[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


  FIREARMS LOST: GSA'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE SURPLUS FIREARM DONATION 
                                PROGRAM

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                         GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                         AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 2, 2016

                               __________

                           Serial No. 114-71

                               __________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                      http://www.house.gov/reform
              
                              _____________
                              
                              
                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-964 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2016                      
                             
________________________________________________________________________________________ 
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). 
E-mail, [email protected].  
                             
                              
              
              
              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, 
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                   Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                 David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                       Patrick Hartobey, Counsel
                           Willie Marx, Clerk
                                 
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Government Operations

                 MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, 
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair        Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina            Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 2, 2016....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Carol Ochoa, Inspector General, U.S. General Services 
  Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................     5
    Written Statement............................................     7
Mr. William Sisk, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of 
  General Supplies and Services, U.S. General Services 
  Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    14
Mr. Steve Ekin, President, National Association of State Agencies 
  for Surplus Property
    Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    20

 
  FIREARMS LOST: GSA'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE SURPLUS FIREARM DONATION 
                                PROGRAM

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 2, 2016

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Government Operations,
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in 
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows 
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Walberg, Massie, 
Carter, Chaffetz, Connolly, Maloney, Norton, and Clay.
    Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will 
come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to 
declare a recess at any time.
    Since 1999, the GSA has provided over 9,800 firearms to 
State and local law enforcement agencies through its surplus 
firearm donation program. And this program has helped to ensure 
that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to 
protect and serve the American people. However, today's hearing 
is about a disconcerting finding by the GSA inspector generals 
that the firearms program is being poorly administered.
    The IG found a program besieged by mismanagement, poor 
inventory, accounting procedures, and reliance on outdated and 
ineffective data management tools. The results of these 
problems are a system that the IG found to be placing firearms, 
such as grenade launchers, Uzis, M16s in a situation that is 
ripe for theft and loss. Allowing extremely dangerous firearms 
to be managed so carelessly is deplorable. The government needs 
to get its house in order.
    The GSA is managing the firearms donations program using a 
haphazard system consisting of a digitally ancient Web 
platform, disorganized and practically unusable paper files, 
and spreadsheets riddled with incorrect and missing 
information.
    When the IG began its evaluation of the surplus firearms 
donation program, the record-keeping system was so poor, in 
fact, that the IG could not even fully finish its review. The 
IG found that this program, which must track thousands of 
dangerous weapons throughout the country, was being 
administered using this paper file system and the paper files 
that the GSA officials described as the backbone, according to 
them, of the program. These paper files were, for practical 
purposes, incapable of being used to keep track of the 
firearms. The IG was told by the sole individual--one 
individual--managing and tracking the program that it would 
take days to search the files for a single item. To compensate, 
the administrator of the program resorted to creating a 
spreadsheet to track nearly 10,000 firearms spread across 831 
different law enforcement agencies, yet these spreadsheets were 
really in no better shape than the paper files. The 
spreadsheets contained information that contradicted the paper 
files and the digital records. The spreadsheets were missing 
information critical to knowing the location and use of the 
firearms.
    The only other way that firearms were able to be located 
was through a Web platform that had not been updated since 
1999. Let me repeat that these firearms were being managed 
using a program that is now over 16 years old.
    All told, the menagerie of half-accurate, unsearchable, 
pre-new-millennial software, paper, and spreadsheets created a 
system where the firearms were practically impossible to 
accurately be tracked. This atrocious quality of the program's 
records resulted in the IG being unable to even verify the 
GSA's reported number of missing firearms.
    The current program manager's sole individual overseeing 
this program identified the need to create a better tracking 
system early on and communicated that need, yet, despite the 
fact that the GSA knew about the deficiencies, the agency 
appears to have only begun to address the deficiencies in light 
of the IG's report. This poor system contributed to hundreds of 
firearms going missing. Between 2001 and 2016, 485 firearms 
went missing. Of these, only 25 firearms were ever found. 
That's right, 25 of 485, which is just unbelievable.
    Among those firearms that went missing were a set of 130 
handguns, 5 Uzi submachine guns, and a pair of, get this, 
grenade launchers. In each of these instances, the firearms 
were sold to private gun shops, which is not allowed under the 
program, and appears to have never been recovered.
    In fact, the GSA IG discovered yesterday that two of the 
missing grenade launchers were now located in Florida and 
Colorado and available for sale to the general public. In some 
cases, the firearms would go missing for as long as a decade--
yes, 10 years--before anyone realized that the firearms were 
not where they were supposed to be. It is beyond unacceptable 
that these firearms were lost, let alone the fact that they 
were not recovered and, in some cases, were missing for years 
before anyone knew about it.
    But pure luck, it appears that--but for pure luck, it 
appears that none of the missing firearms ended up in 
criminals' hands, so we can be thankful for that. Regardless, 
one shudders to think what might have happened if those missing 
Uzis or the grenade launchers ended up in the hands of an 
individual that was bent on using them for nefarious purposes.
    The IG found that the GSA had weak and inconsistent, to 
quote them, ``weak and inconsistent inventory controls.'' So 
the GSA has a responsibility to maintain and track these 
firearms inventory checks. However, the GSA only apparently 
determined the need to require validated annual inventory 
reports in 2014, roughly 14 years into the program's existence. 
Based on this, it seems the GSA considered an accurate 
inventory to be an afterthought.
    Even with recent annual inventory requirements, the 
practices used by GSA were feeble. The SASPs were provided with 
only limited training on how to acquire the firearms and 
conduct inventory review, leaving them on their own to create 
an inventory process and procedure, resulting in inconsistent 
procedures across States.
    We, obviously, are having this hearing today, and in spite 
of all of this, what I would ask that each of you do is try to 
address your remarks--the results of these flaws still 
remaining is that the firearms may still be subject to the same 
threat of loss, theft, or improper sale.
    So I appreciate all of our witnesses coming here today, and 
I'm optimistic that, through our conversations today, we will 
be able to help safeguard against these firearms being used 
improperly.
    I'll now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Government Operations, Mr. Connolly, for his opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
    I've got to say to the chair, listening to this long list 
of problems, you know, the question comes to mind, well, what 
could go wrong with that? Unfortunately, the answer is pretty 
ugly.
    This hearing is a very important hearing on the loss of 
missing firearms that have been donated to State and local law 
enforcement agencies through the GSA surplus firearm donation 
program. The numbers are very disturbing, as you point out, Mr. 
Chairman: 486 missing firearms since 1999; 308 of them traded 
to firearms dealers without required GSA approval. In 2002, the 
New Ellenton, South Carolina, Police Department traded five Uzi 
submachine guns it had received through the program to a gun 
shop for new equipment. In 2012, the Cayce Police Department in 
South Carolina sold two grenade launchers it had received 
through the program to a firearms dealer in Tennessee. GSA then 
lost track of the weapons.
    We agree on the fact that the missing weapons from this 
program are a problem, but it's no ordinary problem. Can 
anybody tell us why the Cayce, South Carolina, Police 
Department, which polices a city of less than 13,000, needed 
two military-style grenade launchers in the first place or why 
any civilian would need to own a grenade launcher for hunting 
or self-defense?
    This begs the question, why do our gun control policies 
allow for the purchase of a weapon designed for maximum 
destruction? The flaws in our lax gun control policies are 
highlighted in the unbridled buying and selling of these 
dangerous weapons by just about anybody.
    In the fall of 2014, Federal programs that outfit State and 
local law enforcement agencies with weapons, military-style 
vehicles and riot gear received heightened scrutiny when we saw 
disturbing images of highly armed police officers during the 
protest in Ferguson, Missouri. The GSA firearms donation 
program is much smaller than some of those other programs. It 
can serve a valid purpose: donating law enforcement equipment 
to police departments that need it in order to outfit officers 
with basic supplies. It's not a program we need to end, but 
it's clearly one that needs reform, as you point out, Mr. 
Chairman, in terms of inventory accountability and technology.
    I commend the President for taking executive action last 
year to scale back the type of military equipment and heavy 
weaponry that are donated to local law enforcement agencies. 
The executive order establishes standard procedures for all law 
enforcement acquisition programs and seeks to ensure local law 
enforcement agencies are trained in the proper use of 
controlled equipment. The President established a working group 
that reached out to stakeholders, including law enforcement and 
civil liberties groups, in an effort to strike the right 
balance between policing and civil rights.
    The inspector general, Ms. Ochoa, also made recommendations 
to improve data management and the inventory process following 
these firearms. Incredibly, the IG found that, in some cases, 
records for this program were kept in paper form. That's 
unbelievable considering the magnitude of the program and the 
potential consequences of weapons getting into the wrong hands.
    And this brings us back to a recurring theme on this 
committee and our subcommittee, particularly, Mr. Chairman, and 
that is the inadequacies of our IT investments in the Federal 
Government and what could go wrong with that.
    Without question, tighter controls and additional reforms 
are desirable. For example, yesterday, committee staff asked 
the IG: Oh, by the way, whatever became of those missing 
grenade launchers? And we learned, just yesterday, that they 
are currently for sale by gun dealers in Colorado and Florida, 
as the chairman indicated.
    There appear to be no consequences to the law enforcement 
agencies that violate the program. It's my understanding the 
Cayce Police Department only had to pay GSA fair market value 
for the weapons as a restitution. That's the full extent of the 
correction for violating the terms of the weapons transfer.
    There's no provision I'm aware of to recover Federal 
weapons that have been put into general commerce by local 
police departments in violation of the terms of their contracts 
with GSA, to say nothing of the potential threat to public 
safety.
    I want to know today whether the GSA or GSA IG intends to, 
in fact, recover those grenade launchers. Some of my 
colleagues, I know, will disagree on whether or not the general 
public should be able to purchase grenade launchers. Even if 
you do disagree with me on that, surely, you would agree that 
the sale of such weapons and hundreds of others we donated to 
local police departments at least must be accounted for.
    Ms. Ochoa, as inspector general, you are charged with 
rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. This seems to be in one of 
those categories. I thank you for the work you have already 
done to highlight the issues in this program. I'm curious to 
hear from all of you today what happens from here, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to try to find common ground to tighten up our program 
that certainly started out with good intentions and has gone 
awry.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
    I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any 
members who would like to submit a written statement.
    We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I'm pleased 
to welcome the Honorable Carol Ochoa, inspector general of the 
U.S. General Services Administration. I'd like to also thank 
you for not only your involvement but your flexibility in so 
many ways to work with this committee in a humble way, being as 
flexible as possible. It is so refreshing, and I just wanted to 
take this opportunity to thank you personally for that.
    Mr. William Sisk, acting Assistant Commissioner of the 
Office of General Supplies and Services of the U.S. General 
Services Administration. And Mr. Steve--is it Ekin?
    Mr. Ekin. Ekin.
    Mr. Meadows. Ekin, president of the National Association of 
State Agencies for Surplus Property.
    Welcome to you all, and pursuant to committee rules, all 
witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So, if you 
will, please, rise and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth?
    Thank you. Please be seated.
    Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.
    In order to allow time for discussion, I would ask that you 
please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but your entire 
written statement will be made part of the record.
    Ms. Ochoa, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       WITNESS STATEMENTS

             STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL OCHOA

    Ms. Ochoa. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member 
Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the 
invitation to testify here today. Thank you for asking for 
testimony regarding the inspector general's evaluation of the 
GSA surplus firearm donation program.
    As you know, the OIG found in that evaluation that GSA's 
records of firearms donations were incomplete and inaccurate 
and that inventory controls are not sufficient to monitor 
firearms donated to State and local law enforcement agents. As 
background, Federal agencies are required to report to GSA when 
they have excess property, including firearms, available for 
transfer to other Federal agencies. Excess property that is not 
needed by other Federal agencies becomes available as surplus 
property for State and local law enforcement use. Donations of 
Federal firearms to eligible State and local law enforcement 
agencies are for exclusive use by those agencies and only for 
law enforcement purposes.
    Since 1999, GSA's surplus firearms donation program has 
coordinated the donation of surplus firearms, working with 
State Agency for Surplus Property representatives. To request 
surplus firearms, a State or local law enforcement agency must 
first submit a donation request to State officials. State 
officials then initiate the donation transfer process using 
GSA's Web-based property transfer system called GSAXcess and 
submit the donation request to GSA for approval. Once GSA 
approves the request, the donating Federal agency transfers the 
firearms directly to the State or local law enforcement agency.
    Certain terms and conditions apply to firearms which are 
donated to those agencies. The law enforcement agencies must 
use the firearms solely for authorized law enforcement 
purposes. They may not sell or trade the firearms. They must 
report annual inventories to the State agencies, and they must 
immediately report lost or stolen weapons. Once the law 
enforcement agencies no longer have use for their donated 
firearms, they must notify GSA through the State agency, and 
GSA can then give permission to reassign the firearm to another 
agency, or the firearm must be destroyed.
    The OIG began an evaluation of GSA's surplus firearm 
donation program in October 2014. We sought to determine 
whether firearms donations were made in compliance with Federal 
regulations, whether they were adequately monitored and 
reported, and to what extent donated firearms were missing or 
stolen.
    We were unable to complete all of the objectives of this 
evaluation because we found that GSA's records of firearms 
donations were incomplete and inaccurate and that inventory 
controls were not sufficient to monitor firearms donated to 
State and local law enforcement agencies.
    And just as examples, we found that information in GSAXcess 
used to record the initial transfer of the firearms was 
incomplete, often missing such basic information as the names 
and addresses of the law enforcement agency to whom the 
firearms were donated. Other information was entered 
incompletely or placed in the wrong data fields, including 
information such as the serial number, make, and model of the 
donated firearms. The database wasn't designed to record any 
transfers after the initial donation, such as information about 
a transfer of the firearms to another agency, reports of 
missing or stolen weapons, or destruction of weapons. The 
program officer for GSA sought to keep paper records of the 
transfers and used spreadsheets to manually track the 
subsequent activity. Those records, however, could not be 
sorted or searched electronically. They contained inaccuracies, 
and they were incomplete.
    We also found that inventory controls were incomplete. 
States did them inconsistently. GSA provided no uniform 
guidance, and in general, there's been a lack of oversight from 
GSA on the inventory process. As a result, donated firearms 
have been overlooked in the inventory process, increasing the 
risk of theft or unauthorized use.
    As a result of our review, we made several recommendations 
to GSA centered around improving data management, both 
electronically and also improving the inventory process, 
providing guidance to the States, implementing an inventory-
wide review process, and implementing standardized procedures 
for conducting and reporting inventories.
    Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and for 
the subcommittee's support of inspectors general. I ask that my 
testimony and the OIG's report be made part of the record.
    Mr. Meadows. Without objection.
    [Prepared statement of Ms. Ochoa follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Meadows. Mr. Sisk, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SISK

