american companies, those that have been hacked by chinese and those who do not know they've been hacked by chinese. do you expect and overflowing amount of cases to come out now that there are faces put to black shades and if so how will the cases be divided among those working in cyber crime? >> john mueller from ohio state. going to the first question, is united states government prepared to guarantee that although it does spy on foreign businesses, none of the information gathered makes it in the hands of american businesses? >> let's add one more if there is one more. >> gentleman in the corner there and then we'll give mr. carlin a chance to wrap things up. >> thank you. curious a little bit about the legal line drawing that you've been making in decision

throughout between espionage, economic espionage and state driven espionage. as a general matter how important is it that you're able to make a showing of economic benefit to companies, over seas or wherever the case may be. in particular, how would this look different? would it look different under the statutes at play here if there was clearly some sort of commercial information taken with no apparent connection to national security but no real showing that this was going to benefit any particular companies unfairly. how would that change things, just curious as a general matter? >> the floor is yours, there's a lot of stuff on the table. have at it. >> i suppose i can't just answer yes. in terms of the director's testimony yesterday i tend to think -- even worse in a way

there are companies that have been hacked and those will be hacked again. we're seeing it across the country. i hope one consequence of this is that it encourages companies and victims to come forward and realize there are steps we can take and won't see the activity continue and we'll take however many steps we need to to ensure that the activity stops and won't just leave them out there responsible for their own defenses. and then as a general rule, as the president has stated in his presidential policy directive, we do not take information from other people's companies to provide it too our own companies.

on the statutory question, it will depend on which particular prong you are charging. so for the particular violation of the computer fraud and abuse act, that was a prong that was for the more commercial advantage or private advantage gain and we charge theft of straight ee kret which does not require that you show it's for a particular foreign company. we charged prong of the economic espionage and does have as one of elements that it's for the benefit of another nation. we are out of time, please join me in thanking mr. carlin for joining us.

[ applause ] >> president obama is expected to use shaun donovan to direct the budget office. in castro toarly replace him. he gave the keynote address at the democratic convention. he has a twin brother who is a congressman from texas. is often talked about as

a vice presidential candidate in 2016. he would become one of the highest ranking hispanic officials serving in the cabinet. that is set for 3:30 p.m. this afternoon. up, we will go to the council of foreign relations at 12:30 p.m. rose anddebating the cons of advancing technology. that will be live at about 1230 p.m. eastern. a conversation with the treatment of veterans at the a facilities in what could be done to address some of the problems from today's "washington journal." . -- guest: these scandals have permeated for years now.

we've had caused veterans to die by the v.a.'s own records. veterans that were applying for their own records. they die waiting for their benefits alone. and yet, we never heard anything. no scandals. no national outrage. five dead veterans who couldn't get in for colonoscopies on time. and 700 ill veterans in ohio. this is over a year ago and in a lawsuit for a man who went in for surgery. a marine who never came out because he caught a disease and died. we've got dead veterans in augusta and in atlanta. these are all before phoenix. and now that phoenix has happened, they want to wait for the investigations to see what the results are. we've got evidence, massive evidence. host: so this has been going on for years. but why? guest: well, essentially, you know, it's a great credit to eric. he did allow agent orange illness to be recognize in 2009. ptsd and desert storm syndrome.

they think it's a result of the iraq wharf it's not. a lot of vietnam veterans were suffer what we called shell-shock for years and they had these agent orange-related cancers and the v.a. decided to allow their claims to come in. that's what caused the backlog in a flood of claims but 97% of these claims are being handled manually and it wasn't even automated. so they get this huge backlog of claims. now, they get backlogs in appointment. and instead of handling it, they try to hide that they can't service all these veterans so they can get their bonuses, the executives. they want to look like they're doing business as usual. host: this is what the "wall street journal" had to say about the v.a. management bill that he house passed this week. they passed legislation to streamline dismissal for mall

feasant v.a. staff -- caller: i can't agree with that more the v.a. management and accountability act which passed h.r. 40-3 did pass. however, now, harry reid is blocking it to getting into the senate floor. what's bothering me is it's not a silver bullet but it's a start. right now, he couldn't even fire his own executives who had been hiding and frauding all of these records. sharon hellmann runs the phoenix medical center and is in the headlines. she actually misrepresented members of veterans suicide rates in 2009 out of seattle. she said nine vets committed suicide when it was actually 22. she falsified the records. did they move her out?

did they move her? no. they moved her up. and then she became a director. and now we see another culture of corruption permeating. so i think executive knows they could lose their jobs. they're going to be more accountable to do their jobs like the rest of us. host: 202 is the area code if you want to talk about the v.a. affairs controversy going on in this country right now. 585-3880 for depp cat's -- the umbers are on your screen. you can always get through via social media as well, via witter, facebook and e-mail. sergeant jessie jane duff, or gunnery. what's the difference? >> one is a few ranks lower. marines are uptight about that. once you hit the rank of sergeant, they want to make sure you use their full rank.

army tends to use saget more commonly throughout their ranks. but it's saget staff or sergeant gunnery. so gunny is like a nice -- but we're known to being very mean. >> when did you retire? caller: i retired out of the marine corps in 2004. host: how long did you serve? >> 20 years. host: and why? caller: it was probably the most extraordinary, difficult and extreme thing i could think of ever doing in my entire life. to this day, i can call myself a marine. it's the greatest honor you could ever do. you're going to have good days and bad days but they're the most extraordinary days and you will have a great love of your country because once you've been overseas, you will grasp the freedom that this country provides for you every single day. it's a wonderful opportunity. host: where did you serve? caller: i moved nine times in 20 years. i did a lot in asia. and i served a lot at camp

pendleton. i did get to be based out of hawaii. i decided that one tour but i retired in missouri where i was training marines. i was a logistics marine. i drove commercial rigs. a lot of people don't believe that but i didn't wear this dress when i was doing it. i wore camouflage. it was a tough life but it was a thrill and enjoyment. host: and what is the concerned concerned groups of america? caller: many of us is -- guest: many of us got off at the duty and we start to get with that freedom is about. our founding fathers created a structure to have freedom that no other country in this world, no other democracy could ever taste. at the v.a. a medical centers it is a good example about how government bureaucracy -- these vets who , this is their only

option for health care. those that have to go to the ba are those that have no other choice. if the nation can't protect those who volunteered or who were even drafted to serve this nation during hard times, who can it protect? dismantledd the vab and put the mainstream? test combat would be a dream come true for many conservatives. the realistic role of the ba, it was service related disabilities they earned through their service. just because you served as not mean you rate medically. the nation has to recognize that that is their sole mission. why can't they functionally do it right? they are the second largest budget next to dod. problem, it isey a management problem.

