tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 17, 2013 10:00am-12:01pm EST
>> coming up today on c-span we will take you live to capitol hill for -- capitol hill. this in the wake of the september navy yard shooting in which 13 people were killed, including the gunman. that is at 10:30 a.m. eastern. looking at violence in the central african republic as the death toll rises from clashes between christian militias and were supporters of the muslim presidency. here on c-span. over on the senate floor, the chamber about to take a key procedural vote on the
bipartisan two-year agreement past by the house last week. the measure looks to have enough support from both democrats and had a handful of republicans to clear the 60 boast filibuster threshold. for more on the budget agreement and the current action in the senate we spoke with the capitol hill reporter. >> would you tell us what happened today in the senate? >> today's going to be on the boat to get the deal supported. tell us a little but about the republicans that are planning to report it? seven membersut that are going to support it, and not all have committed to voting on the final passage of the bill.
he's a close ally of john boehner who close this deal in the house, passerby 332 votes. like it will squeak by. randing it are those like paul. center republican leaders may also vote against it. mitch mcconnell, the senate minority leader, has not publicly come out and assured john boehner and others. he is expected to vote against it because the deal increases pending in the long-term. >> where democrats as far as this plan is concerned? all 55ership expect
democrats that are in that caucus, and independence to support the vote. it is not entirely clear if they have all lined up. the independence were holding his vote. he is angry that the jobless benefits are expired -- expiring. --ot of people losing fax access to expanded benefits in the new year. his office was saying yesterday he is still undecided. that is one issue. havesas and north carolina the most potable members and the upcoming elections, most likely to lose their seats to a
republican. out publicly come in support, but they made during the 10:00 a.m. vote today. >> lindsey graham of south ofolina of and roger mississippi, all republicans, will big military families to the senate on sunday to protest the cuts. do you have any information about that? them toould expect support this deal, they have been pushing all along for the sequester to be reduced as per the military. going beforet is the senate would avoid an additional $20 billion cut to the pentagon. these members are known as the most hawkish members on their side. the way that the deal replaces the sequester cut there's about a $6 million cut to military
garment benefits. this is influencing the way that cost of living works out over the long-term grow so younger retirees can see their benefits cut the most. this is common sense reform to what they see as an overly generous retirement package. this was struck at the last minute. paul ryan was originally cut -- pushing for a cut that would come in the form of an increase of payroll contributions for but a last-minute negotiation that was changed to future enteral civilian workers at a $6 billion cut to military retirees. joining us from the help. -- hill. if it passes today, that what? both partiesat
have been battling on the poor -- on the floor since the nuclear option to end the filibuster on the executive nominees it is likely that that will be taken up. at the end of that time there will be a final vote on that. it will be ready close given that the way that this is all breaking out. pass.ould be expected to >> what is the agenda as far as the senate is concerned on this week before a holiday? >> the national defense authorization act, this is the yearly policy document that is passed every year for the past half-century. fallen down on appropriations and budget, they do want to try to keep this record lane -- clean. rejectlity to accept or
it at this point, and not amended. if they amended it it it would go back to the house rate that would be a new can of worms. that is likely to be voted in on wednesday. other important things and clued the damnation of janet yellen to be the chairman of the federal reserve, replacing ben bernanke. harry reid would like to have her confirmed before the senate heads home for christmas, get some sort of hollow see certainty into the economy and stock markets. yellen is going to take over from bernanke at the end of january.- >> again, the senate right now taking that keep ysidro vote. it started a little after 10 a.m. eastern. you watch live coverage right now on these been to. 2. >> if you're in
middle or high school student c- span wants to know what is the most important issue that congress should address next year? videot five-seven minute to enter at possibly when the grand prize. just over 20 minutes we will take you live to capitol hill for a senate hearing on federal building security in the wake of the navy yard shooting. until then, a discussion on u.s. trade policy from today's washington journal. host: joining us on the program is sandy reback. there is a picture of president obama and vice president biden talking to others about trade policy. guest: president obama has really decided to try to reshape the global trading system.