    Mr. Sisk. Good afternoon. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member 
Connolly, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to participate in today's hearing. My name is Bill 
Sisk, and I'm the acting Assistant Commissioner for the Office 
of General Supplies and Services in the Federal Acquisition 
Service at the General Services Administration.
    GSA takes its responsibility for the surplus firearms 
donation program seriously and has implemented a number of 
changes to the program in response to the GSA inspector 
general's June 2015 report. GSA's Federal surplus personal 
property donation program makes the property that is surplus to 
the needs of the Federal Government available to State and 
local public agencies, eligible nonprofit organizations, and 
veterans service organizations.
    The surplus firearms donation program enables law 
enforcement agencies to acquire firearms at little or no cost 
to support their mission. I'd like to thank GSA's inspector 
general for looking into this program at the request of the GSA 
Administrator and providing recommendations to assist in 
improving the program. GSA is working to complete the remaining 
actions to implement all four recommendations by the spring.
    In response to the recommendation to implement a data 
management system to facilitate program maintenance, report, 
and oversight, GSA has created new data fields in GSAXcess to 
collect more complete information on the recipients of the 
donated firearms, and GSA is in the process of populating those 
new fields with data collected and the fiscal year 2016 
inventory verification completed by the law enforcement 
agencies and State Agencies for Surplus Property. Regarding the 
recommendation about implementing a comprehensive inventory 
process, GSA has issued a standard operating procedure for 
requesting and processing donations, inventory and compliance, 
disposal and destruction, and internal controls.
    For the recommendation about implementing standardized 
procedures for conducting and reporting donated firearms 
inventories, GSA has issued guidance to the State Agencies for 
Surplus Property on how to conduct inventories to help assist 
law enforcement agencies with their obligation to account for 
all donated firearms.
    GSA also encourages law enforcement agencies to use 
voluntary consensus standards and other applicable standards to 
the maximum extent possible while adhering to State and local 
laws and regulations governing the asset management and 
inventory practices applicable to them. The remaining 
recommendation about providing inventory data to State Agencies 
for Surplus Property to facilitate reconciling inventory data 
from the GSA law enforcement agency information is on track to 
be completed in the spring.
    Additionally, GSA is a member of the Federal Support for 
Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, which addresses ways 
for the Federal Government to streamline programs that provide 
equipment and support to law enforcement agencies. The working 
group released recommendations in a report in May 2015. In line 
with the working group's recommendations, GSA has ceased 
donations of any items on the prohibited list, which includes 
grenade launchers. Per the working group's recommendations, our 
request and donations of controlled and prohibited equipment, 
GSA also issued policy guidance to regional offices and State 
Agencies for Surplus Property last fall. Since the firearms 
donation program began 15 years ago, 488 firearms have been 
reported as missing. Upon review of these firearms reported 
missing, 66 percent were, in fact, not missing but had been 
sold or traded by a law enforcement agency in violation of the 
terms of the conditional transfer required to be in compliance 
with receiving firearms through the surplus firearms donation 
program. In most instances, where the firearm is not under 
Federal Government restrictions, the sale or trade-in to a 
firearms manufacturer or licensed dealer is not inappropriate.
    Due to the difficulties with tracking these firearms and 
ensuring that law enforcement agencies know which firearms have 
Federal Government restrictions, GSA is reevaluating its role 
in the firearms donation program. GSA is considering limiting 
the program to handguns and eliminating perpetual restrictions, 
meaning that the full title will transfer to the law 
enforcement agency after the initial statutory requirement to 
use the firearm for 12 months have passed. Elimination of 
perpetual restrictions will require GSA to modify the current 
Federal management regulation language on the donation of 
firearms, removing the requirement for perpetual restrictions.
    GSA looks forward to keeping the committee updated 
regarding our progress, and we welcome the committee's and the 
OIG's oversight of this important program.
    Thank you, again, for this opportunity to speak to all of 
you. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Sisk follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Sisk.
    Mr. Ekin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF STEVE EKIN