i would love to get medical care away from the v.a.. who is going to pay those bills? they get a test case in phoenix where they reimbursed outside carriers. many veterans got bad credit out of these extreme medical bills that were not being paid. add another to layer of responsibility to pay the debt? i am very concerned that portability would be a great solution but it has to be functional and reimbursed on time. >> we want to get your reaction to what mitch mcconnell had to say on the senate floor this week. >> this weekend americans will gather to remember all who have fought and parish so we may live in freedom. our chance tos honor their extraordinary sacrifices. played a vitalng role in the defense of our nation. i am honored to represent so

many kentuckians in the armed forces, including those stationed in fort knox, fort campbell, the bluegrass army, and members of the reserves and kentucky national guard. one of the reasons memorial day is so important to me is because it allows americans to reflect and give thanks for all that we have, to recognize that none of this would be possible without so many americans we never have met, putting everything on the line for us. that is why the men and women deserve our full support when they're deployed, when they are training, and when they return home. most americans certainly agree with that statement. as we recently learned that is not happening. so many americans turn on the evening news just to be stick -- just to be second of the steady drip of the growing veterans

scandal. the denial of care to our veterans is a national disgrace and this scandal only seems to increase in scope by the day. host: gunnery sergeant? guest: his statements were cut -- were touching. he should be able to ensure that those that have difficulties related to their service are receiving that care and now we are seeing scandal after scandal where there is death and mismanagement. the we have scandals where there are tried to get in for and they had to post positive three times before they could get a colonoscopy. in 2010 to save cost. in out turkey new mexico we have people with gain green, brain heart disease. you have to get an appointment within 14 days. that is why these executives were hiding these lists of

veterans in the backlog of employment. they did not want people to know they couldn't service it because they get bonuses. every executive received a satisfactory performance rating. everyone but one. that tells you something, that they were gaming the system so they could be rewarded. up to put their own careers in veterans lives. -- hose, when the show you the money here. the v.a. is getting $153 million . that is their current funding request for next year, 164 billion dollars. 36% is spent on medical programs. you can see this chart comes from the veterans affairs. is that enough money? telling me now that only 41% went medical care.

this is a lopsided perspective. were wasted onrs to conferences in orlando. hr executiveave an testified to where the money they're creative throwing money down the drain on non-medical related issues. the should be going to service benefits such as funeral and education benefits. when your overhead is overwhelming your product, no organization works like that. no fortune 500 company works like that. your overhead should be sucking and train in out -- not be sucking and training out your revenue. they had an increase of over 60% since 2009 creative it has doubled since 2001. they got everything they wanted from congress. this is not a money issue. it is a budget issue next to dod.

host: a tweet -- guest: that is all they are supposed to be taking care of. there are 22.5 billion veterans in this country -- 22.5 million veterans in this country today. i use tri-care because i am a retiree and i follow under dod. of many veterans do not use the v.a.. bernie sanders try to block this bill to go forward. he had a bill he wanted every single veteran to be able to use the v.a. system. in theory that sounds beautiful but many of those veterans are not -- do not have a disability related to their service. it would collapse the system. 22.5 million veterans in a system that can't even manage 6 million right now? it would be a debacle. it is another way of having the government manager -- do you really want to have these with

lists? people can make fun of sarah palin. way i am starting to say this is that type of reaction him -- this type of reaction. what other work can you describe it with when people are getting bonuses for making their numbers look good to forgetting that when the v.a. has lost their desire to take care of lives and they are only concerned about numbers, they have lost their soul. >> senator sanders is our guest this week on our newsmakers program and he talked a bit about this scandal. here it is. guests should the leader of the ,epartment, eric shinseki vietnam veteran, resign or be fired? >> no. is that the v.a. is a huge institution.

it does a lot of very important work. i think everybody here has heard about the claims backlog. you people don't know is know how we did claims? we did claims by paper. havedividual veteran could filed this. our member talking to shinseki when he was first nominated and he said he was going to convert that system to an electronic system and at the end of five we will have those claims down to 125 days. today they have cut the backlog to half the time. they're on their way to fulfilling that goal. false.absolutely he's giving inaccurate numbers. when shinseki went into office there were veterans in that that log.

not 290at backlog it is 3300 to veterans in that backlog. bernie sanders is talking about a backlog that he created. veteranswas 630 3589 in march of 2013. he had over 600,000 veterans in that backlog. if you are going to give credit to a man for cutting a backlog he created, it is a false argument. 97% of those claims are being handled manually. themshinseki did not give that did not get them a automated. they hired multiple contractors in getting these automated. 97% of those claims were handled manually. you need to get your data correct the kiss your giving pride to a man who stopped a backlog that he created? that is due to chris.

host: denny is coming in from louisiana. hello. caller: yes, the thing about the i'll keep my story brief. ithink it's important that can did all because many veterans are facing the same thing. vietnam.d in i was a decorated combat action veteran. ptsd. back with up i went to work for my it destroyed my family, everything else. when the gulf war started i began having anxiety attacks, panic attacks, and a heart attack. they tried to fix me, change my brain chemistry. .

a federal judge said i was 100% disabled with ptsd. i settled with them the years later. i didn't do well. years later we started this next war in iraq and i begin again. host: where are you today? caller: after years of denial, denial for the most ridiculous reasons, making me jump through ago, and now three years right after obama will god and i finally got a fair evaluation. host: thank you, sir. sympathize with his concern because many veterans told me the same thing. the average time to get a claim settled is 330 days just to get a claim settled.

they have wait times to get their claims settled over 600 days in this nation. a year ago it was 345 days. what it normally should take is 30 days. it easily takes you over a year. vietnam veterans suffered the most because in 2009 -- they had to wait until 2000 nine to get ptsd recognized and agent or -- agent orange. secretary shinseki created a backlog because he was ill prepared to manage all of the claims and the flood of claims that came in. i find it appalling that senator sanders would defend somebody who is created the very debacle that we are in right now. line.georgia, democrat call, i want to make a few brief comments. i am a v.a. employee and very proud. i worked extremely hard to service veterans.

this is obviously very disheartening when you hear all this. the fact still need to be allowed to come out. it is an investigation at this point. i think folks need to calm down, let the facts come out, let the facts show what they may. is the fat -- if the facts are substantiated people should do with it accordingly. please do not vilify an entire system. there are some extremely hard-working people that are dedicated to serving veterans, including myself. host: what kind of work do you do? i am working the patient advocacy role. that is a completely different elephant. we service veterans in every way possible.

host: do you see a backlog? caller: the backlog is from the benefits side. i used to be a raider. i rated those cases that she is talking about. i rated them manually. my friends are still doing it. it is computerized now. there are a lot of variables that go into that. there are production requirements that are extremely stringent. days tell you i had many where i did not even use the restroom. you worked your case and you did not get up until those cases were in. then he picked up cases to continue pushing not to get those in the next day. people are working extremely hard. these do not vilify the entire system. seen over the years changes in how the v.a. operates or can you see anything different from one administration to another? i'm not going to comment on administrations but there have been improvements.

there continued to be improvements. it is like any system. no system is failproof. we work extremely hard. i would like to suggest you, get some folks to give the other side. no respect to the fine lady there who served our country greatly. but numbers are numbers, get some folks on the other side. i can assure you that a lot of them are very happy with the care we are giving. caller: -- guest: i don't want anyone to misunderstand. we cannot keep coming back and talk about the people that are working so hard when we have so many people that have allowed a system of all that work to become a system that had a lot of back logs and collapse. it is starting to get automated

but it did not until recently. i have seen the files in these buildings that became structurally unsound because they're so heavy with the weight. the buildings are collapsing under the weight of this. that is the problem within dod. that has caused a lot of problems. people should be upset. in 2011 33 veterans die per day. that is 20,000 veterans just waiting on their benefits. the backlog in these appointments, when we are looking at albuquerque new when cheyenne wyoming sends out a memo that says game the system and hide network, not let the headquarters know that we have people waiting over 14 days for an appointment, this should outrage the employees. we should not have them come on

here and say how great of a job we are doing. this is embarrassing that there are people that are not doing what they are supposed to do. that is what we are talking about, accountability. host: now with concerned veterans of america. colleen is coming in from fairfax virginia. hello. >> good morning. i ran for congress back in 2010. during my two years previous to the primary iran and the south carolina district six. wasof my top three items veterans. i grew up during the vietnam era and i watched with a broken heart how we as a country and all the administrations prior to this one treated the veterans due to the vietnam war. i have watched that. one of my top three priorities was veterans.

