities are and when they can use force and cannot use force. and most have told us over the years that their companies have all but said don't you ever pull out your gun, don't you ever do

anything with it. there is a lot of lack of clarity in this area. the second is the role of the federalr at the protective service. it would be great if they were able to, as mr. wright said, to be able to roam around, do more things, be able to assure the security of the buildings they are responsible for. in many cases they are locked at their desk, doing other work. they are involved in getting contracts out the door, often still hundred officers, and the level of things that they are responsible for really precludes them in many instances from actually being out and about and being the eyes and the ears and taking care of the police function that they really have. that would be the second. the third, finally, is i do not believe there really is much coordination at all based on the work we have done in the past with local and state police jurisdictions, so that when theedy does strike that federal protective service has

worked out in any kind of detail with local police jurisdictions exactly what kind of focus, what kind of approach, what kind of counter measures they can take in these tragedies. more work and speed on that area as well. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all for being here. thank you for what you do with your lives. thank you for your preparation for this hearing, for your response to our questions. mr. goldstein, a special thanks to you, and everybody at gao for the continued good work that you do. >> thank you. i do not have time. our caucus lunch has begun, and i am late. so i will wrap it up here. if i had more time, one of the things i would get into is the issue of turnover among these contract officers. i do not think we have spent much time on that. i would just say, as a closing

thought, when i was governor of delaware we had a real problem in the area of information technology training folks who work in that area for us as a state employee, developing their skills, and getting hired away by someone who would pay more money. and the governor who succeeded me was smart enough to realize we ought to pay and change up the way we awarded and incentivized folks who come to work for delaware and that arena. a similar problem in the federal government. if you look at the skill sets, there is a problem in attracting skilled folks in the cyber world, and the department of homeland security, as compared to the national security area. there is a difference. dr. coburn and our staffs and colleagues are working in a way to reduce that the severity so

just hire people who will work in cybersecurity that are trained away by others. we will work on that. it would be interesting to know what we lose -- it is one of the things that we come back to, quality of training, quality of training, but not only original training, but refresher training. the thought in my background is what is going on with turnover. i guess is there is a fair amount of japanese jobs, and a in orderings done-- to benefit taxpayers, but also to benefit the contract officers who good work. i would ask each of you to respond to that if i had time. if you would just raise your hands or by raising your hand, is that a problem, a concern that we should have? ok, thanks for a much. all right. i would just say in closing, the hearing record will remain open for the next 17 months.

[laughter] 70 days, until january 3, 5:00 p.m., and the walrus crochet in responding -- and we will appreciate your responder questions. we hope you have a good holiday season. thanks very much.

>> if you missed any of this hearing, it is available on our website, www.c-span.org. senate, the of the chamber voted to advance the bipartisan budget agreement passed by the house last week. the vote was 67-33, that included the report of 12 republicans. this set up a vote on final passage today or tomorrow. the senate is currently in recess for weekly party lunches. watch c-span2 when the senate gavels in that 2:15 eastern. were covered on c-span this afternoon, when the senate panel holds a hearing looking at violence in the central african republic, where the death toll is rising from clashes between

christian militias and the supporters of the muslim residency. the senate foreign relations subcommittee on african affairs holding that hearing today at 2:00 eastern. watch it live right here at season. on c-span3, the senate conference a confirmation hearig at senior positions. they will hear from carolyn diane craft, the nomination for counsel. this is live today at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. i and standing in front of the 1905 practical airplane. today it is the second oldest of the airplane. this airplane is the world's first practical airplane which

was flown in less than six years time between the time they built their kite and the success of this particular airplane. this was built less than two years after their first fight in kitty hawk north carolina. times on one very historic day. were the proof of content. this was capable of read heated takeoffs and landings. it is upwards of 40 minutes by october of 1905. this could fly graceful circles, agure eights, turn like

modern airplane flies. capable of being in control. >> there is more from the aviation center. look at the history and literary dayton ohio. saturday at noon. >> they had of the energy information information said that u.s. oil production is closing in on peak 1970 levels. according to findings released in the agencies 2014 energy outlook, the gap between production and demand could close by 2040. this was hosted by the johns hopkins school of the advanced international studies. it is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and

gentlemen. i am senior adviser in our energy resources environment program. it is a great pleasure to welcome an old friend, administrator of eia, to our session which has been done now for the last two or three years. we are very pleased to cooperate on that. adam has been in his current job for about a year and a half. before that, he had a distinguished career for about 14 years both as chief energy economist and before that, energy strategist. prior to that he worked for about 10 years in a similar role. adam is former president of the u.s. association of energy economics and former president of the national association of petroleum investment analysts. he has been on a number of