    Mr. Ekin. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and 
honored members, my name is Steve Ekin. I'm the director of the 
Georgia State Agency for Surplus Property, and in that 
position, I manage the Federal surplus property program for 
Georgia as well as the State surplus property program for 
Georgia.
    Today, I'll be testifying in my capacity as the current 
president of the National Association of State Agencies for 
Surplus Property.
    NASASP is a 501 organization whose members are comprised of 
the 56 State Agencies for Surplus Property; that's the 50 
States and territories. And we, essentially, are GSA's agents 
to the State for surplus property.
    The Federal surplus property program is a highly 
scrutinized Federal program. We routinely review and are 
audited by not only the Federal Government through GSA but our 
own State governments and State legislatures. We conduct annual 
inventories of all of our assets, not just firearms, as well as 
ensuring adequate security and approval of qualified recipients 
and compliance to all terms and conditions based on the Federal 
management regulations. We do this on a daily basis. 
Discrepancies that we do find must be reported to either local 
authorities, GSA, and, if advised, to the U.S. Department of 
Justice and our State's attorneys general offices. So SASP and 
NASASP take these responsibilities very seriously.
    I think it's important to point out--we have talked about 
the weapons and the amount that have been put out to the local 
community--it's important to point out that, except the grenade 
launchers, all of the weapons that we receive at the State 
level are weapons that can be acquired by the law enforcement 
agencies in the open market. They are not specifically military 
weapons.
    These law enforcement agencies represent both State, 
county, and local governments across our counties, including 
colleges and universities. Some of the folks that get our 
weapons are small rural departments that require--need these 
weapons, because it's the only weapons that are available to 
them to buy in a cost-effective manner. And, conversely, large 
departments would not be able to acquire large volumes of 
weapons that we can supply due to cost prohibits.
    Over the years the SASP has participated in the GSA 
program, we found GSA to be instructional and informative and 
communicative and conscientious. In the beginning, there was a 
great deal of instruction and education. That continued on a 
routine basis for years. GSA continues to participate in our 
annual meetings and provide training to the SASPs. We 
correspond with individuals SASPs, not just to check up and see 
how things are going, but in official capacity to make sure 
that we're complying with all the regulations.
    During the short time that we've had to prepare for this 
hearing, we pulled seven of our top States that were using this 
program. All of them agreed to the benefits of the program and 
have voiced the same concerns about the recordkeeping.
    Each State has undergone inventory checks with GSA, and the 
discrepancies that were indicated have been corrected. Things 
like the numbers and types of weapons not matching between what 
the SASP received and what GSA still do occur.
    NASASP and the State Agencies for Surplus Property stand 
ready to assist Congress, GSA, and the Federal Government to 
make changes to the weapons program and improve the program 
across the board. We'd be happy to meet and provide any other 
information for this very important matter. Thank you.
    [Prepared statement of Mr. Ekin follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Meadows. Thank each of you for your testimony.
    The chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for a series 
of questions.
    Mr. Ekin, I find it interesting that you say you go through 
an annual Federal audit?
    Mr. Ekin. For weapons, yes, sir. We're required to.
    Mr. Meadows. So what do they audit it to? If we don't have 
a good list, I mean----
    Mr. Ekin. And this is where we completely agree with the 
inspector general's findings and GSA recommendations. We get 
that spreadsheet that is either incomplete or where we have 
transferred a weapon several times----
    Mr. Meadows. So you go through an annual Federal audit 
that's meaningless?
    Mr. Ekin. For weapons. I don't consider them meaningless, 
sir, because at the end of my audit, I know exactly where my 
416 weapons are that I'm responsible for.
    Mr. Meadows. Well, assuming--so what you're saying is you 
keep good track of the ones you're receiving?
    Mr. Ekin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. Then what's the purpose of a Federal audit?
    Mr. Ekin. We send the same spreadsheet with the information 
back to GSA, and----
    Mr. Meadows. I just want to caution you: don't--listen, I 
know all my sheriffs by first name. I know my chiefs by first 
name. I love law enforcement. I've got them on speed dial. I 
understand that the task of which you are here in your 
association, but let's not take that issue and go overboard 
with regards to justifying what is, obviously, a problem.
    Mr. Ekin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. Okay?
    And so, Mr. Sisk, can you explain to the committee how it 
took 10 years to find five Uzi submachine guns that were 
missing?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, that I could explain 
why that took 10 years. I do know we share your concerns with 
our ability to keep track of an accurate inventory. I think 
that's part of the reason the agency asked the inspector 
general to come in and review the program. They've made some 
recommendations on how we can improve our ability to----
    Mr. Meadows. So why did you do that? I mean, I heard that 
in your original testimony.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. I guess I'm a little troubled by that, because 
according to the information we have, is this person that's in 
charge of this program knew that there was a problem, needed 
additional resources, probably had a notebook of stuff. So if 
it were just a management problem, why would you ask the IG to 
come in?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know that I can speak for the former 
Administrator that asked for the review. I do think----
    Mr. Meadows. Are you sure that they asked?
    Mr. Sisk. The information that I received, sir, is that is 
what----
    Mr. Meadows. Ms. Ochoa, did they ask you to come in?
    Ms. Ochoa. This also predates my tenure with GSA, but I am 
told the same thing, that Administrator Tangherlini did make a 
request.
    Mr. Meadows. Okay. All right. So, as we look at that, it 
took 10 years. So I'm curious. Ms. Ochoa, when did you do your 
report?
    Ms. Ochoa. Our report was issued in June of 2015.
    Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Sisk, when were the Uzis found?
    Mr. Sisk. I'm not sure.
    Mr. Meadows. 2012.
    Mr. Sisk. Okay, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. So we had five Uzis that were missing for 10 
years. We found them, and we waited 3 years to have the IG come 
in and look at it? Do you not see a problem with that?
    Mr. Sisk. I can absolutely see your concern, sir. I think, 
at the time, when the firearms were reported as missing, that 
we took the steps that were in our program at the time to 
report those as missing to the Office of Inspector General and 
then took administrative action on those----
    Mr. Meadows. All right. So you, in your testimony, Mr. 
Sisk, you talk about a new procedure that you put in place. 
When did you communicate that new procedure?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe it was this past fall, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. All right. When--I think you made--so as we 
look at that, I guess the IG's report came out in July, was it, 
of 2015? June or July?
    Ms. Ochoa. June.
    Mr. Meadows. Of 2015.
    Now, this is not a complicated problem, I wouldn't think, 
you know, in the big scheme of things. Why would it take so 
long to start making real changes to this? Is it the fact that 
the ranking member and I are holding a hearing today that you 
started getting to work on it? Mr. Sisk.
    Mr. Sisk. Well, clearly, after we received the IG's report, 
sir, in June, we began working on the recommendations. There is 
definitely much more visibility on the program than there was 
previously. But we began work on the program then. We've made 
some of the changes with GSAXcess that are going to give us the 
ability to track this inventory much more closely than we could 
previously.
    Mr. Meadows. All right. So explain to--I guess--so 
everybody understands--I guess there's a new procedure that 
you're recommending, that we got notice of 2 days ago? Is that 
correct? On the 29th.
    Mr. Sisk. It was issued prior to that, sir. I would have to 
go back and check my records. And I'd certainly be glad to get 
back to you, sir, with the date it was issued.
    Mr. Meadows. So why are you deciding to change the program? 
Because that's not necessarily what the IG recommended. I mean, 
so, as you start to look at it, what problems with the IG's 
report do you see that you don't agree with? Do you agree with 
everything?
    Mr. Sisk. We agreed with the IG's recommendations, yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Meadows. All right. So, with that, you're saying that 
you're making good progress?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir, we believe we are.
    Mr. Meadows. Okay. Is it surprising to you that, in 
preparation for this hearing, the committee staff and your 
staff, I guess, found these grenade launchers for sale?
    Mr. Sisk. I was aware, sir, that the grenade launchers had 
been sold in 2012. I just received, actually, just the 
beginning of this hearing, that they had been found, yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. So that was a shock to you, a surprise to you?
    Mr. Sisk. Not a shock, no, sir. But I was not previously 
aware that they had been found.
    Mr. Meadows. Well, I mean, I guess if you have an inventory 
of submachine guns and grenade launchers that goes missing, I 
would leave no stone unturned to try to find it. I guess the 
ranking member and I are sitting here trying to scratch our 
heads: Why would it take a congressional hearing before we find 
out where those are if it's really a priority?
    Mr. Sisk. Sure. Sure. As I said----
    Mr. Meadows. Do you see why a reasonable person would think 
that the GSA is not treating it as a priority?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir, I can.
    Mr. Meadows. All right. I'm out of time.
    I'll go ahead and recognize the ranking member for a very 
generous 5 minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Sisk, I'm going to ask you to pull this up close, 
because we can't always hear you. Thank you.
    Let me start with how this works, because--first of all, 
how long have we had this program?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe 1999 is when----
    Mr. Connolly. 1999. So what's the inception of it? So 
somebody sits around the office saying: You know, we've got 
these extra grenade launchers.
    First of all, where do you get the weapons from? GSA isn't 
an armory?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir. For the GSA program, it comes from 
Federal law enforcement civilians.
    Mr. Connolly. Okay, civilian agents?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. And somebody had some grenade launchers, just 
to pick an example?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Okay. So you get them. Do you have a choice? 
Can you say, ``We don't want those''?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know that we have a choice, sir. They 
