tv Oversight Hearing Examines Military- Civilian Transfer of Excess Equipment CSPAN July 31, 2017 3:11pm-4:00pm EDT
[inaudible conversations] >> ending today's conference with a group photo here at the respectability conference. you, watch all of the speakers from the conference on disables on the web site, c-span.org. some new from capitol hill on health care. a coalition of house republicans and democrats, calling themselves the problem solvers caulk, plan to release fixes for the current health care law they hope will game traction after the senate failed to pass a repeal. they focus on stabilizing the insurance markets and then pushing for changes that have gotten bipartisan support in the past. you can read more details on the plans online. politico only.com.
a law passed in 1997 allows state and local police to buy excess military equipment at a reduced cost. pentagon officials testified on capitol hill on the program last week about strengthening requirements on who can buy and transport the equipment. >> good morning this hears comes to ordinaries, called this hearing of the house armed services subcommittee of readiness to get -- of the house armed services committee on the continued oversight of the transfer of excess military equipment to civilians, law enforcement agencies to order. >> i would like to comment the our clerk, this is jody's last official event for our subcommittee and i want to permanently thank her --
personally thank her for her contributions to our efforts the past year. wish their the best of look as she moves forward. thank you, eddy. [applause] >> one objective of the subcommittee is to -- this includes programs or activities which face management challenges, present budget implications or could be administered more einitially of whatever the across causes it is our goal to provide necessary oversight in order to ensure our armed forces achieve the highest levels of readiness possible. given the current threats facing our nation and the budgetary pressure on the -- various oversight can help ensure that mistakens don't happen, when they do we learn lessons for
missteps. for this reason i'm very grateful we have convened this hearing today on the recent government accountability office gao report highlighting disease sis found with the management and operation of the law enforcement support office. leso, within the defense logistics agency. the leso is responsible for the 1033 program which has provided tremendously valuable resours so our federal, state and local law enforcement agencies since 1991. these necessary items have contributed to law enforcement's ability to conduct counter-narcotics, counterterrorism and border security missions throughout the united states and ensure that items already paid for by the taxpayer continue to protect and serve the citizen of the united states. this month, the gao record stated that the dla managed leso
program inappropriately assigned more than 100 controlled items with an estimated value of $1.2 million. this revealed deficiencies in the process for verification and approval of federal law enforcement agency applications, and in the transfer of controlled property. the department of defense, dla, and leso program must improve it monitoring management andded a administration of this critical and important program. read the gao recommendations very carefully, and applaud dla for taking a very pro-active approach to addressing the shortfalls and immediately acknowledging amazingly enough, immediately imagining the problems identified. i look forward to hearing what progress the dla has made and continuing to remedy these various deficiencies. our oversight intends to ensure the taxpayer dollars are used responsibly, security is
maintain for sensitive items and accountability of equipment is never taken for granted. the panel will dress the fine examination recommendations of the gao report as well as the actions taken by dla to creque, identify deficiencies. i now turn to our very valued ranking colleague, madeline bordall of 0 guam. >> thank you, mr. champion, for calling this important hearing on the recent gao report on the dod excess property program, known as the 1033 program. and thank you also to our four witnesses for being with us today for what expect to be an insayingful discussion. i understand the value of the 1033 practice it allows federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to fill critical equipment shortfalls at little
to no additional cost to the taxpayers. leveraging excess dod property. now, many of those items are noncontrolled, can be purchased at any office supply or furnish store, and help alleviate budgetary stress. particularly on local agencies. however, this equipment can also be controlled property. items that are sensitive in nature and cannot be released to the general public, such as firearms, and military grid imagery technologies, and that is what makes the gao report particularly concerning. not only does it highlight the negligence with which dla treated property procured with taxpayer dollars but it demonstrates a dangerous vulnerability that could compromise the safety of the american people. so i am particularly appreciative that gao conducted this operation and delivered this report bus it brings to
light vulnerabilities and allows to us conduct critical oversight on the handling of equipment to ensure reforms are in place to better secure the transfer program. i am deeply disturbed, however, by the prospect that a malicious individual or organization could procure dod property, especially controlled items. understanding this is likely a result of combination of issues including inadequate protocols and safeguards, insufficient training and potential cultural errors. i expect to dig down on how this program needs to be reform. look forward to the discussion here this morning and hope we can come away with clear objectives and steps forward to ensure this program has the proper safeguards and accountability in place. mr. chairman, i thank you again for holding this important meeting and i yield back. >> thank you, congresswoman.