committees, spent some time at csis and also at least two advisory committees in the past year. he has been an occasional lecturer several times here at sais, so we are very pleased to have him back. he will talk to us about the reference case of the 2014 energy outlook. we will perceive with some discussion q&a after that. >> ok, will, thanks very much for the introduction. it's great to see you back here in this role at johns hopkins,

and i appreciate very much your words. i did hear you say that we are old friends, and i am saying we are friends of long-standing acquaintance. [laughter] i wanted to go through our annual energy outlook. let's see if we can make that work. there we go. the first thing i wanted to do is thank john and paul. here comes paul. when we get to q&a, the hard questions will be answered by john and paul. i wanted to remind you that these conclusions are all based on a complete set of analysis and model that includes some

alternative cases, and more that will be coming out early next year as we move out toward full publication. there is a lot of uncertainties, and sometimes i use a slide that says why it will be wrong, long- term forecast by their very nature are difficult. that doesn't mean that you should not do them, even if you think you're going to be wrong. you still want to do long-term forecast, because the reference case provides a really good way of moving towards side cases that can illuminate what it is you are doing. what is going to change, regulations and laws and consumer preferences and economic growth could be bigger or smaller than forecast.

what we have really seen recently is changes in technology, especially in things like horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing and so on that have dramatically improved the efficiency of both drilling and well production. so keep that all in mind when you go through these conclusions. one of our main conclusions is that natural gas and oil will continue to grow. natural gas throughout the entire time frame, oil until sometime in either later this decade or maybe early into the next decade. one of the interesting things from this forecast is we now see u.s. oil production reaching 9.6 million barrels a day. that was the prior high back in 1970. keep in mind that's in our reference case.

light duty vehicle energy use is declining as vehicle miles traveled begins to slow and vehicle fuel efficiency continues to improve. i already mentioned growth in shale gas production, but that growth in production is going to allow for considerable increases in consumption in the industrial sector and in the electric utility sector, sometime in the decade of the 20 30s, even in our reference case it will surpass coal in terms of electricity generation. we see that growth in natural gas production is not just sufficient to enable industrial and electorate utility use, but enough output to allow natural gas exports to be even larger

than what we have forecast in the 2013 annual energy outlook. with growth in both oil and natural gas production, we see the u.s. moving closer towards self-sufficiency, and there are some very interesting economic and geopolitical implications of all of that. finally, even with all of this activity, carbon intensity of fuels in the u.s. continues to decline, and carbon emissions related to energy consumption are unlikely to ever see the 2005 peak of 6 billion metric tons, and in fact, may continue to either plateau or drift down, depending on further regulations.

so let's look at some of the details on this. this shows total energy consumption and total energy production in the u.s.. we see that fairly big gap back in the year 2005 has already narrowed towards a 16% gap between consumption and production. that should narrow further as we go out, that 3% number in 2034, by 2040 it is essentially in the same ballpark. that means improvements in the u.s. trade deficit, and in fact, were going to be doing some today, and energy article

looking at energy and u.s. trade over the course of the next few weeks, so keep your eye out for that. i mentioned that oil production is projected to reach the prior peak back in 1970, u.s. crude oil production reached nine .6 million barrels a day. we are going to touch that level or come very close to it by the end of this decade. i think it will plateau.

the current forecast shows it coming down. it has a lot to do with the geology of shale oil resources and production. this is a significant increase actually from the 2013 aeo forecast, which had numbers well below this level. let me explain something that i'm actually very excited about. when we published the 2013 aeo, that was december a year ago. we had oil production data coming from our survey that at best in december -- i actually have to back up and say the models really got locked down around september. that meant we were working with numbers from june. in some cases, those numbers are really not complete and so you are working with data -- we were starting with data that was

already relatively old and incomplete as a starting point. what we do to fix that problem was to create the drilling productivity report they are sending out monthly now. the drilling productivity report actually gives us a forecast from this month and next month's production, so when we were locking in the aeo 2014 numbers, we had a pretty good idea back in september and october what current production was going to be and what it was going to look like toward the end of this year. so we are starting with numbers that are six months to one year better for our long-term forecast and what we were able to do in 2013.