executives atmany walter reed and/or medical center in south carolina. there was atime nine-month backup. this was before shinseki announced the ptsd and agent orange. cousin both died of cancer related agent orange diseases 20 years ago. i have interviewed homeless veterans for years. it is not this administration specifically. it has been years and years and years. it is so similar within the nrc and the veterans. you see the lower administrative and management working hard.

youexecutives to hide who they height to make sure they hide things. host: i think we got your point. guest: she's hitting the nail on the head. i'm going to hold every administration accountable. this isn't a blame game. that haveecutives flagrantly hidden records and mismanaged the system. even employees working their tails off should not be justifying what these executives have gotten away with. if you can't even take a bathroom break in your job, that tells me we are not running a system that is being streamlined and effective. notof those processors are giving accurate claims and we have over a quarter of a million veterans in the claims backlog and that takes over 1200 days to get address. we have a systemic problem within the veterans administration.

it has only gotten worse when we open the doors for agent orange and ptsd. yes we have a lot of reasons this is all happening. thesegree when people say investigations should not get ace that should not get upset. i know veterans personally who cannot get in and get care for long time. i seen dr. squid. they can only get 10 minutes with a doctor. doctors have flat-out said i cannot do what i need to do to take care of you. we have got to fix this. there are lots of fixes that need to happened. from palm call comes springs, california. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a 65-year-old vietnam veteran and i retired from the veterans administration after 23

years of service. i was a middle manager in the hospitals. then understand all controversy going on because i have seen it before many times. i can only tell you that the bureaucracy up in the v.a., they are laughing at you. they're going to go for a supplemental and then they going to go in for an increase and appropriations for the next cycle. this thing is going to blow over. the secretary may resign, you get somebody new in their, and it will go back to the same way it was for the last 50 years. i don't know what the fixes.

i was a staff sergeant. whatever the case may be. i worked my caps off during my time with the v.a. to help veterans. i blame congress. host: we have a lot on the table there. he is probably the most reasonable veterans administration employee we've talked to. they will work your tail off but the bureaucracy is overwhelming. that is the reality. let's not get defensive over something that is broken. that youome so loyal can't see where there is flaws in a critical system. we are talking veterans, people should be outraged. if you're not outraged it gets buried and forgotten. we are hearing about 19 states that have been exposed with various scandals throughout the nation.

we had one executive get $80,000 of bonuses. dead veteranse due to mismanagement on his medical facility. getad another executive close to an $11,000 bonus at a dental facility. we had sharon hellman. she got almost a $10,000 bonus, a little over nine thousand dollars in phoenix just last year. she fraudulently reported records in seattle in 2009 for veteran suicide. this should outrage v.a. employees. these executives can turn around and give bonuses when they have latently sent out memos that teach other employees how to game the system to hide always veterans from looking like they have been waiting longer than they have for appointments. to the v.a. back in december. eric shinseki said he knew nothing about it until march.

eric shinseki, if i had known about these scandals for well over a year, how can you say i don't want to jump to any conclusions until the results of these investigations? didn't you start investigating back in ohio with legionnaires disease? let's go ahead and forgive and give people a pass? somebody has to be held accountable. host: victoria from illinois, you are on. call, no one has asserted in all of this discussion that anyone calling for an appointment, and medical appointment got an appointment later than was actually available. the real issue here. that's the real issue here is the loop -- the real issue here is the length of time to get an appointment.

how are you dealing with the real issue, which is people have to wait too long? wii time was longer and people didn't get bo -- bonuses. how would that have changed things? i'm not saying they should get bonuses when they falsify records, but how would that have made a difference? the goals that lead to awards for people at the executive level are set with the knowledge of congress, with the knowledge of lots of people. why is there a delay? why can't people be dealt with? host: thank you. guest: that was the responsibility of the executives to do that. they turned around and they falsified records that people were being seen in 14 days. how is congress going to know

they were lying until these whistleblowers report it? congress has veterans who could not get seen. i do hope congress and senate that i do hold congress and senate accountable. we realize exactly what you are saying. in texas, in 2010 the colonoscopies would only be approved if the patient tested -- it is inoperable at that time. we are talking about people covering up. we should've rewarded executives for saying i have 1600 veterans who want to get in on an appointment and i do not have doctors and nurses to get the job done. nobody is doing that. why were they becoming dishonest?

your point is accurate. these executives learned that if they fronted their numbers and gave a different impression of what was really going on, gaming the system as documented by the v.a. itself, they would get bonuses. we have to flip the script and hold them accountable. we are talking about 450 employees we want to get fired by the accountability act. if they can start firing executives they will be honest and demonstrate some integrity. host: robert, texas, you are on with the former gunnery sergeant. caller: good morning. i worked in the air force with the department of energy. the system throughout the federal government is flawed. it's systemic. until there is a process whereby you can get rid of marginal

inept employees, which is nigh on impossible, this is going to continue. the continued use of the departmental administration -- i have seen as and i have to tell you it is disheartening. there is no way that bernie sanders is going to allow any changes to the civil service or to the way the administration accounts are used by these managers. many of us tried to come in to solve this problem with the d.o.e. it almost killed most of us. until congress takes action to change the civil service system, this overhead will continue to cause problems in day-to-day

operations of any federal government agency. host: given what robert had to say, what we do like to see done? >> when the accountability act went on the floor of the house, the only people who saw it on the floor of the house -- this would risk our recruiting, we would not be able to get the best out there because we would risk them getting fired. that is a ridiculous concept. he have to start running government like a fortune 500 company. quit making the employee rights outnumber the veterans rights. when this becomes about employee rights over the lives of veterans, we have lost the concept of what veterans administration is about. we pay for this. i think the v.a. management accountability act is not a silver bullet, but it is a

start. we have to at least hold executives accountable. start firing your employees, clean house. right now you want to wait for investigation results, but yet you have evidence for years and years of mismanagement. host: what do you think about the president's response? >> it disappointed me. they didn't realize shinseki created that backlog. i was a little disappointed. he said this was unacceptable. the person who disagreed on policies about the war but not the v.a. he should have come out swinging mad in his testimony. he should have had more fire in his belly that he was not going to put up with this. he kept saying he was good to wait for results of investigations. host: two final tweets --

finally -- guest: i am not going to say he caused the backlog. by opening the doors for more claims and not being prepared to handle those claims, that essentially is causing the backlog. every ceo out there, if they cause their corporation to have more hurdles than when they came on board by a result of their own decisions, they have to be held accountable. he should have come up with a backloghat makede the shorter. he has to be held accountable. host: jesse jane duff. retired sergeant gunnery.