the first was concerned about things like the affordable care act. now he is really turned overseas in many ways and he has a lot of big negotiations going on simultaneously. one in the asia-pacific of the transpacific partnership and it is all part of the pivot to asia. there is concern amongst politicians and the united states, along with other countries in the region. they have grown tremendously economically. the administration believes that through things like trade agreement, that is a way to assure u.s. allies in the region that united states is going to remain engaged in the pacific. host: there are charts showing the trade imbalance and what the
u.s. sent out and takes in. it is a sense on how that applies to the asia specific countries. guest: this deal was not a big deal until this year. a lot of them, the u.s. army has trade agreements with. malaysia and vietnam were to growing markets that were coming in. this year japan decided to join the negotiations. it is a big target for the united states. now primarily due to auto trade japan has more cars here and we saw very few cars there. that is one of the things the administration is trying to address. guest: what is the administration asking for and what are you looking for in return? guest: they are both looking to do things like lower tariffs, taxes on imports.
in japan, those are fairly low. they're trying to adapt agreements and 20th century. this means trying to ensure that information flows freely across borders. united states -- companies have employees. they can bring that information back and also do things to put conditions on state owned enterprises. these are corporations and vietnam. it is a good case of that. the government actually owns and controls a number of the corporations. the idea is to put conditions on those so u.s. countries that are
privately held can compete with those other companies. host: trade agreements is the topic going on. if you want to ask the guest about what you have heard, here is how you can do so -- if you want to tweet is a question or comment, do so at c- span wj. because china is in the background, critics have said this is maybe be a way of containment when it comes to the administration part of the reason they're focusing on this deal. talk about that topic and is there truth to it? guest: others would argue china's looking to join this. this is going to be a high standard agreement. they want to remove most of their barriers to trade. it may be more of a midterm prospect for china to come into the agreement. i think the notion is both in
the agreement -- to raise the standard of trade and give a standard for china going forward. i think that is the better way to look at it. host: are there similarities between the trade agreement to asia and europe? guest: trade agreement start from the basis of the north american trade agreement negotiated back in the 1990s. there are important differences as well. united states is negotiating generally with countries that are developed economies that have equivalent standards of living with the united states. in asia there are a number of developing economies where wages are lower per capita, grossed a mystic product is lower, and that creates its own product -- its own problems as well. where are we on the timeline the
-- on the timeline? guest: there was a meeting of chief negotiators that seems to have resolved some issues. some people have speculated president obama has a trip to asia planned in april. it may be a real push to wrap it up sometime. in many ways that do not seem to be very realistic. it is unfortunate for the administration to try to put it out there and kind of reach it. what they have said is we would rather take our time and get the agreement right. they have done everything they can to preserve the gnome -- preserve the momentum. this is a good indication things are coming down to the final stage. host: are talking about goods or services as well? guest: we are talking services be united states is competitive in service trades.
think of financial services, insurance, health care services. united states has a trade surplus. one of the big targets for this negotiation is to open up the net -- open up the japanese market. services are a real important part of this an increasingly important part of the economy as well. host: we have 2.2 trillion dollars in exports, $2.7 trillion in imports. are those numbers consistent or have the trained overtime? -- have they changed overtime? guest: united states has been a big energy importer for many many years. those count against our trade balance. i heard from some of your calls from the pv a segment talking
about horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, those kinds of things are changing the energy outlook. that could have some affect at affecting the trade balance. there's no question that as companies have grown, especially at age a, our trade balance has gotten worse. it is $300 billion a year. host: is that because people were not holding to the agreements that were written the echo -- that were written? caller: possibly because different stages of economic development. china has had a push on export economy. as china makes a transition to an economy that is more consumption based, we would
expect over time for the trade deficit to listen to some extent. host: you are with bloomberg government, which is what? guest: we provide analysis and the impact of government action. i focus on international trade but we look at defense, health care, finance issues, and those kinds of things. host: here is dave from florida on our republican line. caller: i heard you talk about the competitiveness of our american companies. i wondered how you felt about the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and if that is hurting our competitiveness. guest: is an excellent question and there has been a lot of discussion about the corporate tax rate.
the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered. ours is amongst the highest in the world now. a lot of corporations pay a much lower rate. that can be a disincentive to growth and an incentive for companies to actually perform more of their economic activity and other countries. there seems to be a general realization that that has to come down. it has been difficult to get things through on capitol hill in the past couple of years. host: randy for michigan on the democrats line. caller: i would like to thank all the people for putting this show on. good morning to you. i understand the asian deal with the security side and all that. my question is how do we address the wage gap in that area.