we're pliesed to recognize our witnesses it to. i want to thank them for taking time be with us. we have monday zina merritt. mr. wayne mcelrath of the government accountability office. mr. mike scott the deputy director of logistics operations of the defense logistics agency, and mr. mike cannon, the director of the defense low. >> s disposition services we'll begin with statements from each organization. we'll begin very appropriate live with the government conditionability office, mr. merritt. >> chairman wilson, ranking member bordallo and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today with my colleague, wayne
mcelrath. our testimony summarize key finding from the july 2017 report on dod excess controlled property and addresses, one, how federal, state and local enforcement agencies reported using and benefiting from the transferred property and, two, the extent to which the defense logistics agency, or are 0dla has taken actions to enhance processes, including internal controls related to transfer of property. the dod has full authority extra transfer property to federal, state and law enforcement agencies. dla disposition services administers the law enforcement support office, olo proms. during the years 2013 through 2015, dod had reported transferring approximately $1.1 billion of excess controlled property to law enforcement agencies.
controlled property typically involve sensitive equipment and items. that cannot be released to the public, such as detonation robots, small arms and resistant ambush protected vehicles of mraps. law enforcement officials cited a number of ways in which they had been fitted from the program, which several reporting the transfer of controlled property allows them to save money. the reported use is including enhancing counter-drug and counterterrorism activities, search and rescue, natural disaster response, and police training. dla has taken actions to enhance processes for the program in response past recommendations made by gao as well as do and dla offices of inspector general. dla has taken step cities recognize weaknesses in processes and proceed ears mostly at the state and local
levels and our july report we noticed weaknesses at the federal participant level in threeer. one, verifying and approving applications. two, transferring property and, three, assessment of risks. through creating a fix tissue federal agency we gained access to the program attained itemed with an estimated value of $1.2 million, including nation vision goggle, simulated rifles and simulated pipe bombs could which be lee that if modified with economy al shay available items. images of the items are pictures on the graphic boards here today. specifically in our report include dlas internal controls for verifying and approving federal agency applications and enrollment in the program were not adequate. specifically less reliance on electronic communication without
verification does not allow it to properly vet amply applicant. servingly there war defersives in the transfer dla not requesting requesting and verifying identification of individual us picking up property. third, while dla has taken some steps to address identified diseasesives in the program, dla lacks a comprehensive framework for instituting fraud prevention and mitigation measures at all stages of the process. dla officials acknowledge they have nod conducted a full assessment. overall, we concluded in our report that dla's internal controls did not provide reasonable assurance in preventing fraud. therefore we made four recommendations to dla. one, review and revise poly or procedures for verifying and approving applicants. two enshire differ position services officials verify that persons picking up items have
valid credentials. three, issue guidance that requires disposition services officials to verify the juans and type of items being picked up before hand and, lastly, contact fraud risk assessment to design and implement its strategy with specific enter control activities. dod con kurd off our recommendations and highlighted actions to address each one. chairman wilson, ranking member and members of the subcommittee that concludes my prepared statement mitchell colleague and i would be happy ask and pleased to respond to any questions you pray have. >> thank you, mr. marry rid, and your professionalism is very, very impressive. mr. mcelrath. >> would you like to make a preparation? >> thank you very much. and we now proceed to the defense logistics agency, mr. scott. >> chairman wilson, ranking
member, distinguish it committee members, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the defense logistics agency's arizona meteorologist and execute of the 1033 program, also known as the law enforcement support office program or leso program. i'm mike scott, deputy director dla logistics operations. with me tied is mr. mike cannon, the director of dla distribution services. we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the july 2017gao report on department of defense excess property and advise you over actions we have taken to further strengthen our processes. dla disposition services, a field activity of dla, is responsible for the final disposition of excess property received from the military services. dla disposition services also administers and executes the 1033 prom through leso. about 7500 federal and state law enforcement agencies across the 50 states and u.s. territories