>> we had planned to bring you a discussion on technology and technology policy. unfortunately, we are having technical issues. we will not be able to bring that program to you at this time. we will bring it to you later in our programming schedule. president obama is expected to sean donovan to direct the office of management and budget. he will also nominate julian castro to replace donovan. castro gave the keynote speech at the 2012 democratic convention. confirmed, he will become one of the highest ranking hispanic officials

serving in the president's cabinet. we will have it for you on c-span at 3:30. commencement coverage begins tonight in prime time. the full line up includes executives and officials. tonight john lewis speaks to graduates at the university of mississippi law school. here is a preview. >> when i was visiting ontgomery, when i would visit --i saw signs that said white man, colored men, white women, waiting, colored waiting period i would ask my father, my they saidts, why, and that is the way it is. do not get in the way. not get in trouble. in 1950 5, 15 years old in the 10th grade, heard about rosa

of martinrd the words luther king jr. on our radio, the words of dr. keene, the g, the action of rosa parks. we went down to the little town of troy in 1956. the public library, trying to check out books, trying to get a library card, and we were told by the library and that the library was for whites only and not for colored. i never went back into the troy library until later when i attended a book signing. hundreds of black and white citizens showed up. had a wonderful reception. at the ending of the reception, they gave me a library card. that may not sound that important, but when people tell

me nothing has changed in mississippi can change in south, they should come and walk in my shoes. >> a portion of congressman lewis' remarks. you can see the rest of it tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. up thee do not step enforcement side, the enforcement side brings the media attention. if we are going to say the only thing we can ever rely on is to make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing is for them to get a bad story, that is a lot of victims. ad that in the would be depressing conclusion. we have got to figure out some that is shortante

of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. to do the work, a 13-team cannot do it. the changes that are made when they are immediately under investigation. seeuld almost rather investment in a bigger -- x we have an issue with a budget in our government, where does come from? government every survivor will back that up. weekend, discussions on combating rape and sexual assault on college campuses, saturday at 10:00 eastern. and a senior fellow at the american enterprise

institute examines the presidential tenure of james madison. from american history tv at 10:00, clara barton. we will missing her office in washington, followed by your questions and comments live, on c-span3. earlier this week the house transportation subcommittee held a hearing on the federal protect its service and challenges of securing federal's facilities and buildings. there was testimony from eric patterson. this is about an hour 45 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. today we are examining the federal protective service and the security of our federal

buildings and facilities. including law enforcement officers and nearly 14,000 contract guards him a it is charged with protecting over 9000 federal buildings and facilities across the nation owned or leased by the general services administration. fps is not responsible for all federal facilities, its role is central to protecting federal workers and visitors to federal buildings nationwide. attacks of our country has taken steps to prevent and be better prepared for terrorism and other threats. unfortunately, public buildings are a proven target. whether because of their symbolism or because of the number of federal employees and visitors that use these facilities, the threat the federal government has a long history. in 1995, timothy mcveigh and his

co-conspirators used a truck filled with homemade explosives inbomb the federal building oklahoma city, killing 168 people, including 19 children. targeted aperson building in austin, housing 200 irs employees by crashing a plane into the building. active shooter incidents have been an ongoing threat as well. this includes shootings at the navy yard in washington, fort capitol building, and united states holocaust museum. because of these threats, and the steps taken since the oklahoma city bombing, we should nearly 20 years later have significantly improved the security of public buildings. unfortunately, problems persist. over the past five years the

government accountability office or gao and others into new to identify very real deficiencies. penetration testing done by the gao has revealed fake bomb components and guns have been secreted past security. the oversight of contract guards in their training needs improvement, and while the guards are armed, they lack shooter on active situations. partnerships with local law enforcement agencies are patchy, raising questions as to whether state and local law-enforcement agencies are clear on their authority to respond to federal property. the facility risk assessment conducted on the federal buildings to help identify their risks and needed security measures are behind schedule, and sometimes ignored by custom agencies. his, confidence

may be eroding. steps have been taken to remove securitythe aspects in its nebraska facility. building security is difficult. problemse not, these would have easily been resolved years ago. we have seen that even with the best security there is still a and there have been improvements including the revamping of its risk assessments, improved order ships with local law enforcement, particularly here in the capital, and the strength and working relationship with gsa. today i hope this can be a productive hearing. we need to understand the challenges and problems, but we also want to hear solutions. ultimately, whether it is the members of the public or federal workers, those who come to federal buildings must have

confidence we are doing all we can to protect them. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and i thank you all for being here. i will call on ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. carson, for a brief opening statement. >> thank you. i want to thank the chairman for holding a hearing. i also want to welcome the witnesses to the hearing on federal protective service. as a former officer with over a decade of experience, have a strong interest in examining fps and ensuring it is functioning at the highest possible level. deeplyissues facing fps troubling. fps is responsible for protecting employees and visitors in approximately 9600 federal facilities across the nation. yet the department of homeland security inspector general and the gao have issued at least six report since 2009 detailing serious challenges that fps has been having in meeting this

expectation. the shortcomings detailed in these reports are troubling. they effectively highlight that contracts on a private guards forced to provide security to federal facilities under the control of gsa. the gao has consistently noted that fps lacks effective management controls and systems to ensure its contract guards had met their training certification requirements, which are necessary to ensure a slight of security in these buildings. it is unclear whether many of these contract guards have been trained on how to respond active shooter incidents or use x-rays and magnetometer equipment. these contract arts are often the first line of defense for our federal buildings and people inside. we must have assurances that they are prepared to offer the highest level of protection. more broadly, gao has reported that fps has limited ability to manage risk across facilities

and implement security countermeasures. fps lacks a comprehensive strategic approach to providing security to the buildings in gsa's inventories. the problems are worsened by an inability to ensure it has a sufficient amount of law enforcement officers, and inspectors, necessary to conduct regular assessments. it is also uncertain whether the current fee structure is sufficient to fund a strong law-enforcement presence. we have to be very mindful that federal facilities where federal employees work, particularly the pentagon, navy yard, and oklahoma city federal building, have been the site of major attacks. federal facilities are symbols of our government terrorists want to take down. terrorism is not the only threat. we must stay vigilant to protect federal employees and our constituents who visit these buildings on a daily basis.

congress cannot afford to wait for and attack button. we are heralding this hearing to learn about our stakeholders how to better protect millions of federal workers and visitors to these facilities. i think the witnesses and the chairman. >> thank you. we will have two panels. on the first panel we have the director of physical infrastructure, u.s. government theuntability office, and director of federal protective service, the department of homeland security. i ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' . the speech included in the record. so ordered. the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony to five minutes. mr. goldstein, you may proceed. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to be here today and discussed the federal protective service. recent incidents demonstrate the

continued vulnerability to attacks and other x of violence. as part of dhs, fps is responsible for protecting employees and visitors in about 9600 facilities. to help, which the mission, fps for the assessments guards deployed. for securityees guards to tenant. ensuringsion includes guards are properly trained and certified and conducting risk assessments of federal facilities. it is based on gao reports until 2014. as part of our work we found the federal protective service continues to face challenges in shoring contract guards had been properly trained. before being deployed. september 2013, gao reported