to me the service economy doesn't seem to be working for a good standard of living. that is my biggest concern. i am at the end of my work life. for the younger ones coming up, we do have to grow the country. i think you very much and i hope you have a good day. host: the wage gap is an important concern. a lot of the countries actually involved in the transpacific partnership -- the biggest economy we are dealing with his japan, which is the third
largest economy in the world, which is roughly equivalent to the united states in wages and other indications of economic development. this is something that are -- that rules put into trade agreements to try to address, whether it has been unfair subsidies and kinds of things. it is an issue. the theory of trade is that each country will go to its area of competitive of fantasia. we used to have a very fiber and textile industry. most of that has moved overseas to areas in southeast asia. we now have a vibrant high-tech industry. each country moves to areas of advantage and we moved up the value change. host: the negotiations to include working conditions -- guest: that's right.
there has been a difference between republicans and democrats over the years. democrats favor strict labor and working conditions. republicans favor those but they want to make sure they are not too much of a drag on business. host: what is the response when the u.s. presses these types of issues? guest: like any negotiation, they resist a little bit. we try to give as much as we can in negotiating with -- in negotiations with united states. host: joseph is from maine. our next caller is on the republican line. caller: we have very few shows
here on c-span about this global basically what you are doing is this is perpetrating financial terrorism on the american people. our whole country has spiraled down. the global market, remember, wall street is not part of america anymore. it is basically our enemy. all you have done is you have put communism into something so that we are all headed for $.25 an hour. you guys cannot wait until there is nothing left of this country. you have destroyed it. these -- you guys are traitors. this is treason. this is economic treason. you have just ruined the world at the point of mock slavery. guest: obviously, the caller feels strongly about his views. i think there are areas that look at the financial curve in
recent years. in trade agreements, there are a lot of benefits the united states derives from trade agreements. as we export more to other countries, that produces and supports jobs in the united states. host: even when there are imbalances between what we sent out and what we take it? guest: you do not want united states to have a net trade deficit for a long time. sometimes, those things take a little while to come back in equilibrium. caller: we lost half a million
jobs. you tried to buy furniture and other items in america. as you said, made in vietnam. on the other hand, we give 101 he billion dollars to the import-export bank to subsidize banks so they can build factories overseas so workers who are not almost nothing can be paid. then we have the president's head of the jobs council. where is the equity? where is the balance? there is never any balance. this is moving down to the lowest common labor standards in
the world. guest: there is obviously a lot going on in that question. i have not found convincing evidence that it has itself been responsible for job loss. some argue the trade agreement produced jobs. there is no question there has been a decline in manufacturing jobs in the united states and trade is disruptive. there are winners and losers and it is why there is a program designed to help retrain workers and move them into areas where the united states is very competitive. we are very competitive in services trade. we have the biggest and most competitive technology companies in the world. almost all of them are in the united states. as some industries have declined over time, others have risen up and that is how trade works.