actively participate in the program. 30 federal agency headquarters are currently enrolled. these are the higher headquarters to at the 345 federal law enforcement activities participating in the program. dla has worked extensively over the last several years to improve the state and local side of the program, which is 96% of total participation. while the gao's recent review did validate infantments made in the state and local program, it also highlighted vulnerabilities in the federal program. dla takes the findings very seriously, and is actively addressing and crequeing the deficiencies. -- correcting the deficiencies inch september 2015dla began an improvement effort to strengthen the federal program. we implemented robust controls in our federal program which already exist in our state program. specifically, we have addressed a procedure -- revised our procedures for verifying and approving federal agency
applications for enrollment. first dl a requires an executive level representative in the federal agency designate a point of contact in writing. this pc is the agencies coordinator who will validate and enforce all enrollment applications and all equipment requests for field activities. second, dla now requires the po troh sign a memorandum of understanding outlining and accepting their responsibilities for management of their program. we have sent all 30 current federal agency hawks this mou and 12 agencies have already signed and returned the mou. third, dla will visit each federal agency headquarters and meet with their poc to confirm eligibility. as of today, dla has visited 22 federal agency headquarters. additionally, dla has strengthened the internal approval process for enrolling federal agencies.
first, we have designated a federal lea liaison to manage them application process. southbound, dla will utilize the fbi's national crime information center, or ncic database, to verify the legitimacy of all organizations. finally, the leso program imaginer is now required to approve all federal makes as a second level internal review. with regard to the gao findings on process weakness for verification of customer identity and the type and quantity of property issued, we have taken the following actions. first, we immediately conducted remedial training at the site's gao visited. second, we man dated reinforcement training at disposition sites. we're 50% complete anden or tragic to finish two months ahead of schedule. third we added this topic as an emphasis topic to to temperature
spines program, which includes no notice spot inspections and management review inch response to the gao recommendation to conduct a fraud risk assessment as outlined in fraud risk framework, dla headquarters, specifically our dla inspector general office, and my logistics operation director, will lead this effort with services. dl has moved to enhance controls in the 1033 program and remain committed to continuous process and improvement to make sure we provide the best possible support to law enforcement agencies in their critical mission. chairman wilson, ranking member and members of the committee, we thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue and are prepared to answer any questions you have. >> mr. cannon?
>> sir, mr. scott spoke on behalf of the agency. >> thank you. it really is remarkable that an agency acknowledges an arrow occurred and it's taken positive response. we appreciate your service. i'm really grateful today we have really talented members of the subcommittee here. people who are really dedicated to the american people some so many are here, very thickety follow the five minute cruel he haved some some very talented, drew warren who is going to keep the five-minute rule beginning with me. mr. marry rid, or mr. macelrath, how did you determine the specific result, that led to the decision that the -- the specific vulnerabilities that led to the decision they control measures by using a fictitious agency -- how did you determine that? we appreciate your being pro-active. >> i'll start the response. while we were actually conducting some of our field
work in some states, we were revealing the names of the applicants, and as we were reviewing the names of those particular applicant we noticessed one applicant that had a title that did not seem to be legitimate agency. while doing that, we questioned dla and they acknowledged that was an entity in which they had been investigating and continued to investigate. so that is one of the key triggers for this, as well as we mad made a number of recommendations over the years to tighten controls and we wanted to ensure the recommendations were properly implemented. my colleagues probably will have a little bit to add to that response. >> based on the information we received from our defense capables team, we actually formulated a plan to develop a false or fictitious law enforcement entity and created an online presence. after that we submitted an application to dla for approval.