that providing training for shooter scenarios and screening access to facilities poses a challenge. according to officials at five guard companies, their contract guards had received training how to respond during incidents involving shooters. without ensuring guards know how to respond, fps has limited assurance their guards are prepared for the threat. an official stated 133 guards had never received screener training. as a result guards deployed to federal facilities may be using iqs,ment they are not off raising questions about their ability to fulfill primary responsibilities to screen access. gao was unable to determine the extent to which the guards had received response and screener training in part because fps

lacks a reliable system for oversight. gao also found that fps continues to lack controls to ensure its guards had met its certification requirements. although fps agreed with the 2012 recommendations that it develop a conference of system for managing information on guards'information -- it still does not have such a system. additionally, 23% of the contracts reviewed did not have required training and certification documentation. for example, items were missing and as cpr certification firearms certification. additionally we found assessing risk remains a challenge. agencies that federal pay millions of dollars to facilities,at their but they are not assessing risk

in a matter -- manner consistent with government standards. federal standard requires risk assessment methodologies that assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequence to undesirable events. risk assessment managers identify and evaluate and invent protective measures. a modifiedey use until itcture tool develops a longer-term solution. thever, it does not measure potential loss from an undesirable event. the spokesperson that gao spoke to agreed that it does not allow the agencies to fully assess risk. they have limited knowledge of the risks facing up roughly 900

federal facilities around the country as a result. not part of the original design of the system, but they are exploring ways to incorporate it now. finally, i would note that since fiscal year 2010, gao has made 31 recommendations to improve contract guard and risk assessment processes, of which six have been implemented, 10 are in process, and 15 have not been implemented. i would be happy to answer any questions that you and the subcommittee may have. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. goldstein. mr. paterson, you may proceed. >> thank you, ranking member, just in which members of the committee. i am the director of the federal protective service within the department of homeland security. i am honored to testify regarding the mission and the operations of the federal protective service. fps is charged with delivering

and integrating law enforcement facilities in more than 9000 facilities owned or leased by the administration. in performing this mission, fps employs more than 11,000 sworn law enforcement officers, participates in joint tactical exercises with various auto, state, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel and conducts the ability security securityt of fps facilities nationwide. utilizing the modified tool, orcture survey ms., our inspectors evaluate a ourlity -- or mist, inspectors evaluating facility, and provide recommendations to committees regarding appropriate countermeasures to mitigate the risk.

we are waiting for the system to begin in 2015. we oversee staff including protective security officers. 's are responsible for

detecting and preventing criminal acts and responding to emergency situations. inshore items such as explosives, knives, and drugs do not enter federal facilities. they must undergo background determine they are fit to serve the government and are rigorously trained. but it is important to note that they are not sworn law enforcement officers. are from local security companies and they are not deputized. their services are based on state pacific -- state specific is employed.e pso the guards must meet the certification and training requirements specified in the contract. workingally, fps is

closely with the national association of security companies to develop a lesson s to ensureo' standards are consistent across the nation. these efforts will further standardize the training pso's received and will facilitate rapid adjustments to training to inshore input of technological investments. andonduct post inspections integrated covert test activities to monitor compliance and countermeasure effectiveness. additionally, the vendor is no files are audited. are likely to ensure that the training records reflect compliance. to supplement this, fps has partnered with science and technology to develop a prototype post tracking system. the system will be capable of authenticating an individual pso

and certification records in real time. we expect to begin tests within 12 months. tocontinuously strive further enhance, integrate, and transform our organization to meet the challenges of an evolving threat landscape and are committed to closing out outstanding government accountability office recommendations with regard to fps operations. fps has implemented a program management approach. utilizing this process, fps has closed two opened gao recommendations this year and will implement an additional eight by june 2014. closeal, fps hopes to between 10 and 15 of the open 30 gao recommendations by the end of this fiscal year. in closing i would like technology and think the

distinct members of this committee for the opportunity to testify today. we remain committed to providing a sense of safety and well-being to the federal workers who work in our facilities daily. i will be pleased to answering questions you may have. thank you. mr.q for your testimony, patterson. i will begin the first round of questions, limited to five minutes for each member. if there are additional questions after the first round, we will have additional rounds of questions as needed. the federal protection service is directly responsible for protecting federal buildings and the one point 4 million workers and visitors to those facilities. the public buildings act, prompted by this committee, gave fps law enforcement authorities for that very purpose. to protect buildings and the people in them. yet, after moving from gsa to 2003, there has been

report after report detailing security insufficiencies at federal facilities. given the importance of this mission, one would expect the department of homeland security to make federal to link security a top priority. yet these problems continue. -- federal building security a top priority. yet these problems continue. we received a memo from the dhs chief security officer to the dhs under security for management that removes the federal protection service from its elite role of providing security at the homeland security headquarters complex on nebraska avenue. pattersonuestion, mr. , is why would be federal protection service removed its elite provider at the dhs headquarters, and does this mean dhs has lost confidence in fps? >> to answer your question, sir, to my knowledge, this was not an

issue of performance. the departmente has lost confidence in the federal protective service. i believe this was an issue of supporting the secretary felt vision. in effect, fps will continue to provide security, which will include law enforcement, canine support. we will continue to do assessments and we will have a robust presence of these -- at the facility as we all as have. currently this is about the contact management and not losing confidence in our ability to provide security and law-enforcement support. fps has 2100 dhs facilities across the nation. fema headquarters, secret service headquarters, tsa, the u.s. coast guard headquarters. so, and we do a very good job there.

and we have a robust presence there. and i'm sure we will continue to provide the same level of support. the bottom-line is we are proactive partners with the department of security, ensuring that we provide a safe and secure environment. what were the problems at the department of homeland security headquarters to cause them to take this action and are there similar problems at the other 9600 problems that fps provide security for? and finally, could you explain security is inadequate for dhs, but good enough for the other agencies? >> yes, sir. i do not believe this is an indictment of fps security. again, i think this is a matter of efficiency. we will continue to provide security. that is not the issue. security the office of , i believe is looking to

fulfill the secretary's vision of how they will streamline and better conduct business. >> who is in charge of the purity at the dhs head -- security at the dhs headquarters, and if there were an active shooter, who would be the incident commander at the scene? how would the first responders know who was in charge? what would be the role of fps in that situation? >> yes, sir. in that situation, the office of has aty and the fps relationship. it depends who is first on the scene. that is who will assume incident command of the situation, and then it will evolve from there. we will look to at that point bring in me metropolitan police department and others to help us in revolving the situation. >> mr. goldstein, what percentage of security guards have active shooter training? what percentage as security

screener training? if security guards do not have proper training, how would you expect them to keep weapons and bombs out of a federal building or respond to an active shooter? mr. chairman, our study was not generalizable. i am not sure how many do have training today. talking to >> guard companies around the country, there were still pockets of guards who do not. >> years ago, we found --several years ago, we found there were pockets to did not have the screener training. there are now >> hundred that do it isad we would expect not generalizable. however, because of this problem persisting and the lack of training required being actually provided, we do have concerns that remained, and that it remained for number of years now, as you know, about the

possibility of bombs and other kinds of weapons getting into federal facilities. because there is no assurance ,he person standing guard responsible for putting things through a magnetometer and an x-ray machine, has the adequate training to prevent something from coming through that should not come through. >> thank you. the chair recognizes ranking member carson for questions. >> thank you. thank you, chairman. dr. patterson, how often does the fps fine and penalize guard who do notmpanies have the proper certification or incomplete training? >> i do not have that statistic readily available for you, sir. that would be with our contracting office. >> yes, sir. based on the status quo, sir, how would you expect outright guards to react to a navy yard type shooting? >> one of the things we are