it can be very disruptive and not everybody wins in the game. michael froman is the united states trade representative, the one who is the point person for deals. he is -- he has known president obama for a long time. before he assumed this role, he worked in a supportive role in the national security role. he has a good background coming in and a very good understanding of the issues. he goes out and tries to bring agreements. try to bring these two conclusion in a way that can get through congress. he will be responsible both for negotiating with our trading partners, and then he will be a point person trying to get them through capitol hill because
congress has to vote and approve all of these agreements. host: how much transparency is there in this process? guest: a lot of people would argue not enough. it is a difficult pull and tug on transparency. some groups would like everything out in the open. at the same time, there needs to be transparency. there is a system of about 500 to 600 trade advisers which come from both companies and nongovernmental organizations who are not privy to the text they negotiated. there needs to be as much as
possible. just by reading a sentence, you may not be able to judge, unless you have a history of doing these negotiations, exactly what these words might be in a particular section. host: is someone were to find out the basic texts, are they available online or in the public? guest: the basic tasks are generated not available online or in public. there are previous agreements available if you go to the office of trade representative. it will give you a good idea of the kinds of things these negotiations cover. the current ones are not available. host: here is john from my sister, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. a lot of the points i was going to talk about have already been covered. i just hear little snippets that
come out. that is the idea of our sovereignty. there will be tribunal set up. if a government decides to change environmental laws or labor laws, these signatures can seek retribution or compensation from the government that allows it to happen. is that true or not? guest: a very good question. thank you for that. we have not seen the tax release. i do not know how these things will be worded. there are exceptions in trade agreements for certain reasons that you can take certain policies. for national security, there is a general exception that governments can assume the actions they like to take. same for public health. in some cases, it is true. the difficulty with some environmental protection -- maybe we are doing it because we
want to keep journal -- rochester in the market. host: jesse from california, thank you for holding on our democrat line. jesse? let's go to paula. ohio, independent line. caller: i want to know why it said i have to buy all of these host: your television is on. go ahead and talk to me on the phone and don't listen to the television. caller: i have to buy all of
these products for every country in the world and when i went shopping yesterday for christmas gifts, i went and looked every name that was coming in from the country and i did not see one usa project -- product. it is a shame. that is all i have got to say. guest: thank you for your call. as a consumer, you are free to spend your dollars in any way you would like. one of the reasons foreign products are popular is because they offer good value and come in at a cheaper cost. that is the reason we would like people in the other countries to buy u.s. products as well. we need to remember some products which may come in and are assembled in other countries for example, an ipad made by apple, most of the value of that is actually created by apple in california in terms of intellectual property. even though a product may have a
stamp that says, assembled in china, that does not tell the whole story. a lot of products like that, especially electronics, in many cases with apple, comes from united states. host: good morning, democrats line. caller: yes, i would like to ask you the question, passed and signed into law, are we going to hear this sound we were told about? i was 59 years old when that was set in. we had 3500 workers. here i am at 59 years old looking to retire. instead of that, i had to go find another career. i think trade agreements ought to be fair.
i will take your answer off the phone. guest: thank you for the call. i did not say or do not mean to say it did not affect us. it did affect us. there were jobs lost because some manufacturing went overseas and there is no question about that. trade can be disruptive era for people like you, it can have a negative effect and there is no question about that. a lot of dislocation. most studies i have seen think nafta was a net positive in terms of employment for the u.s. economy. there was one done by the nonpartisan congressional research service that came out earlier this year in february, which looked at some of the employment effects. it is difficult to judge because a lot of things are going on in the economy and not just trade.
their conclusion was it had a beneficial effect on the united states, maybe not as much as supporters had predicted and wanted when it was signed but overall net positive. there are pockets in the economy that are disadvantaged. i am sorry you are one of those. >> we take you now live to a hearing on capitol hill. the homeland security committee is holding their second hearing on the topic. this in the wake of the september navy yard shooting in which 13 people were killed including the gunman. >> they give are joining us of and they give are us again, and again. it is nice to see you all. this important hearing is actually the second in a series of hearings. take all enable us to closer look at federal security for federal facilities. three months ago, as we know, aaron alexis reported to the washington navy yard with a tentative -- with the intention to inflict rain and suffering
with anyone and his past. we do not know now, and we may never be entirely clear on why this tragedy came to pass, but hopefully the lessons learned from a will or by the foundation for preventing teacher tragedies like this one. let's take just a moment to recap our aaron alexis copy access to the navy are then allowed to successfully enter the facility that fateful morning. in 2007, aaron alexis joined the u.s. navy, as with other servicemembers he a background check was performed and he was granted a low level security clearance. after a discharge from the navy to thousand 11, alexis was hired by defense contractor that confirmed he possessed the balance security clearance. this marked him as a test for the individual -- trustworthy individual. it was provided with an id card his accessthorized to several buildings, including
building 197 at the washington navy yard. shortly before 8:00 a.m. on november -- october 16, aaron alexis drove to the red -- front gate of the washington navy yard and displayed his access card. he was admitted by security, parked his car, and walked to building 197. hele entering that nothing encountered to additional security layers, a turnstile that required a that a -- a valid access card, and a security guard. toortunately these were prevent unauthorized access, not to screen for weapons. wereeople working there trustworthy because they had security clearances, and had been vetted. eight minutes after alexis late security he began shooting coworkers using a shotgun that he had successfully concealed. in the wake of the shooting of the washington navy yard this
