[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]