never actually physically come into our custody?
    Mr. Connolly. So it's a paper responsibility?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. They are located somewhere?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. They would be with the Federal law 
enforcement agency. We would process the transfer through the 
State agency.
    Mr. Connolly. But that means you've got a tracking system 
so you know where they are in order to transfer them to 
somebody?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Okay. So somebody has grenade launchers in 
the Federal civilian sector, and you get them--I mean, not 
physically, but your responsibility. Now what happens? Do you 
sit around saying, ``Well, I wonder who could use a grenade 
launcher; what do you think?'' Is that what happens?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. What happens? What's the analysis that gets 
us from, ``we're in possession of this''--not physically--``and 
we need to divest ourselves of it'' and hopefully deploy it 
somewhere where it could do some good?
    Mr. Sisk. Sure. The Federal property is reported to us 
through our GSAXcess program. The local State law enforcement 
agencies would work with their State Agency for Surplus 
Property to identify the need and identify the Federal material 
that was available for----
    Mr. Connolly. I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
    Mr. Sisk. I'm sorry, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. Maybe pull the box a little bit closer to you. 
Yeah, there we go.
    Mr. Sisk. Okay.
    Mr. Connolly. Go ahead.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. Federal agencies would identify the 
process--I'm sorry, the material or firearms in this case that 
were excess to their needs. And after a screening process 
through other Federal agencies, if no other Federal agency 
needs the firearms, it would become available for donation 
through the State Agencies for Surplus Property. So the State 
and local law enforcement agencies would work with their State 
Agency for Surplus Property to identify those needs.
    Mr. Connolly. So Mr. Ekin in Georgia would say: Hey, 
they've got some grenade launchers; we could use those. Is that 
what happens? They'd bid on them, or they put in an 
application?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. There's no charge for--the material 
from us is donated, so it's not a bidding process.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, but what if Georgia wants--you only got 
two. Georgia wants them, and--I don't know--Michigan wants 
them.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. It would be GSA's responsibility to 
allocate that material through one of the State agencies.
    Mr. Connolly. Based on what criteria?
    Mr. Sisk. Based on some general criteria of what the needs 
are of the State and local agencies. They try to have somewhat 
even distribution, if we have competition----
    Mr. Connolly. Okay. That brings us to the two grenade 
launchers.
    Mr. Sisk. Sure.
    Mr. Connolly. So, in that process that you just described, 
someone decided that a place called Cayce, South Carolina, with 
13,000 population, needed two grenade launchers? Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe that need would have been identified by 
the local law enforcement agency working with their State 
Agency for Surplus Property that identified that those 
launchers were available through the Federal surplus program, 
yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, but you pass no qualitative judgment on 
that? So South Carolina says Cayce needs them; Cayce needs 
them, unquestioned; let's get rid of them, get them off our 
books?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe it's up to the State Agency for Surplus 
Property to identify that the local law enforcement agency----
    Mr. Connolly. So you absolve yourself of all responsibility 
as an agency in terms of justification?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir. Our role is definitely tracking the 
material, and we've, obviously, had some shortcomings there----
    Mr. Connolly. I'm not talking about tracking. We're not 
there yet.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. Right.
    Mr. Connolly. I'm talking about justification a priori.
    I represent a jurisdiction--well, I was chairman of a 
jurisdiction of 1.1 million people. I can't imagine my police 
department putting in for grenade launchers, but maybe they 
did. But a town of 13,000, did anyone kind of raise the 
eyebrows a little bit going, ``I wonder what Cayce, South 
Carolina, is going to do with two grenade launchers''?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know, sir, if anybody did at the time. I 
can tell you that those items are now on the prohibited list, 
and we have ceased----
    Mr. Connolly. Got it. I understand. I'm trying to 
understand the problem.
    Mr. Sisk. Sure.
    Mr. Connolly. So, subsequently, apparently, Cayce sold 
these two grenade launchers? Is that correct?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Is it your understanding that the purpose of 
this program, inter alia, is a revenue source for localities, a 
way of raising money; let's sell dangerous weapons and raise 
some money?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir, that is not the purpose of the program.
    Mr. Connolly. So when Cayce sold two grenade launchers, it 
was in violation of their contract? Is that not correct?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. They signed a contract.
    Mr. Sisk. They can sign--they signed a conditional transfer 
document, yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. With you?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. And they signed that document?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. And, clearly, they violated it. Was it a 
willful violation? Did you even look into that?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know that I could speak to that, sir, 
whether it was willful or what their intent was.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, I think one of the purposes of our 
hearing here is to try to understand what happened. I mean, I 
only was half jocular when I said: You've got to ask yourself 
the question, what could go wrong?
    Now, Ms. Norton and I represent urban-suburban areas of the 
United States, and it is a very important question to us, what 
can go wrong? In my community yesterday, we buried a young 
police officer. She was 90 minutes on the job, first day. She 
was gunned down by a man who had access to lots of weapons, who 
also had killed his wife just before in a domestic violence 
dispute. That isn't a grenade launcher, but it is a reminder. 
Certainly, in congested areas like Ms. Norton and I represent, 
we want to be real careful over what gets into whose hands.
    And I got to tell you, this question of accountability in 
this program--while it's not a huge program and it's dwarfed by 
the number of arms in America--but it is troubling to think 
that somebody could so easily divest themselves of grenade 
launchers. And, again, what could go wrong with that?
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
    And I think I join all of colleagues on the dais here for 
the condolences of losing one of your constituents, and 
certainly one of Prince Williams' finest.
    And so, with that, I'll recognize the vice chair of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I associate myself with your remarks and that of a 
Representative who had to do a tough thing yesterday to attend 
that funeral.
    Mr. Sisk, how many program administrators have there been 
in the life of the surplus firearm donation program?
    Mr. Sisk. If you're speaking to the individual that 
directly runs the program, sir? I'm just trying to make sure 
I'm clear on the ``administrator.''
    Mr. Walberg. Yes.
    Mr. Sisk. I believe there's been two over the life of the 
program.
    Mr. Walberg. That's my figure as well.
    Mr. Sisk. Okay.
    Mr. Walberg. Ms. Ochoa and Mr. Sisk, you can answer as 
well, did any program administrator ever identify the need for 
a new system during the person's time with GSA?
    Ms. Ochoa. We were told that she did, yes.
    Mr. Walberg. That's accurate? Your understanding as well, 
Mr. Sisk?
    Mr. Sisk. I've been told the same thing, sir. She did not 
identify that need to me personally, but I've been told that 
that is accurate, yes, sir.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sisk, there have been about 9,800 firearms 
donated through the GSA program. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sisk. 9,800, yes, sir.
    Mr. Walberg. You have one person, as I understand it, 
assigned to manage this program of nearly 10,000 firearms. 
That's correct, right?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Walberg. GSA is making a number of changes to the 
program in response to the IG report. Do you plan to have more 
than one person assigned to managing the program going forward?
    Mr. Sisk. That is currently not in our plans, sir. We're 
hoping with the new IT technology that's available to us and 
the improved inventory capabilities that we are going to have 
that----
    Mr. Walberg. One person would still be able to handle that?
    Mr. Sisk. If it is not, sir, we are always willing to look 
to add more to improve the program going forward, yes, sir.
    Mr. Walberg. Your report took issue with the GSA only 
having one individual responsible, Ms. Ochoa, your report, for 
this entire program. Can you elaborate on why this practice is 
problematic?
    Ms. Ochoa. Well, the issue that we saw was the information 
being essentially stovepiped with one person for a nationwide 
program, one person who was trying to keep track of it 
manually, which proved to be nearly impossible.
    Mr. Walberg. Do you think this new system that they are 
working toward would take care of that; one person will be able 
to care? Or would you still say, ``We think you need to expand 
the numbers''?
    Ms. Ochoa. It's hard to say. We haven't yet evaluated the 
corrective action that the agency is undertaking. They told us 
that they won't complete it until end of May, beginning of 
June, and we'll take a very close look then at whether the 
steps actually achieve the spirit of the recommendations.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sisk, did GSA speak with or consult any of 
the program administration's--administrators at DOD regarding 
the practices used in administering its 1033 program?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. Our staff has been in contact with the 
folks at the Defense Logistics Agency.
    Mr. Walberg. To what end?
    Mr. Sisk. Well, for example, some of the new changes that 
we have made in the GSAXcess program, we're trying to model 
that interface to be similar to what DOD is doing, because they 
are two separate programs to administer by the State Agency for 
Surplus Property.
    Mr. Walberg. No intent to look toward transferring the 
program to DOD?
    Mr. Sisk. We did have that conversation with DLA. I 
believe, because we operate under different authorities, they 
found that to be problematic.
    Mr. Walberg. Did you consult with any of the SASPs who 
participate in both programs to adapt best practices in 
redesigning the administration of your surplus firearm donation 
program?
    Mr. Sisk. We do have continuing ongoing conversations with 
the State Agencies for Surplus Property. I'm not aware of any 
myself, sir, specifically directed to----
    Mr. Walberg. But you didn't consult with any SASPs about 
this?
    Mr. Sisk. I didn't personally, sir. I would have to go back 