can really begin a review of security passages and procedures highlighted by the attack. our first oversight in the caret -- security cleared process and that federal agencies have enabled them to determine who should have access to sensitive information or facilities. at that very wake board ways to improve the process and were reminded that quality cannot be sacrificed for speed. the purpose of today's hearing is to review how we physically secure the -- facilities from attack. in many instances security measures again well before a person approaches the facility. to maintain ae security cleared him and he was trusted as a defense clatter that contractor and granted access to a navy complex. he exploited the stress, and he hurt a lot of it is people. the aftermath, it is only natural that we wonder if all people entering a federal facility, in the that even
employees, should be screened in some way? and often usedw phrase from ronald reagan, trust but verify? manyof the examples of undesirable threats facing our federal the syllabus -- facilities. in addition to active shooters, agencies must develop countermeasures for blued that improved explosive devices, biological weapons, and other types of results. examinehearing will federal agency's efforts to develop and maintain effective layers of security at their facilities, and prevent future attacks against innocent people. facility security is not just about protecting the physical structure of a building, it is about safeguarding the millions of innocent people who work and visit these facilities on an almost daily basis. on facilitying
securities is also about honoring the memory of the 12 men and women who died on september 16, earlier this year. by learning for that incident and doing all that we can to prevent a similar tragedy from happening in the future. knowe who work with me that one of my guiding principles is if it isn't perfect, make it better. our goal today is to make sure we know how to do a better job protecting people at facilities. we can start by asking some fundamental questions. first, we need to ask how do federal agencies determine what the threats are to their specific facilities? not every facility is the same rate of large federal buildings in big cities, for example the offered murray building in oakland the city may be target for terrorists because of their size of what they symbolize. however the more likely threat is a small social security office, maybe a and rrs -- and
wherecurity center, someone may be upset and acting badly. we must be successful in prioritizing these risks. as we all know, the world around us is possibly changing. so is the nature of the threats that we face. as a result, methods for security -- securing our homeland should always be under observation and under assessment. because the nature of the threat continues to evolve, the methods we used to consider -- to ensure our homeland must involve my final question, how do agencies respond to these evolving threats? a security measure that made work for one facility may not work for another. ablevery facility might be to be built from 50 feet away from the nearest road to protect
from a vehicle threat. i would to know if agencies are sharing best practices. is the department of defense working with civilian agencies to share his experience? what security measures should be able to did -- should be limited? implemented? years ofhave experience and education and security matters. actions orknow what omissions have taken since the navy are shooting to secure facilities. require some responsibility, and the federal protective services a point a
department of the homeland security to protect those that are older leased by the general administration. the federal protective service has a difficult mission. the agency only employs about a dozen enforcement officers to civilianore than 9000 federal facilities. these facility's are spread out all over our country. while effective services are was possible for assessing security at these facilities, and lacks the authority to let the security measures. the nadir prevents installing metal detectors and x-ray screening equipment at a facility, but it is the local facility security committee that decides whether to authorize and pay for those recommended security measures. governmented accountability office report has highlighted, a number of
internal management challenges have impeded the federal effective services ability to protect facilities. for example, the federal protective service must the bleep the facility security assessment in a timely manner with the share them offices it protects. this service has been able to do that and other agencies have sought to complete their own security assessments, creating unnecessary duplication and waste. the federal protective service must also do a better job of tracking and overseeing the training of the 14,000 contract guards that it uses to protect its facilities. ensure that post is federal law enforcement officers and the armed security guards it uses are appropriately trained, equipped, and prepared. training, the equipment, the preparedness of federal law-enforcement officers and contract security guards is
essential to providing for the security of facilities safeguarded by the federal addictive service -- protective service. in the wake of the shootings at the navy yard and the west virginia courthouse, we cannot afford to be ill-prepared for this type of threat. while director patterson has worked hard to improve the productive service performance, the agency has not received the subordinates from congress. pattersonure director that i am committed to working with him to make the agency more efficient, and more effective. we can start by focusing on the cost-saving and cost neutral solutions that are must more likely to be received by bipartisan support in congress. i have that today's hearing will help us to find better ways to improve security at all but all facilities. there's much to be learned from the navy yard treasury to help us prevent similar incidents in us future -- tragedy to help
prevent similar incidences in the future. turn to theon't senator from north dakota to see if once to make a comment, but i would like to ask her. >> let us proceed. >> ok. i just going to briefly introduce our witnesses, and reintroduce others. i want to introduce us our first itness, caitlin a. durkovich. where we have a newly confirmed secretary, jeh johnson, was approved yesterday by a vote of 78-16. i'm grateful to our colleagues,
both democrat and republican for their support. and he him in place, needs a team to lead, including an able deputy security -- section a of homeland security. durkovich was appointed in may 2012 and leads the departments efforts to strengthen and make resilient our need -- our nation's infrastructure. to oversees its mission best practices in the united states. is generaltness patterson.