i think that is going to go a long way towards improving the near-term accuracy of the aeo 2014, and i'm very happy about that. the numbers are shown in quadrillion british thermal units, 25 million btu's is roughly 12.5 billion barrels a day. you can think of transportation being roughly two thirds of u.s. oil consumption and break it down in those percentages. we can see jet fuel picking up a little bit, and growth in the lopez and things like liquefied natural gas being used in transportation. a little bit of an increase in ethanol as a part of the motor

gasoline consumption numbers. that seek back near 2005 was about 14 million billionaires -- barrels a day paid we are starting with their team .4 million barrels a day of transportation fuels. we see that low point roughly around 2030, and that is about 12.3 million barrels a day. again, this is the reference case. the current auto fuel efficiency rules begin to taper off around 2025 and policymakers decide to extend the fuel efficiency rules, we would see even lower numbers in there. we will run a side case on that

this year, and that shows more of a decline than this plateau you're saying here. i mentioned that shale gas, we're not seeing any punch a little. by 2040, we will be over 100 billion cubic feet her day -- per day of these productions of natural gas. these will roughly be half of the u.s. natural gas reduction. this is a remarkable development. marcello, haynesville, eagle ford, barnett about fayetteville, the big news is the marsalis orations in pennsylvania. it is now producing, estimated and are drilling productivity reports, this month and hit 13 billion cubic feet per day. in 2010 it was barely two bcf a day. so what is going on in terms of shale gas and shale oil production is a very remarkable development.

i mentioned that we saw natural gas actually exceeding cold in terms of electricity generation i fueled. that happens in that period past 2030, so that is a long ways away. that is based on current regulation, and it is very possible that we might see less coal and more natural gas replacing that call as we move out over time. -- coal as we move out over time. one of the other interesting things is allowing for, in our

models, considerable growth in natural gas in manufacturing. so if you just look at that middle column, wendy 25 to buy less concentrate on that as a mirror term project in -- nearer-term projection about these are stacked up in terms of the coming growth. we're seeing a huge increase actually in natural gas use in refining, and both chemicals and ddb food processing -- even food processing. even and other primary metals. this is an industrial reduction in our bottle that is group -- growing at 2.6% per year. the other industries are clearly taking advantage of this relatively inexpensive, certainly relative to oil, fuel. there is growth of three percent or better per year in industries like primary metals.

so, higher-level of manufacturing shipments leads to greater manufacturing natural gas demand. and all of that is resulting in positive impact on u.s. industrial reduction and gross domestic product, or gdp. on natural gas, this chart shows our projections for natural gas exports. so if you start at the top of the chart, and start to work your way down, you can see the numbers that are now a part of

the aeo 2014. the biggest u.s. export of natural gas are exports to mexico by pipeline. we also export gas to canada. if you look below the line at the negative numbers which is imports, you also see canada listed there. we are currently at a net importer of natural gas from canada, but those numbers have been coming down, so we import more gas from canada than we export, but i think it is kind of an interesting fact of north america and the north american free-trade agreement, and our long-standing very positive relationships with canada as far as trade are concerned, that there's a lot of two-way movement in gas across the u.s. canadian border. we see more room for lng exports from the lower 48 states than we

did last year. we still have a projection for alaska natural gas exports in these numbers. keep in mind, our forecast basically, out of our national energy modeling system. they are not regularly based on permits above for example there is no current permit for exact for gas to be exported from alaska. we just think that the economics of that, as shown in our model,

makes some sense abide to so we cents, and so we portray that. since we were talking about lng exports, and i'm sure is obvious going to be a question about this, so i would have a slight on it. that is what about roddick exports -- product exports? the u.s. is knowing that exporter of petroleum products. the numbers right now roughly 3 million barrels a day of raw that exports -- product exports, and a smaller number of product imports. the black line shows the crossover point of being a net importer to be a net exporter. as we move out, in the next two years we're seeing product exports moving up to be up toward one million barrels a day. moving up more as u.s. production continues to grow, and u.s. demand plateaus off.

motor gasoline, one of the interesting things about the ability of refiners to export things like distillates, which are getting a very good price in the international market right now, is it is resulting in high refining utilization rate. they're running now on the upper 90's, and what that means is products are being produced in surplus, in fact gasoline, there's enough gasoline around in the u.s. now that prices have actually been relatively moderate, or below last year's levels at this time. i wanted to and this brief run through of our major conclusions with a thought on energy related co2 emissions.

we think that they will remain below that's 2005 -- that 2005 peak that you see when we then plateaued racially at roughly 6 billion metric tons. -- briefly at roughly 6 billion metric tons.