and check to see if we did that and get back to the committee.
    Mr. Walberg. I think that would be important to do, to see 
what their record has been, what their experience has been, 
especially in finding a way to make sure that the loss of 
firearms, the loss of contact with the firearms, the loss of 
understanding where they're at seems to be important to find 
out if there's any better way of doing it.
    So we trust that the new system you're putting in place, 
the plans forward will ultimately meet the approval of OIG but, 
more importantly, that we will gain control again.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield just for a quick 
followup to his----
    Mr. Walberg. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
    DOD has a separate parallel program?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Is it also following the reforms you have 
made, the limitations you have put on, what can be transferred?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir. Those are just some of the options that 
we are exploring strictly within the General Services 
Administration, and they are just options that we are 
considering going forward.
    Mr. Connolly. So grenade launchers might be transferred by 
DOD's program?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't believe so, sir, as part of the working 
group. I believe that's part of prohibited materials for 
everybody.
    Mr. Connolly. Okay. We're going to want to know more about 
that.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Walberg. I yield back.
    Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the vice 
chair of the subcommittee.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly 
appreciate this hearing.
    I want to offer my condolences to Mr. Connolly and the 
family of the slain police officer, who, apparently, served us 
doubly, served us in the armed services as well.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
    And if you could hold the time, we also very much 
appreciate Chief Lanier, who represented the District at the 
service.
    Ms. Norton. With all of the concern about police abuse that 
we see, particularly among young people, I do want to be clear 
that police lives really matter, particularly to those of us 
who see police go into the toughest neighborhoods; we thought 
well-armed, by the way--that my own city has very tough gun 
laws. I'm always concerned that guns get away from people, 
because any guns in the District of Columbia must come from 
outside. They can't be generated or almost surely are not 
generated here.
    So keeping track of this program and making sure I 
understand this program is important to me.
    I understand that 60 percent of the firearms have been 
traded to dealers without the approval of GSA? Is that the 
case? And if so, how could that occur?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am. Roughly 66 percent of the firearms 
that were in care and custody of the local law enforcement 
agencies were either found to have been sold or traded in 
violation of our agreement with them.
    Ms. Norton. Traded to the firearms dealers?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am, that's my understanding.
    Ms. Norton. So what was the rule?
    Mr. Sisk. The rule was that they could not do that without 
GSA's consent.
    Ms. Norton. What did you think was going to happen to these 
weapons?
    Mr. Sisk. Again, weapons were in the care and custody of 
local law enforcement where they were identified in excess to 
the Federal Government's need, and the agreement with them was 
that they would not dispose of them without GSA's agreement.
    Ms. Norton. But if they were in the control of law 
enforcement----
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Norton. --officials and the mission of the program was 
to outfit law enforcement officials with the weapons necessary 
to perform their own duties, can it be any wonder that they 
would trade away or try to get out of their own department's 
grenade launchers, for example, or weapons of the kind that 
local police departments don't use? One wonders, what were they 
doing with them in the first place? Did you have any option, 
other than to dispose of them to law enforcement, who, of 
course, would have no legitimate use for grenade launchers and 
the like?
    Mr. Sisk. Sure. Again, many of these firearms can, in many 
cases, be what is not controlled material. After the working 
group that has been established, we had prohibited equipment, 
controlled equipment, and then noncontrolled equipment, which 
would be the handguns and perhaps the shotguns that would 
generally be assigned to patrol officers.
    Ms. Norton. I still don't understand, then, if you have 
submarine guns----
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Norton. --and grenade launchers--and they are not used 
or should not be used by law enforcement--what should GSA do 
about those weapons in particular?
    Mr. Sisk. Those weapons in particular, if they are in the 
custody of Federal law enforcement, the rules have changed now, 
that some of that, the grenade launchers specifically----
    Ms. Norton. But those are weapons--in other words, you 
could sell anything, or you could dispose of anything to law 
enforcement without making some--without taking efforts to see 
whether or not they were legitimately usable by local law 
enforcement. That just wasn't part of what you were supposed to 
do?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am. Again, after the working group has 
gotten together, those grenade launchers are now prohibited 
equipment.
    Ms. Norton. What are you going to do with them?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe the process would be for the Federal 
agency that has those--in this case, I believe those came from 
the FBI Academy at Quantico--that that material would have to 
go up for destruction.
    Ms. Norton. I just thought that would be self-evident, but 
forgive me if those were not already included in your rules.
    I believe that the DOD, of course, has bigger----
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Norton. --weapons, can recall those weapons. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Norton. Where you had to sell them?
    Mr. Sisk. That's my understanding of their process, that 
they can recall those weapons. Again, be that's a DOD program.
    Ms. Norton. Do you have any problem with that? I mean, is 
the reason they can't recall them is they do not pass title to 
them?
    Mr. Sisk. We're still trying to get some specific guidance 
on that particular issue from legal counsel. The material that 
we deal with the firearms are in the care and custody of local 
law enforcement. Our responsibility is to maintain an accurate 
inventory of those firearms, and clearly, we've had some issues 
there that we are working on with the GSA IG to get that fixed. 
If the actual legal transfers is a subject that we are still 
trying to seek additional guidance from legal counsel, and 
we'll be glad to do that and get back to you.
    Ms. Norton. It seems to me you would minimally need that.
    Finally, let me just ask you this, do you really think you 
are the appropriate agency for this mission?
    Mr. Sisk. We're the agency that has the legal authority----
    Ms. Norton. Now, again, what is it about your expertise 
that makes you the appropriate agency for the transfer of 
weapons to police departments?
    Mr. Meadows. Yeah, the gentlewoman's time has expired, but 
you can answer the question.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. Our expertise primarily is in donated 
excess personal property. Firearms, specifically, we don't 
really have a level of expertise in firearms themselves.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that that's part of 
the problem: the GSA was given a mission outside of its own 
legitimate expertise.
    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman.
    The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Carter, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank all of you for being here. We appreciate your 
presence today.
    Mr. Sisk, how many employees run the GSA surplus firearms 
donation program?
    Mr. Sisk. It's currently one employee, sir.
    Mr. Carter. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. Sisk. Currently, one employee, sir.
    Mr. Carter. We have an agency in the Federal Government, 
and just one person that runs that program?
    Mr. Sisk. For this particular program, yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Wow.
    Mr. Sisk. It's part of a larger program, but we----
    Mr. Carter. I understand. I understand.
    Ms. Ochoa, it's my understanding that the program records 
are kept in a paper file system. In fact, this system has been 
referred to as the backbone of the program. Is that correct? Is 
it kept in a paper file?
    Ms. Ochoa. The program administrator seeks to track all of 
the firearms through paper records, yes. That's correct.
    Mr. Carter. How would you describe the accessibility of 
this paper filing system?
    Ms. Ochoa. It's not particularly accessible, as you can 
imagine. She keeps boxes of records. She told us that in order 
to trace one particular firearm, it could take days. When we 
tried to compare her records to the spreadsheet--she was 
keeping to try to centralize in paper the whereabouts of the 
weapons--we found a lot of inconsistencies. She also inherited 
some records from her predecessor, so it's not a very 
accessible system.
    Mr. Carter. Wow. In fact, in June of 2015, the IG's office 
reported--the report by the IG indicated that during their 
evaluation, they were unable to assess critical information, 
and this prevented the IG from completing all of the evaluation 
objectives that they had set forth. So, obviously, we've got 
some problems there.
    Mr. Sisk, how many firearms has the program lost in the 
past 15 years?
    Mr. Sisk. Since the program's inception, our records 
indicate that 488 total have been reported missing.
    Mr. Carter. 488?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Have been missing. How many have been 
recovered?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know that any of them specifically have 
been recovered. We do have a breakdown of how many were sold 
and traded: 30 of them actually--320 were either sold and 
traded; 30 were actually found after they were initially 
reported missing; 29 were either lost or stolen; 6 were 
destroyed; and 1, the police department actually had closed at 
one point. So----
    Mr. Carter. Seriously?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. 488?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. And you said 30 had been accounted for, and 29 
had been lost, and 6 had been destroyed?
    Mr. Sisk. The primary principal part of that 320 were sold 
and/or traded improperly in violation of the conditional terms.
    Mr. Carter. So how many are unaccountable--are unaccounted 
for? How many are unaccounted for?
    Mr. Sisk. We have, so far, 102 that we don't have 
information on, you know, what actually eventually happened to 
them, that they were reported missing or stolen, and there was 
not a resolution of that.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, let me ask you something, how many 
does the surplus firearm donation program currently have?
    Mr. Sisk. Well, there are 9,836 that are currently in the 
program.
    Mr. Carter. 9,000 and some odd, is that what you said?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. How many of them--how many of these have been 
distributed to law enforcement agencies?
    Mr. Sisk. They all have been, sir. We don't--we never 