we are working aggressively with the national association of security companies at nashville and looking at, given the current laws, if you will, how we will, securityn work with guard companies to respond. currently, we have just produced some guidance to provide each one of the security guards two hours of active shooter training. what that really does for us, it makes them aware of what an active shooter evan is, all right? will have thel discretion at that point to actively pursue, depending again on what the circumstances are. each one of these companies is still under the oversight of their state law. rocke are caught between a and a hard place right now. we would like to be able to train them to a standard where we can give them active shooter

training and move them to a position where there is no question, ok? haveight now we do not that authority. it creates a little bit of a dilemma. >> thank you, director. mr. goldstein, and yours testimony -- in your testimony, you discussed that fps is using not take intoes account because it winces off an undesirable event. what is the standard for assessing because it winces of a terrorist event? >> the standard is to look at threat, -- to look atdard is threat, vulnerability, and consequence. then for each of those undesirable events, they are required to determine whether there is a threat, vulnerability, and consequence component of all of those events. and our work, we have found

examination of consequence is important because it helps to determine how best to protect the facility. because we are talking obviously about limited resources and we're talking about trying to protect, in this case, some 9600 facilities. but because of the way in which the federal government and fps building,ook at each it is kind of a cookie-cutter approach. i have said this a number of times here and elsewhere before this committee, there is no way fps is able to examine threats of vulnerability and consequence across its portfolio to best target its resources. it looks at each facility in a stovepipe kind of way and it therefore becomes quite difficult to better provide resources, which are, as we know, quite limited to fps. >> mr. goldstein, what is the value of the fps security

assessments currently, and are these assessments thorough enough to properly assess the threat to federal employees and visitors to federal buildings? have in that process even be approved, for that matter? >> since this test has been in place, which is about 18 months or so, fps has once again begun to do assessments. they have done about 200 based on the information we have. but they had a backlog when they started of about 5000. that is still a pretty considerable number that had not been done just from the past. the level three and level for buildings are expected to be done roughly every three or four years. there is quite a lot of backlog that remains as well as pent up demand for new ones. percent, 10%,nine hundreds of them did not have a date associated with when the last assessment was. so, it is hard to know exactly

how long it has been since any major federal buildings have had a risk assessment. we also know in the last couple of years, that a number of other federal agencies have done their own assessments, even while they do a separate to assessment. there is a lot of duplication. the iressa and the epa and many other agencies have done their own assessments -- the irs and the epa and many other agencies have done their own assessments. there has been a lot of duplication also. we do believe fps has to do a better job, and hopefully mist patterson isector talked about, will help them do that, allow them to do better assessments in the future. >> thank you. mr. chairman. recognizes mr.

crawford. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. paterson, i think the chair addressed this earlier, the memo from greg marshall, the chief security officer regarding the nebraska avenue complex. if i understand you correctly, you said that was a command-and-control issue, not anything related otherwise. is that accurate? >> yes, sir, to my knowledge. >> i'm curious if facility with that level of facility -- i am concerned about the -- in buildings that might be a target. what is the response protocol in the event of an ied detection or large-scale ied attack? all, folks or visitors have to go through screening. if at that point there is a detection, we believe there is an explosive device, that area is cleared. we will then call at that point the metropolitan police

department, who will bring in their explosives team, detection team to assess whether or not it is truly an explosive device or not. if they assess it is an explosive device, emergency evacuation plans for that facility will be put into place. >> ok, i'm concerned about -- i bombhad talks with other squads and federal agencies that are equipped or staffed with bomb techs. in the event of a large-scale, do you have anything beyond relying on metro bomb squad? federalhere other agencies that might respond as a backup? >> yes, sir, because we are in washington, d.c., the fbi is going to respond. the metropolitan police department is going to respond. we will probably have arc services respond. this will be a significant response. want -- thees, we

challenge is, we want to limit the scope of the response until we assess the magnitude of the threat. >> does fps have any capacity, any technical capacity to deal with an ied? are there bomb techs within the ranks of fps? >> no, sir. we do have explosive ordnance dogs we use. that is our first line of defense. if we expect an issue, we will bring in the canine to give us an alert, and if they alert, clearly we begin to evacuate that area and call the metropolitan police department and others who have the capability to further explore what the issue is. sea --so outside of the .c., i would assume there is a similar plan with local municipalities that have the capacity to respond to a ied threat? >> absolutely. if a dog is not available, we

have relationships with local law enforcement where we can leverage their assets as well. if we get a positive hit, if it is the city of chicago, we will call on the city of chicago. if it is a smaller city, whatever arrangements have been made per response, that is to we will call on. we will call on. >> do you have any relationships with dod? what i'm getting at, the united states army has the primary responsibility of providing support to law enforcement at every level. do you have those arrangements in place with a dod asset? >> we have a relationship where we can call them if we need them, yes, sir. >> i appreciate that. had detection dogs? >> yes, sir. >> that means you have handlers who have been trained, and -- >> yes, sir. we have 74, 75 canines and their handlers across the united a's. we have one up at the nebraska

about 13 hours of the day. >> ok. mr. goldstein, what percentage of federal things have up-to-date and complete security risk assessments? >> it is not possible to say, sir, at this point in time. as i mentioned, there is a considerable backlog at this of past-due assessments. plus the work we have done over the past showed that since there were a number that had no date in the process at all, is not possible to determine when the last one was done. is working to reduce that backlog and hopefully move forward with new ones. but they are not at that place today. >> that is kind of disturbing. why the backlog? overe backlog occurred time for a couple of reasons. one, the old system that was being used, called the ramp, its

functionality was not sufficient and they pulled the plug on the program. .o, a backlog began to grow additionally, i think over time, as the federal protective -- changeanged been the nature of its workforce to an integrated force of inspectors with a lot of thisrent duties, particular responsibility which they were not trained for took up an amount of time. but they had other duties as well such as managing contract guards and other things. so, they fell behind, quite frankly. of an annualt part review? it seems to me this is something that should be done annually to make sure the assessment is up-to-date all the time. >> it should be done every four years. it is not occurring at this point i and time. sabol my time is expired.

i yield back. thank you -- my time is expired. i yield back. thank you, chairman. >> there are a number of problems. i would like to look at the difference between fps officers and contract guards. so we understand who is guarding these buildings. on page two of your testimony, you describe the law enforcement authority of fps officers. specific police powers including enforcing federal laws and regulations. five ofcourse on page your testimony, you distinguish these officers from the contract -- this is very important, who i think just lay right here on the record in your 's rely on the pso

private person laws such as citizen arrest laws. so, that means they can do no more than i can do in a federal building. correct?t technically >> yes, ma'am. they are governed by state law as to the extent of their authority. >> all right. for the nebraska avenue contract guards -- were they replaced by federal protective services officers? >> no, ma'am, they were not. >> what is at nebraska avenue now? >> contract security officers. >> what was the difference? why was the change? >> i'm sorry? >> what was the change at nebraska avenue? >> the change was in the oversight of the contract. thewas oversighting

contract. we had contract representative responsibilities. that is day to day oversight. >> fps is supervising or in oversight over these guards at the department of homeland security? were. that particular responsibility has now been moved to the office of security. unique then? only at the department of homeland security is that arrangement -- no, ma'am. only at the nebraska avenue complex. we still maintain that possibility at hundreds of dhs facilities around the country. toso, i will not ask you tell us why. i think it is apparent why. they obviously feel that they had to be more secure and they went to professional security authorities.