this can, combination of several different things. for granted gdp, we know that there was an economic downturn in the u.s., and that hadn't impact on energy consumption, and output. but more importantly, in digging about this going forward, we are assuming that economic growth in the u.s. will run at about 2.4% are your growth, but even with that growth but we are not seeing anything near that in terms of growth in co2. the reason for this is a combination of less carbon intensive fuels, so natural gas, continuing to substitute for coal in the utility sector, and growing efficiency in the consumption side, like comedy miles per gallon a car can get them and how that is late to the consumption of petroleum feels. a combination looking forward of improvements in fuel efficiency and continuing substitution of lower carbon fuels for higher carbon fuels, including renewables, makes a big difference to u.s. carbon dioxide emissions.

with that, i'm going to, well, let's see -- let me just go through a couple of these things regionally -- racially, and then we will end. we will have plenty of time for q and a. this shows u.s. dependence on imported liquids and the difference in domestic supply. this is not just crude oil production which is above 9 million barrels a day. a little over one million barrels of day of refinery gave her that is a volumetric increase that you get in refineries when you put crude oil through and get white products like gasoline and at about a million barrels a day of biofuels.

natural gas liquids, refinery gave bad biofuels, we're going to push up total liquid production in the us to not quite a bit close to 60 million barrels a day of fuel supply. and demand will be running somewhere 20 million barrels a day, that is going to shrink the imported portion of our liquid fuel supply to a number that is closer to 25 are sent, around

2016, 2017, from numbers that as recently as 2005 for close to 60%. that's were close to 60%. this shows that break down of the total oil production numbers, and you see the big impact of the yellow line by the tight oil output. other crude oil production holding relatively steady, and the net import number, including biofuels import, that dark black space at the top, shrinking over time. other thoughts in the transportation area is the growing possibility that we are going to see natural gas in use as a transportation fuel. natural gas in the transportation your is inspected to grow quite a bit of output, finding its way into freight trucks as lng, as well as rail

and marine uses. continuing use of compressed natural gas in light-duty vehicles and buses. on the left-hand side is trillion btus, on the right-hand side we have put in some numbers on billion cubic they today. so reaching something like 2.5 billion feet a day of use from numbers that are currently literally an order of magnitude less than that, fairly impressive growth expected there. thinking about natural gas, let's look at some of the numbers there. we're seeing an increase in our projection of natural gas prices from levels that are near four dollars a day reaching five dollars roughly, a little bit under, by 2018, and moving up over time. we see brent crude oil prices going up faster, and the net result of that is the oil to gas ratio done in btus continues to favor natural gas.

you end up with a number that is over three in the forecast and what that says is that natural gas per million btu is only a third of the value of oil on a btu basis. that is what's leaving to the whole idea of substitution of natural gas into the markets that would have typically been liquid fuels. let's look at the supply demand, and net export numbers.

we still forecast that the u.s. is going to be a net exporter of natural gas. i think last year we thought that it would be roughly 2020 when that would take place, now given the higher metro gasp section numbers, mainly that costs -- higher natural gas production numbers, mainly, even with consumption growing, allowing for the ability of exports. by the time we get to out to 2040 we are looking at fairly significant levels of lng exports. let's take a look at where this gas is going across the u.s. economy. again, growth in natural gas being used in electric power, in

the industrial sect or, and particularly manufacturing, although it looked in our models that there was a fairly healthy spread of natural gas conception in the industrial sect or her across the entire group in consumption. growth in transportation and the growth in the commercials like there. one of the reasons for that is that electric key fobs are becoming more efficient and

taking market share. let's talk a little bit about electricity. the main point to be there is that the growth in electricity demand that we see looking out towards 2040 is still relatively low, and little bit less than one percent. you can see the left-hand side of the table from 2013 to 2040 it is .9% are year. one of the things we have done here is shown in electricity use, that is the blue line, and the dark blue trend line along with gdp or u.s. gross to met the roddick, and the trend in that. we see three distinct periods in this charge. the time from 1950 into roughly the mid-1980's when electricity demand was typically outpacing growth in gdp. the time from the mid-1980's to 2005 where they were going close to each other, and then does time since 2005 where we see gdp growing faster than electricity demand.

there are a number of interesting points to be made in this. despite new nuclear capacity, the share of nuclear power in this declined slightly, and we will see that on the next slide. but that one percent growth in consumption does not allow for a huge increase in renewables or other fuels, unless you push something else on the system, like nuclear, or coal, or natural gas. so let's look at that length, and here is the split, apple grass growing from about 30% of electricity generation -- natural gas growing from about 30% of electricity generation to about 35%.