actually have them in our custody.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. But, I mean, they are in the custody 
right now of the law enforcement agencies?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir, State and local law enforcement 
agencies. All 488----
    Mr. Carter. All you have is the recordkeeping, right?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    RPTR MAAR
    EDTR SECKMAN
    [3:02 p.m.]
    Mr. Carter. You know, Mr. Chairman, this is my problem 
here. This is my concern. I mean, here we have a Federal 
agency, a program that is totally dedicated to registering and 
controlling firearms, yet they don't even know how many they 
have. They don't know where they are. They don't know who has 
them. In some cases, they don't know what they are, and, yet, 
we have an administration that's trying to impede on our Second 
Amendment rights. It is true. It is true. I mean, here we have 
an agency that can't even account for it. Every responsible 
firearm owner knows where their guns are. They know what they 
have. They know where they are. And, yet, we have the 
government here who has no idea. This is appalling, Mr. 
Chairman, appalling. I mean, seriously. I just cannot believe 
this.
    It's happening in--and, listen, I'm from the South. And let 
me tell you: we take our firearms seriously in the South. I 
mean, I can tell you right now how many I've got. I can tell 
you where they're at. And I can tell you exactly where they're 
at. And I know where they're at. This is--Mr. Chairman, I 
apologize, but I'm appalled at this. I'm just, I'm just taken 
aback by this.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield.
    Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia's appalling demeanor.
    We'll recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Clay. Let's hope that I'm not as appalled, Mr. 
Chairman, with these answers.
    You know, many of us were horrified--I know I was--in 
August of 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, when officers looked like 
they were going to war and not serving and protecting their 
community. President Obama issued Executive Order 13688 on 
January 16, 2015. The President recognized the need for these 
programs to assist law enforcement officers' critical mission 
of keeping the American people safe. The executive order also 
recognized the need for law enforcement officers to be trained 
in proper use of the equipment and training on the protection 
of civil liberties.
    The executive order established a working group to identify 
agency actions that can improve these programs. One of the 
recommendations was to prohibit certain items for transfer, 
such as grenade launchers and firearms that were 50 caliber or 
higher. We know that, prior to this, the GSA program 
facilitated donations of grenade launchers.
    Mr. Sisk, were there other weapons that were donated 
through this program that are now on the prohibited items list?
    Mr. Sisk. Not that I'm aware of, sir. I believe the only 
thing GSA had that was now on the prohibited list was the 
grenade launchers.
    Mr. Clay. Okay. And then the Department of Defense has 
begun recalling some of the weapons that are now on the 
prohibited items list. And is GSA recalling those weapons? You 
are?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir. We're working with our legal counsel. 
We're asking for voluntary return of those items. Our legal 
counsel is giving us some additional guidance on whether or not 
we have the authority to recall those grenade launchers.
    Mr. Clay. Well, it is an executive order. You all don't 
follow the executive order?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. We absolutely follow the executive 
order. And we've issued guidance that we're no longer going to 
facilitate the donation of items that are on the prohibited 
list. The issue comes into play where we have a conditional 
transfer document that was in place for the 22 grenade 
launchers that we still know exist with local law enforcement 
agencies, if they've not violated the conditions of that 
agreement, if we can force them to return those grenade 
launchers.
    Mr. Clay. Okay. One of the requirements for transferring 
control equipment, such as specialized firearms that are not 
service-issued weapons, is that law enforcement officers have 
training on proper use of the equipment. Mr. Sisk, what is GSA 
doing to ensure that officers are trained to use weapons that 
are now on the controlled equipment list?
    Mr. Sisk. For items that are on the controlled equipment 
list, the law enforcement agencies that we donate to would have 
to absolutely comply with that additional training requirement, 
yes, sir.
    Mr. Clay. And how do you confirm that?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe we work through the State agencies for 
surplus property to make sure that was done.
    Mr. Clay. Okay. The working group also recommends sanctions 
for violations of controlled equipment programs. Will this 
apply to existing controlled equipment that is already in the 
hands of law enforcement?
    Mr. Sisk. I don't know, sir, that that would apply to 
equipment that's already out there, that would be the grenade 
launchers in our case. I would have to get back to the 
committee on that question.
    Mr. Clay. So tell me why local law enforcement would need 
grenade launchers.
    Mr. Sisk. Again, I don't know that I can speak, sir, 
exactly to what the need was for that equipment at the time 
that it was donated. We do know that it's there. We've still 
got track of 22 of the items. And we no longer will facilitate 
the donation for prohibited items.
    Mr. Clay. Okay. Mr. Ekin, can you maybe respond to why 
local law enforcement would need grenade launchers?
    Mr. Ekin. I'm not a law enforcement expert. But when we 
have the agencies send us a letter of intent, where they 
explain how many officers they have that are post certified, 
what the equipment is going to be used for, they explained to 
us grenade launchers would be used for gas dispersal, not 
explosive incendiary things. So we do require that. And the 
head law enforcement officer, whether it be a chief, sheriff, 
whoever it is, signs those documents, and that's what we submit 
to GSA for them to make the allocation determination.
    Mr. Clay. And are you aware that, that local law 
enforcement is receiving the proper training to operate these 
weapons? Or do you know anything about that?
    Mr. Ekin. Only that they're certifying that they have the 
appropriate training, sir.
    Mr. Clay. It sounds pretty loose, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
    I'm going to go ahead and recognize myself for a series of 
additional questions, because I want to follow up. You know, 
the gentleman from Georgia was, obviously, indicating that he 
finds it very difficult, as I think the ranking member and I 
both do, that we can somehow have 9,800 weapons that come from 
different agencies. And I think, to be clear, it comes from--it 
may come from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, 
Social Security, whomever has it, it is deemed surplus, is that 
correct, and then you just track it?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. So let me follow up on maybe the less than 
articulate way that I asked the question earlier that I think 
maybe we got off--I asked a question that you answered. But I 
don't know that I was very clear. So let me go back to that. In 
terms of the perpetual restrictions in your testimony, when did 
that come about, the loosening of the perpetual restrictions?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. We're exploring different options right 
now. For noncontrolled equipment, things like handguns that a 
patrol officer would normally carry, the intent of the program 
is if the Federal agency has excess material that the local law 
enforcement could use, then we would transfer that property to 
their use.
    Mr. Meadows. So that, essentially, would do away with an 
inventory list?
    Mr. Sisk. It would be a clean transfer of title to the 
local law enforcement agencies.
    Mr. Meadows. So did you make that recommendation on the 29 
of February? Because that's when we found out about it.
    Ms. Ochoa, when did you find out about it?
    Ms. Ochoa. I learned about it when I read Mr. Sisk's 
testimony for the hearing.
    Mr. Meadows. So has this been in the works since last fall? 
Or is this just an idea that popped up before this hearing?
    Mr. Sisk. It's an idea that the agency is exploring 
internally. Nothing has been finalized. No decisions have been 
made. But if it is for noncontrolled equipment--for example, 
9mm pistols--that State and local law enforcement has and 
manages all the time----
    Mr. Meadows. So, essentially, it was put as part of your 
testimony to say: We're going to try to figure out a way to do 
this by getting rid of an inventory list that we can't control 
because we can't actually track the weapons. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Sisk. The inventory was that is currently in place, 
sir, we're doing everything we can to follow the IG's 
recommendations to make sure----
    Mr. Meadows. Your recommendation on the 29th, so let me be 
specific here, your recommendation on the 29th, why did you 
make that recommendation on that day? What was the genesis or 
the causal effect of coming up with that recommendation to get 
rid of the perpetual restriction?
    Mr. Sisk. One of the things that we are considering is 
looking at removing the perpetual restrictions for 
noncontrolled equipment, specifically for handguns, that would 
be going forward. If it's actually better for local law 
enforcement that those handguns that would be transferred to 
them would be under all the rules and regulations----
    Mr. Meadows. So you're doing this because it will benefit 
local law enforcement? Is that what you're saying? Is that your 
testimony?
    Mr. Sisk. We're trying to do what makes sense to follow----
    Mr. Meadows. I'm trying to figure out why, 2 days before a 
hearing, we get a recommendation on an IG's report that was 
issued back in the summer of last year and that, 2 days before 
a hearing, we get this new idea that shows up with my staff, 
who have been working on this--let me tell you, the work that 
comes here is not mine; it's the staff's. As you well know, 
they're doing a yeoman's job. And, yet, when they have a 
briefing a day or so before this hearing, there's this new idea 
of getting rid of the perpetual restriction. So was that 
thought out? Or was it just put in the testimony to make it 
sound like you got a plan?
    Mr. Sisk. Sir, it is one of the recommendations that we're 
exploring. It's not----
    Mr. Meadows. When did you start exploring that 
recommendation?
    Mr. Sisk. The conversations probably began around that 
several weeks ago.
    Mr. Meadows. All right. That's helpful. Because counsel has 
not weighed in on that, right? I guess here's the interesting 
thing, is since you don't own the firearms--you're taking the 
list--how do you make the determination that you can give it to 
a local law enforcement agency after 12 months? It's not yours 
to give. It's surplus property that you're managing, but it 
actually belongs to the FBI or DHS or whomever. Doesn't it?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. Has counsel weighed in on that, that says you 
have the ability, from a statute standpoint, to do that?
    Mr. Sisk. Legal counsel reviewed my testimony. The 12-month 
requirement, I believe, is a statutory requirement. And I 
believe it's also so that we're not just donating things to----
    Mr. Meadows. It may be a statute. But it would be a statute 