patterson was appointed to his vision on september of 2010, as rector mr. patterson oversees the services mission to protect and deliver rater law- enforcement security services to over 9000 civilian federal facilities. to safeguard the more than 1.4 million daily occupants and visitors. here served in the air force for over 34 years, thank you for that service. finally, stephen lewis, deputy director, personnel and security policy within the office of the undersecretary of defense for the intelligence and united states martin of defense. -- department of defense. related to personnel and security. he has appeared before our committee just about a month ago
in the first hearing on the washington navy yard bustle we welcome you all to today, and i ask ms. durkovich to leadoff. >> i apologize to being late -- for being late. i will put my opening statement in the record. >> welcome. please continue, and your welcome to summarize as you see fit. much.nk you, very appear for you today to help honor the memory of the 12 men and women who died at the navy yard him at all of those who have been victims of violence in the federal workplace. as assistant secretary work production i have had the responsibility to lead the overall coordination of the nation's critical infrastructure security and resilience efforts. one of the most rewarding
opportunities i have is to serve as chair of the interagency security aid -- committee for the isc. to oversee the development of standards, reports, guidelines, and best practices of the facilities securities at nearly 400,000 cell billion federal facilities -- civilian federal facilities. the owl fred the murrah-- alfred p citying no, in oklahoma -- the work is based on real world challenges, and focused on cost savings by the on specific security needs of the fate -- agencies. standards defined security measures and design an able
magician of security policies. recently, the isc proceeded that risk management process for the risk management standard. those responsible for security theld use to determine that silly posse to a provides an integrated single source of facility security countermeasures are not federal facilities. explains that risk may be addressed in various ways, the pending on the agency mission needs. for sample, the presence of a childcare center on site has historical significance -- and has merkel significance. 53 federal departments and agencies participate in the isc and take the lead in bringing ideas to the table, and drafting standards and best practices. when agencies cannot solve security related problems on
their own the isc brings chief security officers and senior citizens gather to solve continuing governmentwide concerts. isc mentorship also engages in the development of standards and best practices based on evolving real-world threats. recent events have demonstrated the need to identify measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings in workplace violence -- and workplace violence. the department of homeland security aims to enhance preparedness three whole community approach. active shooter awareness, countering and provides explosive environments -- improvised explosive devices, and workplace violence.
we have hosted workshops and felt online training tools targeted at preparing those who work in these buildings. these events -- efforts and resources have been well received, nor applicable to federal facilities as well as commercial spaces and other government buildings. cognizant of this growing threat, the isc this spring formed a federal active shooter working group of the wall and number of guidance documents previously existed on active shooter preparedness and response. this working group was formed to streamline the existing policy into a single cohesive document. to date, the working group has met five times, and is reviewed numerous documents, including training materials belched by the department for commercial facilities. it will also leverage lessons learned from real incident, such as the navy yard shooting. it is my intention that our work will enhance fairness for an active shooter incident in a
auto facility. threats to our critical infrastructure, including federal facilities are wide- ranging and presently evolving. not only are there terrorist threats like a bombing at the boston marathon this past spring, or the complex shopping attack in nairobi, but whether related threats like hurricane sandy, and cyber attacks that have wrecked impact on the security of our federal buildings. it is impossible to anticipate every threat, but the department is taking a holistic approach to creating more secure and resilient infrastructure environments, to better handle these challenges. and the work of the ic exit devise these efforts. in cheering our -- ensuring our federal facilities is a large undertaking, but the number of departments and agencies ensure that those response will for federal facility security has resources needed to mitigate the threats. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you go and discuss the important work of the isc and ensure that
these real-world events do not happen again. i look forward to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony and work. >> good morning. is eric patterson, and i'm the director of the federal protective service within the national protection and programs director of the department hope all went security. in order to test my plan for the committee -- i'm here to testify before this committee today. we are charged with protecting and integrating law-enforcement services to over 9000 still sell these owned or leased by the general services administration, and safeguard their nearly 1.4 million daily occupants and visitors. 1000 law-over enforcement officers, effective, and special agents who perform a variety of critical functions but including fds contracted