we went through anywhere online enrollment process and then actually went on the online ordering system to actually acquire goods. >> now, that's amazing. i appreciate your being -- we all appreciate you being pro-active. additionally, how do you assess the defense logistic agency's current administration of the 1033 program, and how does this compare to what you officially found during the beginning of your investigation last year in 2016? >> as noted, we briefed dla continuously on the progress of our work, including their inspector general's office. and in may we had formal meeting with them where we fully disclosed our findings to them. at that point in time they told us about some actions they started relating to the application, for example, they had modified their application. as the review continued they
also had gun developing the memorandums of understanding at that time. so no short, a number of actions were already commencing. as we continued and got closer to the expend they realized we had in fact posed as a fictitious organization and obtained items, then they also note thread were additional actions they were going to take in order to close those particular gaps in their processes. >> thank you. and for mr. scott, your service for security of the american families is very important with the 1033 program. what is the process for law enforcement agencies to obtain control el items, what initial steps in the authorization process for obtaining the items has been considered in light of the government accountabilities office investigation? >> mr. chairman, as the gao said, our process previous to
finding out what they were able to accomplish, required mr. cannon's organization worked directly with the federal law agencies. there was an application that had to be filed. they had to provide statutes of authority. special agents, senior agents in charge had to sign the applications to be able to get into the program. but as you heard, that our controls were not adequate. we recognize that. we started our efforts to improve the federal program prior to the gao starting their effort and i will say immediately i think the first meetings we head with them were in march 20617 when we learned what they were able to do in their investigation. by april 3rd we had implemented additional things you have heard about and those include now that we get an executive level sponsorship from the federal agency. we have a poc identified going forward.
we visit those organizations to validate. we are now going to use the fbi database to ensure that the organize is correctly loot thread and they're legitimate. those are all things we have added and we believe those processes will prevent this from happening in the future, mr. chairman. >> they're very response safeguards. i believe there were the recommendation. still one pending, is that it being acted upon? >> yes, it is. as mr. scott mentioned they're scheduling with thedy in my headquarters to do the fraud risk assessment. >> thank you very much. congresswoman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cap nonand mr. scott, the gao recommendations included strengthen internal controls and reviewing identification authorization protocols. now, given what we know now, what is your level of confidence that such a violation will not happen again? and secondly, recognizing that
only four to seven percent of transfers are controlled, should dla temporarily suspend the transfer program for controlled items until the problems are fixed? you state that changes have already been made, but then we wouldn't be here if there wasn't still a problem. so, will it happen again? or should we suspend the program until changes have been made? >> i'll take that, ma'am. first of all, the control measures we have in place i'm confident will preclude this from happening again. as mr. scott alluded to or mentioned, we now require a very similar to the tying controls we had implemented in state and local procedures, federal executive appointment of their poc, a face-to-face visit tone sure that they're compliant, and then as a backup, national -- the ncic database check to verify they're a valid agency. with those controls in place, i
am confident that this won't happen again. >> all right. second par of my question. >> yes, ma'am. in match when we got a brief and discussed this with the gao, i immediately suspended release of all property to federal agencies until we could put the controls in place, those controls include a memorandum of understanding, which we had began developing over a year ago. that memorandum or understanding was finalizedded in dla in december 20616, and until the agencies completely new requirement is do not release any additional property. >> you don't think you -- the program should be suspended, it that what you're saying? >> no, ma'am. >> mr. can don, dod responsibled to gao recommendation bits stating that, and i quote, to dla currently has policy requiring onsite officials to request and verify identification from all
customers. what if any disciplinary actions have been taken againsted and te supervise sponsor for the training and approved the fictitious application for enroll independent the law enforcement support office program? approved the request to property or conducted the transfer of the property without following proper procedures? how is dla determining who is responsible? >> ma'am, we are looking at records to determine the type of property that was released and where so we can determine as best we can the individual or individuals responsible. now, prior to that, as soon as we identified the locations that the property came from, we immediately conducted remedial training for every person that site for for the control measure we had in play that were not followed. since then we have also added additional emphasis on our controls when do our semi annual self-inspection.
