mr. patterson brought up the past action it's mr. macy's only building in my brief only one complaint and with loud construction noise. this came to be and again, i find it hard to believe that mr. patterson was going to withdraw the appeal because of the olympic threat earlier this year by ms. ledbetter and suddenly we got the word that they received complaints and itself dbi received complaints and it's been closed as a car ambulance he has contracts with triple a and so forth. with that said i'm at a loss to understand what the neighborhood p are concerned about no complaints to the city or many macy's or made to the tenant that there was somehow hard effects from the spray booth additional now the spray booth is unknown operational and complaints when no activity going on only basically for parker that's for tow damaged cars arrest then the fire sprinkler permit is appealed. it's hard to imagine that if, in fact, the concern the repair the operation you'll royal one of the key permits to assure the safety the sprinkler had been o

mr. patterson. clearly, fps does not have enough federal law enforcement not to to respond to all federal buildings in a timely manner. you have to rely on contract cards is your first line of defense yet united in your your testimony the authority of contract first use deadly force comes from state and local laws in most cases do not have the authority to first two subjects. in order to address the threat posed by active shooters, would it be helpful for fps to have the authority to delegate some federal law person authorities to contract cards into other agencies had disability? and how does the work of most cases? >> yes, sir. if you look at tsa, that is a federalized force. if you look at the u.s. marshals service, they have the authority to deputized which gives them extensive power to direct their workforce in just about any direction that they want. .. to see if they could help a response and what we found was we would have had to to go through the state of new york approval process which too

mr. patterson >> i'll try to address the points briefly. think the most important issue is this present sprinkling monitoring system you can't install a system to monitor something that's not been installed the other two systems are prerequisite >> in terms of my conversation with the opposing counselor i didn't say we're going immediately where are you going the appeal she said this was being used to permit the spray booth that's shocking at that time, we ranged a meeting and they cancelled the meeting the day before. the litigation issues there's issues associated with this we don't meet to bring up but suffice is it important to the neighborhood our goal is simply sure those systems are up to code and permitted there is a fire issue so we want to make sure the systems are okay. >> commissioners quickly i have to agree with mr. duffey this is like a housekeeping issue there was a permit for the sprinkler system in the 4 and the appellant filed a request for the spray booth that was never implemented and the sprinkler system was not comple

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

mr. patterson? you may proceed. >> thank you, chairman. ranking member, distinguished members of the committee, i am the director of the federal protective service within the national protection program service and homeland security. testifying before the committee today regarding the operations of the service, we are charged with protecting and delivering integrated law-enforcement security services to 9000 facilities owned or leased by the general services administration. employ over 1000 sworn officers to provide uniformed lease response at fps protected facilities and participate in tactical andcises with personnel conduct facility security assessment nationwide. utilizing the modified infrastructure surveys, inspectors document existing postures of the facility, compare how the facility is or is not meeting the a sign of protection for its silly the security level, providing recommendations for security appropriateith countermeasures to mitigate risks. this process was designed to meet the requ

mr. patterson. >> so as commissioner fung has stated i'm troubled with the fact you don't have a brief yetur professionals were able to do their homework. >> yes. we had decided to withdraw the appeal looking at this particular permit being a fire safety permit we don't have that problem but it was entitled for the spray booth. >> yet our professionals have oounl done the homework but you're not able to have a brief because it leafs one party at a huge disadvantage. >> we started to dig through the records how to intiefl a spray booth. >> so basically, they had time to go their briefing but you are company didn't have time. >> our briefing would have been duplicate if we went through with the appeal at this point we got the true process of the permit. >> that be it. thank you very much >> mr. sanchez and mr. duffey anything further. >> thank you scott sanchez i'll brief provide context bp about the photos of the booth at the end of the brief on the overhead we have a day have the overhead please. all right. so this is the entire of the booth it shows the sprinklers and the side windows not

mr. patterson ask i consultation the second swearing in. >> you can do that. anyone else >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> so with the communicating in the room we'll begin with the appellant. you have 7 minutes >> thank you commissioner president lazarus and commissioners ryan patterson for the neighbors of the green street garage. this is one of most interesting appeals but i represent a group of 25 neighbors that live around the green street garbage that's an automobile body garage only for parking. it's for a new water system and heat detect our we suspect something is being done the plans for example, don't show the spray boothd that's been heat by neighborhood we actually decided to withdraw the appeal no since fighting over nothing about the appellant attorney said this permit is used to entitle the spraying. i was national fy naturally shocked the permit holder cancelled the meeting. on a

mr. senator, i know that we could have a further conversation in a closed hearing. >> 41 days ago that's what ann patterson told us on syria. will you tell us that this afternoon at 5:00? >> i don't actually have too much information -- >> well, could he accompany you to the meeting today at 5:00 and you share with us -- >> if i'd like to invite him, we'll see if he's available. >> i'm going to be at the meeting this afternoon. mr. senator, though, i do think this is a question that the intelligence community will be able to answer. >> well, do you know the answer to the question? do you know the answer to the question? >> mr. senator -- >> if you don't, then we have problems in treasury since that's your focus. >> mr. senator, i don't think the issue is how the separatists are being funded right now. it's clear that the separatists are being supported by russia in every way, shape, and form, but -- >> so is russia financing the separatists? >> i think it certainly stands to reason that russia is funding the separatists. i don't think the question though is whether russia is funding the separatists. the se