renewables continuing to grow across the entire time. coal coming down in percentage terms, over the timeout to 2040, and nuclear essentially doing the same thing. what about non-hydro renewables? we continue to see very strong growth in wind and in solar. we are going through over the next month or so take a look at

the solar numbers to try to better understand improvements in solar costs that have been

are using, i think we close to a henry number. doesn't that lead to the instances for further that haven historically been held by oil?

the answer to that is yes. keep in mind that since it is mostly in the transportation sector, certainly in the u.s., we're seeing the substitution taking place over time. getting the infrastructure in place to be able to use lng and compressed gas in the u.s. takes time. so the growth rates are likely to be slow, could accelerate as infrastructure begins to get built out. this is the first year, by the way, of the energy outlook -- the first year that we have incorporated a forecast for marine and rail use of natural gas, likely to be in the form of lng.

we know there are a number of shipbuilders and rail companies who are looking at this right now. >> good morning. thank you for coming this morning. i had a question on your ethanol data there. the question is, if there was a demand or consumption increase, given the reduction of emt and the current regulation with ethanol blending, i just wonder if you could clarify that for me. quick sure. we will have more to say about that once the epa comes out with their 2014 figures. we are assuming that ethanol will grow a little bit in the

motor fuels pool, mostly gasoline, and we are basing it on a view that says that in the near term, getting past the blend wall not easy, so growth will have to come in cars that are capable of using e-15 or e- 85. the answer to that is similar to the discussion we just had with

the previous question, getting the infrastructure in place to allow consumption of fuels higher than 10% ethanol gasoline is going to take some time and there are economic issues associated with that as well. so we will have more to say about that in side cases that would will be running in 2014 when that gets published next year. >> thank you, paul connors. last year the net liquids imports, 37% -- i think the numbers were seven-something and

imports were five-something with a new projection of 42%. >> i'll tell you what, rather than me trying to do the math appear in my head, i will let all look through the tables and figure out what those numbers are. we could get back to you. it is clearly coming down. over the next three or four years -- crude oil production in >> thank you for the eia's annual christmas present of a glowingly optimistic forecast for the future.

i'm going to play the grinch who stole christmas by noting that the trend you have noted how natural gas is replacing other fuel sources in many fields, but the trend this year has been for coal to increase its share in electricity generation, which is obviously related to the relative price of natural gas versus coal. we have some anecdotal evidence

that the current price of natural gas is not sustainable or profitable for the producers. the ceo of exxon mobil noted, and you yourself predicted the price of natural gas will go up, though only slightly. why is this not the trend of the future, at least in regard to electricity generation, where we return to increased use of coal? >> i will take the first stab at that. is alan here? as natural gas prices came up, coal burning electric utilities recovered as well, and it's kind of interesting to think about it this way. the market itself seems to be making a lot of the decisions about what fuels get burned at electric utilities. the longer-term, even with our increases in natural gas prices over the long term, we don't see a great deal of increase in coal, and alan can tell you more about that.

there just aren't a lot more coal plants likely to be built, and some of the coal plants we already have could retire on an economic basis as the utilities decide what kind of capital investments they do or don't want to make an existing coal plants.

so we see that crossover taking place, where natural gas begins to exceed coal as far as electric generation is concerned. alan, is there a little more color that you want to put on this? >> absolutely right, and 2013, coal generation relative to last or so far is up about six percent, gas is down around 12% or 13%. you have to remember that 2012 was a very odd year. 2012 was a relatively warm year so residential and commercial use of natural gas was down. it was a low electricity growth year. the net result of that was production of natural gas was soaring, the price of natural gas collapsed to under three dollars so a lot of coal was replaced by natural gas. we see that rebounding back. if you look at our projections, you will see that we see coal

coming back in the near term, but we don't see the price of natural gas getting high enough to make new coal plants attractive. i know there has been a lot of talk suggesting that higher natural gas prices will be required to maintain output of shale gas and our model suggests that, too. but we do know from things like the drilling productivity report and other comments from industry that well efficiency and drilling efficiency continue to improve, which means that natural gas at current prices might be more profitable then you would have thought a year or two ago, and in fact, the longer-term natural gas price forecast in 2013 was higher than the 2014 aeo which we are publishing today, so our natural gas rise track is somewhat lower this year than it was last year.

i think certainly from what we are seeing happening on the productivity side, that trend might continue for a little while. >> thank you again for the very comprehensive and excellent presentation. i wanted to ask you about the electric power sector and your view on nuclear power that is contained within the forecast. it looks like you have the share of nuclear power more or less holding steady through 2040. when we look at this, it looks like the large number of the nuclear fleet are going to be retiring sometime between 2030 and 4040, if you assume,

also, projecting