when we do our biannual compliance review, when die by no-notice site visits and the headquarters comes down do visits as well. anytime an individual is found who is either behavioral or performance is not up to standards, we take appropriate corrective actions, depending on the circumstances. >> what kind of disciplinary action would you take? are you releasing the people, changing their positions or what? >> i have a range of, as to take depending on the circumstances and the situation, and i have taken actions for infractions everywhere from a letter of counseling to dismissal. so the range is open, depending on the situation, ma'am. >> okay. one quick question. miss merritt, the majority of your report focused on the application, approval and
transfer of excess property, can you provide insight what you served with respect to account ability and tracking of controlled property, both at the disposition site and once transferred to a federal, state or local law enforcement agency. i don't have much time left. >> sure. at the federal level, we did observe win case in which one federal organization in d.c. was not aware of how much property had been transferred to that agency or to its respective activities in the field. that was quickly remedied. they were able to obtain a list and temporarily halted any approval at that time. at this local and state sites themselves, that actually went pretty well because they had a state coordinator, a lot of the processes were being double checked and so unlike the federal level, there were mow checks and balances at the state and local level.
>> thank you very much. yield back. >> thank you, councilwoman. we now proceed to austin scott of georgia. >> thank you. my questions for the dla you said are you recognized the problem prior to gao examination, is that correct? >> , that. >> when did you fir recognize the problem? >> we first started our efforts to improve the federal program in september of 2015. we began by bringing in federal agencies for more training to ensure they knew how to properly work with the program, and that quickly lid to the beginning of the development of the memorandum of understanding. and at the point when we heard in march of 2017 the investigative -- what happened, as you heard, we quickly moved item policemen additional procedures. >> but you said your efforts began in ' 15678 when did you first recognize you had a problem? >> we recognized that the
control measures in place for the federal agency were not as robust as those for the state and local agencies in late 2015 as we discussed. >> so it was -- >> the -- the from with the federal agency participants. >> you firs ricked knee problem in 2015. you were taking corrective actions but did now expedited the actions until the do report. >> correct. >> so most of the items on the boards north lethal items. would the controls have been different if they had been firearms or a lethal item? >> we have additional application process in place for items such as weapons and for armored vehicles and aircraft so there's a more thorough application process that they would have had to go through for those items. >> so defense in the threshold is based on the lethality or the cost of the item or what leads
to the additional measures? >> when we did our risk analysis, internally, we determined in conjunction with guidance from the white house committee and the white house review, permanent working group, that extra controls were in place. we have always had extra controls in place for weapons and armored vehicles and aircraft. so it's based on the type of equipment and the potential use of that equipment. >> okay so it would be potentially somebody used something fake to obtain something from the government and then turn around and sell it on the ebay or at a pawn shop? or something along those lines do. do we have any report of the -- >> the ones -- the ones that occurred before you recognizing something happened for you to recognize you had a problem.
did -- would was there a misrepresentation or theft of items through misranges. >> as we look at our controls in place for the federal program we noticed they were not as stringent as the state and local program. so our efforts were to make the programs more similar in the levels of control, not that anything had again out but that to prevent things from going out, sir. >> you do not believe that anybody misrepresented something to obtain something from free or at a discount from the federal government and then turn around and sell it for a profit. >> i have no knowledge of that happening. >> do we know where the items are. >> we noer where all the item from the gao report are, yes, sir. >> with that shade, mr. chairman, that answers the
questions i had. aim i'm happy we know where the items and are appreciate the additional measures nut place. it's an important program. i know a lot of the discussions revolve around the larger equipment. i happen to know a sheriff's deputy fairly well that stepped out of a bearcat and as he stepped out of it, bug shot hid the window and had he been in a normal squad car he wouldn't be with us today. we'll make sure we get our law enforcement officers the equipment they need to do their job. >> thank you very much, congressman scott for your insight and person view, too, which i agree with. thank you. we're grateful now to proceed to copyman anthony brown of maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i present that you and be ranging member have convened this hearing and to look into this very important issue.