for the FBI to do it or the DHS, not necessarily--I don't know 
that that statute--does it transfer? Did counsel say it 
transfers to GSA?
    Mr. Sisk. I'm sorry, sir, the title of the equipment?
    Mr. Meadows. Your ability to convey title to the State of 
Georgia, do you have that ability, from a statute standpoint, 
right now?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. We donate material that's, right, 
that's----
    Mr. Meadows. So you're following me, so you have that 
ability is what your counsel has told you?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. So, in the last 2 weeks, you've made that 
determination, that that's how you're going to get rid of this 
inventory list?
    Mr. Sisk. One of the options we explored, sir, is if for 
noncontrolled equipment, if it should be transferred like any 
other kind of property that we transfer to State agencies for 
surplus property that don't have the perpetual requirement for 
inventory----
    Mr. Meadows. Listen, you may have two different ideological 
points of view up here as it relates to our local law 
enforcement. But I guess we are of one mind when it comes to 
tracking it. Here's the problem: You've got a tracking problem. 
You've got an accountability problem. And instead of changing 
your accountability and tracking, you're changing the program 
to say: Well, let's give it away; that way we don't have to 
track it.
    Are you following? It just doesn't make sense. Does it? 
Does it make sense to you?
    Mr. Sisk. I understand what you're saying, sir. The 
intent----
    Mr. Meadows. Does it make sense to you?
    Mr. Sisk. The intent of exploring that option was to look 
to see if----
    Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me--and I understand--so let 
me go interrupt myself. And I'll ask, so if that's the case and 
you're going to convey ownership to, let's say, Mr. Ekin and 
the State of Georgia, what would preclude him from saying, ``I 
want 130 of those Glocks''; they keep them for 12 months, and 
they sell them; and he says, ``I want 130 more Glocks''? So it 
becomes a funding stream. If you get rid of the perpetual 
restriction, it becomes a funding stream where they don't have 
to reimburse the Federal Government. I can tell you: it would 
be a business that I would get in immediately if you did that. 
Do you see the problem there?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. But we are transferring this material 
through the State Agency for Surplus Property to State and 
local law enforcement.
    Mr. Meadows. Right. But what I'm saying: it becomes a de 
facto grant to that State agency. Would it not?
    Mr. Sisk. I----
    Mr. Meadows. Am I missing something?
    Mr. Sisk. Sure. In the same sense that any other material 
that we donate through the State Agency for Surplus Property, 
yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. All right. Let me tell you: Georgia and South 
Carolina may get a lot. North Carolina, I saw on the thing, I 
get zero. So I'm----
    Mr. Ekin. But they may have property----
    Mr. Connolly. Can I interrupt one second--Mr. Ekin, I'm 
sorry--on this issue you're bringing up? I asked you 
specifically in my questioning, Mr. Sisk, was this a revenue-
generating program, or was this an enhancement of capability 
program? And you said it was not a revenue-enhancement program. 
And now where the chairman just took us, actually, that is the 
practical effect of what you're contemplating doing, which is 
lifting the perpetual restriction, because then, they--all 
you're doing is transferring your surplus program and making it 
a revenue-generating program for local law enforcement, not an 
enhancement program. And what I worry about is then it could 
get into the wrong hands. And we already know that happened 
with grenade launchers. So I'm not reassured by your answer at 
all. And it seems to contradict your earlier answer as to, with 
respect to Cayce.
    Mr. Sisk. And I'm sorry, sir. And I appreciate the 
opportunity to clarify that. There would still be a requirement 
that the equipment would be kept and used for 12 months. That 
requirement would not go away.
    Mr. Connolly. Well----
    Mr. Sisk. In a sense, sir, the entire program that we run, 
the donation program through the State Agency for Surplus 
Property, where we transfer excess property or surplus property 
from the Federal Government to the State and local agencies, in 
a sense, sir, we are providing equipment.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Ekin, I interpreted you, and I'm sorry.
    Mr. Meadows. Mr. Ekin, you wanted to jump in there because 
you were disagreeing with an analysis. And it's fine.
    Mr. Ekin. I just wanted to put in that there are those 
restrictions already. And the State agencies for surplus 
property, as well as the donees, by the regulations, can't do 
that for exactly that reason. All the property that we receive 
at the State level has to either be donated within 12 months, 
or when we turn it back in or sell it, it's with GSA. GSA does 
get proceeds of that. So those--it doesn't happen that those 
items just--we just hold onto stuff for a year and then turn it 
into profit. Just like our donees have to use it.
    Mr. Meadows. Which I understand that's the way it is today. 
But I guess what I'm saying is, does that change under this new 
scenario? If you get fee title to it in 12 months, does that 
change that? Or would they still have to compensate? Would they 
still have to compensate the FBI, let's say? Would the State of 
Georgia still have to compensate, if they kept it for 12 months 
and on the 13th month they sold it, would they have to 
compensate the FBI?
    Mr. Sisk. No, sir. I don't believe they would.
    Mr. Ekin. Under the current regulations, we would be 
compensating GSA. GSA conducts the sale.
    Mr. Meadows. No, I understand that. That is what I'm 
saying. He's talking a new--here's my concern, Mr. Sisk. This 
is not a complicated problem. This is not rocket science. I 
mean, I can tell you I can go buy an off-the-shelf program 
today that would track this and be able to sort it. In fact, if 
you need some help with that, I can probably get you four or 
five vendors that would fall all over themselves to do it very 
cheaply, where Ms. Ochoa doesn't have to come back and check on 
it, because it would actually be sortable, and we could track 
it. Then it becomes an ideological problem on whether we supply 
it to the State of Georgia or whomever. But what it sounds like 
is you're about to change a program because you won't fix the 
reporting. Am I wrong there?
    Mr. Sisk. Sir, we're fixing the problems, sir, there with 
the inventory process. We absolutely agree with you that the 
process was not--it had shortcomings, and we're fixing that. We 
are exploring different options on how to improve the process 
going forward. None of these decisions are final. We are----
    Mr. Meadows. But they were in your testimony.
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir, they were. So we're going to continue 
to work with our Office of Inspector General. We're going to 
work with our Office of Government-wide Policy just to explore 
different options. And we would certainly welcome the 
committee's input as well.
    Mr. Meadows. The ranking member has been very gracious. 
I'll----
    Mr. Connolly. Not at all. I completely agree with you, 
where you're headed, Mr. Chairman.
    Is it correct, Mr. Sisk, that in all of 2015, a total of 57 
firearms were donated?
    Mr. Sisk. I believe it was 73, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Seventy-three?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Even so, given all the grief, wouldn't it 
have been easier to destroy them? I mean, you can't argue that 
it makes an appreciably significant impact on local governments 
with the number 73.
    Mr. Sisk. I understand that, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. And given all of the headaches and a bad IG 
report and congressional hearings--and now we're going to 
consider legislation about whether you're even the right agency 
to be disposing of these--why not just destroy them?
    Mr. Sisk. I certainly understand that, sir. I think the 
intent of the program was where the Federal Government had 
excess firearms that could help local law enforcement, that 
that was the purpose of the program, was to get that equipment 
to local law enforcement.
    Mr. Connolly. But you would concede it's gone awry?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir. We definitely have issues with our 
inventory process, yes, sir, that we're addressing.
    Mr. Connolly. But even on the receiving end, I know it's 
not necessarily indicative of the whole program, but the 
example of the two grenade launchers is instructive. It goes to 
a small town in South Carolina. And there's no one with a 
straight face at the State level who could have said: I think 
they need grenade launchers there in Cayce. And, of course, 
they didn't because Cayce promptly sold them illegally.
    Mr. Meadows. That was a good South Carolina accentby the 
way.
    Mr. Connolly. I'm from Virginia, as you know. And they 
didn't need them, apparently. They sold them for revenue in 
violation of the contract, but they did. And so that is also 
troubling. There's no substantive analysis or set of vigorous 
criteria to guide this program. And that--when it's tainted at 
the very beginning of the program, no wonder we got problems at 
the end of the program. And I could understand if we're talking 
about, you know, 73,000 or 730,000 weapons or firearms; we got 
to get our arms around this. But the number is so small; it 
makes you wonder whether it's worth the grief. And that's 
something that, seems to me, the Federal Government ought to 
consider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Meadows. I want to thank each one of you. And let me be 
clear, Mr. Sisk. I understand that this is an inherited problem 
for both you and your boss. And so I would say that the 
commitment to get it in the heat of which you've had to respond 
to questions today, we understand that you're not the causal 
effect of this.
    But let me also share, the OIG has done great work in 
identifying this. I still have questions of whether they were 
asked to come in or they came in. And that's a moot point 
because people have moved on. But let me be clear in that what 
we don't want to do is to ignore the work that the IG and their 
committed staff has done. And so we're going to stay on top of 
this. The American people don't understand it. I don't 
understand how something so simple can't be done. We can put a 
man on the Moon, and, yet, we can't track firearms going to 
State agencies.
    At the same time, I don't want it to be, Mr. Ekin, be 
viewed as anything--I understand, I've gotten rural law 
enforcement officers that have participated, you know, 
sometimes getting pistols that, truly, they wouldn't be able to 
afford in their local budget. I get that. But where I do come 
with this, Mr. Sisk, is, is that the time is now to fix it. And 
what I don't want--what I would ask you and if I could get your 
commitment that you, within the next 120 days, will have not 
only a plan in place but more than just a visionary statement 
in an opening remark, that we have, within 120 days, where 
we're tracking this, where at least the problem stops in 120 
days, and that you've implemented all of the IG's 
recommendations. So I have your commitment that you will do 
that?
    Mr. Sisk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Meadows. Okay.
    With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for your time 
today on this important topic. And if there is no further 
business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]