now, fps guards to guard the rest of the buildings and federal employees and visitors, someone comes into those facilities and has a gun. with or without a gun. and decides not to go through the magnetometer. can a contract guard pursuit of that person? , ma'am. and they can be detained. at that point they will all the fps mega center who will dispatch an inspector or local authorities. haveask that because there been instances reported where contract guards stood by, not when someone had a gun, but when there was a disturbance, saying they could not leave their post. ma'am, we have contract guards who are engaged in this bonding to disturbances. especially at social security is offices.

we have literally hundreds of them that happen every year. >> a contract guard is not pi nned on the post? you can go anywhere in the facility with or maybe a disturbance? he can pursue someone with a gun even though he does not have a gun? >> i'm not sure i understand your question, ma'am. >> someone who comes through -- .> right >> remember what you are there for. someone comes through with a gun. >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm trying to find out whether the contract guard who thato gun can pursue person, or what he must do. >> yes, ma'am. our contract guards are armed. >> all of them are armed? >> yes, ma'am. curriculum a central for how they are trained? >> yes, ma'am. >> who provides that curriculum? >> we do. we lay out the requirements for the training, and we are

currently in development of a national training program, training we are working to employ. so i yieldis up, back to the moment. >> thank you. we will now begin our second round of questioning. i will go with questions. mr. patterson, clearly fps does not have enough officers to respond to all federal buildings in a timely manner. you have to rely on contract guards as your first line of defense. yet you noted in your testimony that the authority of contract guards to use deadly force comes from state and local laws and in most cases, they do not have the authority to pursue subjects. in order to address the threat posed by an active shooter, would it be helpful for fps to have the authority to delegate some federal law enforcement authorities to contract guards?

and do other agencies have this ability? and how does it work in those cases? >> yes, sir. if we look across the spectrum, if you look at tsa, that is a federal force. if you look at the u.s. marshals service, they have the authority to deputize, which gives them extensive power to direct their workforce in just about any direction they want. then you have the department of energy, who has a guard force protecting nuclear plants and other facilities where they have some limited law enforcement authorities that allow them to arrest and do the things that need to be done on an immediate basis. what we would seek would be to streamline our pso authority structure. what that means is to give us an opportunity that when we need to increase the authority of the pso, we can't.

for instance, during hurricane sandy, our response to hurricane sandy, we were requested to provide extensive support to the citizens, to the folks in new york, the facilities in new york. our vendor quickly ran out of resources to provide to that situation, to that event. we then began to query our other vendors to see if they could help with that response, and what we found was we had to go through the state of new york approval process, which took quite a bit of time, where if we had had the authority to more or less empower them at the federal level to go in and do that, that could have done more quickly in response. it would help improve -- we could also improve the pso training, because we could

provide focused training in the areas we would want them to respond in, and it would also help with the fps mission readiness. yes, sir. anything of that nature would be a hell. >> -- would be a help. on state ands local law-enforcement to be first responders to a facility. -- do these state and local law enforcement personnel have all of the tools they need to respond to an incident at a federal facility, and do you have agreements in place with the relevant state and local authorities to ensure they respond accordingly? we dom time to time, sir, have a problem. if we are responding, if there is an impromptu menstruation, especially in some of our smaller cities and towns, if there is an impromptu -- if there is an impromptu demonstration, especially in smaller cities and

towns, we may have to ask them to assist us. they will say, we can't respond, but we do not want to be held liable for anything. this is a federal event and we do not have that authority. to respond one behalf of the federal government, that would clearly give them some relief, if you willingness to help us. >> there have been concerns about fps tracking levels for some time. -- staffing levels for some time. to 40 employees may have been reassigned to functions outside fps. is that correct? how many fps employees have been assigned outside of fps and why? >> yes, sir. came toleft ice and

the infrastructure for it logistics and those sorts of things. clearly, we had to come up with staffing levels for that. that is what we have contributed to. assets contribute these as they help us through their -- help us through creating infrastructures. >> can fps afford to assign its employees to other parts of the department question mark >> that is probably not a question i can directly answer because we have not looked to see where they are assigned and what the rationale for those assignments are. it is clear that fps struggles with getting the basic job done as with octave up this morning in terms of risk assessment --

discusseds we have this morning in terms of risk assessment and getting the job done. >> the chair recognizes ranking member carson. >> thank you. you aware of, are off the shelf technology that would allow fps to digitize their oversight, contract guards or data in's and trainings, and do you believe this technology would allow fps to improve oversight question mark >> we have not looked specifically at it, but at -- to improve oversight? lookedave not specifically at it, but we have been told that there are does notand that fps have to reinvent the wheel. know, you know it is

required to have 1000 law enforcement officers. how many officers does fps actually need? does fps need significantly more law enforcement officers? what is that number generally? >> yes, sir, we look at that. when we did the assessment, it was about 1300 law enforcement that would give us the proper level, if you will, for the commitment we have today. but as that commitment grows, that figure will change. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes ms. barton. >> that 1300 figure -- how many fps officers are there and how many contract guards are there? >> yes, ma'am. today we have 1000 sworn -- >> yes, ma'am. today we have 1000 sworn fps

officers. today there are about 13,000 contract. >> have the budget cuts or the sequester had any effect on contract guards or fps officers? has there been a reduction in personnel over the last two years for example? >> no, ma'am, there is not been a reduction of fps staff, but sequestration did have an impact -- there was no requirement for contract guards. >> most buildings did not close? >> there were many that did close. officers put on furloughs? >> no, ma'am. officer was put on

furlough. the buildings closed, but otherwise they were on duty? >> yes, ma'am. >> mr. goldstein, i would like ask -- you said there was no crosscutting approach to security. but agency by agency security. havethese agencies each committees. these committees, of course, nosists of personnel who are more than the people who work in the building and none of them have any security background background,security training, or knowledge. isn't that the case? >> yes, ma'am, that is correct. >> but they have significant responsibility for security and

buildings. can you explain the role of these laypeople in buildings? >> yes, ma'am. it explains that individuals who make up committees, as you rightly said, tend to be the tenants of the building, and the tenants has the largest -- thent of the building tenant who has the largest footprint of the building usually chairs the committee. i have gone too many meetings over the years and they do tend to be made up of laypeople. administrative assessment or the office manager for a specific agency. people like that. it tends to be, friendly, a delegated job that many people do not really wants. -- want. to do withthey have security? >> they are responsible for

taking the information provided them by the federal protective service in making decisions about what countermeasures they will put in place and going back to their home agencies to get the necessary funds for doing this. it was a process that could take a number of years. course, but through what can they recommend changes in security and get the funds for that? >> they rely on the expertise generally provided by the fps, as well as they may call on their own security people from their agencies or departments to assist them. but the problem, as we have described it, is you have the security of federal buildings essentially being decided by a lot of laypeople over a very long time when countermeasures may need to be put in place fairly rapidly.