my question really goes to a little bit of a broader look at the 1033 program in response to protests in ferguson, following the killing of michael brown, president obama issued an executive order that included the creation of a dods and justice department working group. according to the project that group has not met since january of this year, with the new -- under the new administration. in fact president trump has indicated he intends to rescind the previous administration's executive order that ensured vital training for environment acquisition and that is of concern to me. i'm also concerned that the transfer of armored vehicles and high powered firearms as well as many other controlled items, makes our police stations look more like forward operating base. it would sunle me to see mine resistant ambushing
approachedded armored vehicles controlling the streets. i do get the importance of the program. it's below proportionality. my question is does the agency take to into account the actual or potential threat that a community faces prior to delivering these military style equipment? >> coming congressman, we active live support the permanent working group out. vice director of the agency is our lead on that group. as you may know that group looked very closely at the cat categorization of items, which should be prohibited and which should be controlled. they completed another look at that in september of '16, going into the fiscal year, and we take that seriously.
when we get the applications, we apply the decisions made from that permanent working group on what is allowed for us to execute. we execute the program. but that group, when they made those determines e determinations in those good at cores, they brought in a number of different folks to have those discussions, that included experts on the use of those type of weapons. it included civil liberties leaders. it included law enforcement leaders. >> if i can just jump in because i don't have too much time. can the small city of in prince georges county with 12,000 residents acquire the same type of equipment that the city of baltimore can obtain or do you do some sort of, again, risk assessment, potential threat, training, capabilities of the local enforcement agency? >> all requirements have to first pass through the state coordinator, then mr. can gone's group also reviews that. they review it against the size
of the force, and the number of items that they're allowed to have. the training for the item is -- -- that goes back on the law enforcement agency, dod -- >> do you require the training. >> we require that they show and state that training. >> thank you. just a little bit of time left. what efforts, if any -- i think you may have touched on the -- is the dla taking to work not only with local law enforcement but also alongside community members? i heard you mention community members in your response through the 1033 transfer process. >> sir, one of the requirements that we have levied on at the program for state and local agency is before they receive property from us and enroll in the program, they must be approved by their governing body. so whether that's the state or county, but whoever oversees that body, must proof not only
participation but were drawl of property. >> so the seed pleasant city council. >> if they were in the program. >> one final followup. are there any restrictions on transferring equipment under the 1033 program when in the local law enforcement agency is under investigation by the doj for any violation of civil rights and is that addressed in consent orders that the handful currently in place? >> we coordinated we the depression of justice and anytime they have concerns with a department rerestrict the transfer of property to that department until they tell is otherwise. >> so it's not a -- you evaluate whether it ought to be restricted or if there's a violation you restrict? >> doj evaluates and then advises us to restrict. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> thank you, councilman brown
negotiation proceed to vicky from mississippi. >> i appreciate both of the good work of the gao and the dla in addressing this real issue here. so, please discuss the process for law enforcement agency to obtain controlled items. what other step friday in the there's process for obtaining items were considered in lying of the gao's investigation? >> the process that we have in place for our states and locals is a similar process we have >> to counter-drug, counterterrorism and border patrol responsibilities, but for things like mraps we look at a local ability for law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support and if
there's mutual support available from another close-by law enforcement agency we 0 won't apportion them an mrap. we won't give the county and city both an m reach they're in the same loaning indication. for weapons we authorize one per paid officer and for vehicles it's clip typically one vehicle, like a human -- humvee for every three officers. >> given the gao created a fictitious agency that was approved how does dla plan to rival date the law enforcement agencies currently enrolled in the program to ensure each enrollment is verified as being legitimate an eligible law enforcement agency and how long will the process take and what impact on approving new applications? >> so, for the federal side of the program, as we discussed earlier, all of those are suspended until they come forward and comply with our new
procedures with the mou, the poc, our visit to see them, and our confirming their identities in the fbi database. we think those requirements are both sound to ensure dig grit to the program, and they're also reasonable for a federal agency to comply with. on the state side of the program, we also intend to be pro-active and go back and retroactively look at every single one of those organizations against that fbi database as well, just to ensure that we don't have notwithstanding else there. >> the gao report mentions an annual training conference for state coordinateddors and representative brown talked about the training and the state coordinators take the training. if the training its provided why are law enforcement agencies recording the need for more training on laso program policies and why did you feel the need develop an online training tool? why does this training vary
within the states? >> we do an annual conference next month in nor folk, virginia, where we train and advise the state coordinators on the policy and thin the state coordinators are responsible to train the trainer to train their leas. some states do that better than others. to augment that, we have developed some online training and we offer over he phone for skype-based training if they need training on how to get into the program, how to work the program, how to account for property. we also have what we call job aids which are basically checklifts to help them do the step by step procedures. go every other year to every state to review their program and to inventory a large number of their property. we provide training as required as requested while we happen to be there visiting that lea. >> the online training qualifies
to replace the additional -- at the training the state may have? is it either-/or just supplement. >> it's to supplement, ma'am. >> when we conduct the fraud risk assessment, we noted the number of leas that ask for more training and we'll make that part of what we look at under that review and go to the extent of dod's ability to provide additional training. >> thank you very much. you're taking very pro-active steps and we appreciate you doing that. yield back. >> thank you very much, congresswoman, we proceed for congresswoman carol shea, porter of new hampshire. >> i'm concerned about this and also very puzzled. seems to me that there's more red tape to open up a doughnut shop than there is to get this equipment or that there was. and i'm puddled as to how the
rules and regulations could have been so loose that they were able to create this fictitious agency to receive this material. so, can you please walk me back to the beginning, who drafted these regulations that allowed -- as i listen to you now and you say, and i'm glad you're doing that -- that now you identified consistent of contact and -- point of contact. but common sense is they should have been there at the beginning. i'd like you to walk me back to the beginning. who drafted this, obviously with so many holes it was possible for the gao to do this and knows who else -- and i also would like to see that the people who drafted this clearly are not competent enough to handle this work, and so i'm not comfortable with the answer of, well, we're going to go back and we have several possibilities. this is a question of confidence. this was a serious job and the failed the people of this
country itch appreciate your comments on that. >> the 1033 program management was transferred to the defense logistics agency disposition services in very late 2008, through -- we completed the transfer in 2009. we are following procedures from there. the procedures we had in place requiring the leas to complete a thorough application, to have a regional special agent in charge required to sign the application and have the statute was defining insufficient and we have made putt. improvements. there maximum was not pleadly proof and it took several months before the application was approved but it was approved and should not have been elm tyingenned up the procedures since then.
>> congresswoman, we view it just as seriously. the other things that have been reviewed here -- again, our view of those controls was that with mr. cannon's group working directly with those federal organizations and the things he went through that we did have the controls in place. that clearly is not the case. the program has also been reviewed by external folks. previous gao records. we have hadden in independent review of the program by the rand corporationment the. the external reviews did not identify the deficiencies. now that we know them, we are all over it to make sure it never happens again. >> they now have to show an i.d.
they didn't have to show an i.d. >> when someone symptoms to a disposition service site, to pick up property, everyone is required to present an i.d. and follow proper sign insure procedure. we always had to the measures in place, in this case to the measures were nod adequately followed. what i have done is i immediately at the three locations -- i don't know the specifics because the gao report didn't identify them but were able to fishing out the locations they went to and we immediately conducted remedial training on everybody to main sure they were following the protocols are in in place, and then since -- then we start -- actually brought my six field leaders to battle creek, michigan, to headquarters to talk to them about this face-to-face in the first -- second -- >> the last few minutes of the hearing take you live to the senate where members are debating a judicial nation for the 11th circuit court and at 5:30 eastern they'll hold a vote