think one ofan, i one of, i believe, these security companies, these agency committees have .entral points of vulnerability obviously when you talk to someone who says he represents the head of the agency -- i know this only by chance. the department of transportation very capital.is if you go to the department of transportation, you have to get someone in the department of , you have to be a member of congress. if you are a member of the public, you can't get into that

public building at all. of course, you can come to the capitol. you can use our cafeteria. the department of transportation is a beautiful new building with a new cafeteria. we have not your away for the public who pays for that building to come if they have a kid. they can't get into that building. that has everything to do with these agency committees. do you believe these committees are appropriate as decision-makers on how much the purity is needed for a specific building -- how much security is needed for that specific the link? sampodria it enter committee putity out some standards that hopefully will better professionalize these committees, but we have long had it thes -- i call three-legged stool. gsa has some responsibility. some responsibility. the individual security

committees have responsibility. that may not be appropriate as a way to direct and oversee security on federal property. >> this is an important issue for this agency. no one is in charge. i submit that these agency committees of laypeople are really in charge of security in buildings, not the fps and not the contract guards. thank you very much. nowhank you. the chair recognizes the former chair of the transportation committee, mr. mica. >> thank you for holding this important meeting. making certain that our federal facilities are secure. an important responsibility. a couple of questions. mr. patterson, all

of the threats still remain, and probably one of the most devastating attacks i can recall is the mcveigh bombing of oklahoma. likely, or risk is occurring and make people aware of what we looking for, who, what -- sir.s, immediately once we receive a threat, that information is then packaged in a way we can contribute -- communicate that. might be classified. threat is, if it is classified, we have to figure out how to get it to the lowest level -- 1000 -- you have 1000leo's -- >> yes sir? >> they are at each location? >> no, sir. theut they can get

information? >> yes. >> how often are warnings questiondaily, weekly marks about it depends. >> sporadically? >> yes, sir. >> it would be helpful if you could give us a chain. it as a partto see of the record, if you could. how you meet them. i think most of what has -- we're we still have still not able to connect the dots. we did not get that with boston. usually it is local law enforcement and others to -- >> absolutely. >> at the final scene. again, the deficit in intelligence information is what is going to do sn -- do us in. have a mass of dogs. how many dogs? for explosives detection?

>> i think it is about 74 today. >> oh, i thought you had thousands. dogs?ose contractor >> no, sir. >> oh, you don't? i do not see a lot of these explosive devices. icy metal detectors, which are useless. the biggest threat now is explosives. -- i see metal protectors. -- detectors. i think you are missing the boat there. i guess i will let others go for little bit, but you have over 1000 leo's. do they participate in live fire training? >> yes, sir. >> do you do simulation? >> no, sir. >> ok, i want a report back.

i want to know why you were not using simulation. you can train them to the highest level. none of your guys are in combat. i have not seen a lot of firing of weapons on the scene. our military are on the scene, in combat. a good portion of their training comes from simulation. you are behind the times. i want a report back to the committee and to me on your proposal to use simulation for stop using all the expensive, costly live fire ammunition. >> can i clarify, sir? >> go ahead. you talking about simulations? >> simulations, weapons training, the. >> we do use simulation training, but we do not use semi-nations -- simunitions.

>> ok. >> we do not use that. but we do simulate training -- >> i want to see exactly what you have. give us the flow report and i want to see what your new report is, and we can introduce you to people in simulation training. very cost effective. of myd back the bounds time. mr.k, the chair recognizes mark gordon. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. patterson, we have obviously had a lot of discussion on human resources and management by the fps. but you guys are also responsible for managing related equipment,security cameras? >> yes, sir. >> i understand some cameras may not be working and there is no

mechanism to track and maintain these cameras. is that correct, too? >> no, sir. we do track and maintain our cameras. we are developing a more robust system. but every time we go out and conduct a facility security assessment, we are tracking that. when our inspectors go out and visit their facilities, they are also looking and inspecting cameras -- has fpstype of expense cured by these cameras, the purchase and install? >> those building, -- e >> those are made by the building, the folks who occupy the facility. >> so, what percentage of the cameras do you guys go out and check? i say this because i have se my phonepanies on

right now. i can hit an app and check. it is an unbelievable asset when utilized correctly. >> yes, sir. >> when utilized correctly. it is also a huge personal expense our companies had to take on. but the cameras are worthless if they are not being tracked. if they are not being watched, and a percentage of those is not it. it is not five percent. is 100% of them. they're all in stall a purpose. what percentage does fps actually look at? >> when you say -- >> when you are tracking, when you are maintaining them, when you're making sure they are working, what percentage of that? are you saying just when you go visit the facility? >> no, sir. we are in the business of insuring all the cameras work, and when they don't work, we moved forward with the security committee to either fix the cameras or replace the cameras.

>> i guess what i'm trying to get to is -- are you actively seeking means? yes. we want to ensure the cameras are working. you are exactly right. the camera must be inspected or our security is less effective if the camera is not operating. >> mr. goldstein, what about gao and the cameras? >> we have taken a look at some of the cameras over time that fps has. we have done work in which we have shown the number of facilities have not had adequate -- when crimes have been committed, they were not able to who committed those crimes. there are other instances where other tenants have become quite frustrated with the federal protective service because they did not feel that maintenance of

the cameras with sufficient, and they took over those responsibilities and paid for them themselves. i continue to hear anecdotally i continue done -- to hear anecdotally. we have not done a conference of report, so it is not generalizable. but we continue to hear restorations with not keeping the cameras working in modernize. >> mr. goldstein, you're saying the same thing this committee has heard, too. mr. patterson, that was what i was trying to get out. we have technology that is out there and not being utilized. the tenets in these buildings, the ones that are depending on these -- the tenants in these buildings, the was there depending on these cameras, they are supposed to have a layer of security. it is becoming a layer of frustration. there is a better way to do things. guysld be curious if you could, or if you would, take a look at it.

>> yes, sir. wayee if there is a better than just spot checking. you just heard from mr. goldstein. the committee has heard the same thing. there is a layer of frustration taking place. >> yes, sir. i recognize that there is a layer of frustration. i spent quite a bit of time on the road talking to clerks of court, irs, social security -- >> mr. patterson, the difference between talking and doing is different. we have a lot of people giving lip service. we want service. >> yes, sir. i am not giving lip service. respectfully, i am not giving lip service. visitope the next time we this, we can see a plan that is laid out. >> yes, sir. >> because i would like to think we can improve on this. >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate

the extra time. >> thank you. we will have one final round of questions. mr. patterson, the law enforcement authority for the fps lies in the public buildings act. it is our understanding this authority has been re-delegated to other entities such as the cheap security office, fema, ice , the federal law enforcement training center. why is this authority being delegated across dhs, and isn't responsibility? doesn't this delegation of authority create the unity of command problem at the headquarters that dhs cited as the reason for removing fps as the security lead at the headquarters? >> sir, i don't have an answer for you. i don't know why these different elements have been granted that authority. i don't have an answer. >> this will conclude our first

panel. i would like to thank you both for your testimony today and your time and your cooperation. thank you. we will now call our second panel. >> our second panel. we have mr. david a. wright and the director of the national association

security company. i ask unanimous consent that our witness's names be included in the record. you may proceed. >> thank you. i am david wright. i am also an inspector with the federal protective service since 1986. federal employees and facilities are vulnerable to attack from criminal and terrorist threats. they as secure as they should be, they are not. if that -- is that security as effective as