protected security officer oversight, facility security assessments, and uniform please response. our inspectors and special agents receive rigorous training at the lovers for training center, and in the field. this training ensures that our personnel are able to effectively respond to the tens of thousands of calls for service received annually, and conduct thorough assessments in these facilities. relatedsecurity risk, and byte counter replications designed to enable tenant agencies to meet standards for federal facility security. theughout the fsa says, process works with stakeholders to identify and gather all necessary information to characterize the risk unique to each facility. they then build a consensus with
the 10 agencies regarding the type of countermeasures and number of guard posts staffed by contracted officers. --roximally to 3000 approximately 13,000 appointees stand at guard posts. reporting kernel activities, and responding to emergency situations. ps those also ensure prohibited items like fire items other dangerous weapons do not enter federal facilities. stop approximately 700,000 prohibited items from entering facilities every year. fps part is with private committees to ensure that the cards have met the syndication training and qualification requirements specified in the contracts cover a subject areas such as crime scene production,
actions to take in special situations such as building evacuation, safety and fire prevention, and public relations. undergo background investigation checks to determine their fitness to work on behalf of the government, and are rigorously trained. to note it is important that bso's are not law- enforcement officers. there are plays a private security company, and they do not have the authority to deputize in a law-enforcement cap in the -- capacity. they are aced on state pacific laws where they are employed. they conduct inspections and monitorctivities to compliance and countermeasure effectiveness. additionally, within the personnel files, they are audited periodically to evaluate their altercations and trading
records. in fiscal year 2013, they conducted 54,830 inspections and audits. the federal protective service to providing safety, security, and welding to employees every day. we continuously strive to further enhance our organization to meet the challenges of an evolving threat landscape. in fiscal year 2013 alone, the f ps submitted by imitation regarding 13 such incidents -- strategies to improve vacation. six were successfully closed as implemented and seven are
pending internal review for closure. significant progress has also recently made to closing long- standing recommendations relating to handling of training and oversight. while challenges undoubtedly remain, they have successfully closed six outstanding recommendations berkeley related to this program area, and is pending be engineered will reprocess -- pending the internal review assets, will close more. renovations relative to our risk assessment methodology. we decided process to meet the risk management process for federal facilities, and to ensure the stakeholders have an understanding of the threats they face, there begun to provide a threat assessment report as a part of each fsa. indeed to work with the isc to more consequences and impacts of the security
assessments, and explore the inclusion of cost to quizzes -- a consequent is into the process. i would like to knowledge and thank the distinguished members of this committee to testify before them today come and i will be pleased to answer any today and i would be pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, general. mr. lewis, please proceed. thank you chairman carper, ranking member coburn, and senator heitkamp. toppreciate the opportunity be here today to address the procedures of the deity facilities security. i am steve lewis, director of the security policy and oversight directorate. on behalf of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence or usdi. usdi is the staff assistant to the security and the deputy secretary of defense for -- rity matters data sets
and sets dod security policy. this set standards for the protection of personnel, facilities, and related assets. within the department, the ustr's responsibility is committed by those of the assistant security -- assistant secretary of defense. in the wake of the navy yard shooting incident, the secretary of defense initiated concurrent, internal, and independent reviews to identify and recommend actions and adjust gaps or deficiencies in dod programs, policies, and procedures regarding security at dod installations. the reviews covered the granting and renewing of security clearances for dod employees and contractor personnel.
in order to address the department's facilities security practices and policies, it is important to describe the retirement -- the requirement for military commanders or civilian equivalents to conduct a security evaluation of a facility or activity. the purpose of this evaluation is to determine the ability of the insulation to deter, withstand, and recover from the full range of adversarial capabilities. based upon a threat assessment, compliance with protection standards, and risk management. based upon the results of these evaluations, active and passive measures are tailored to safeguard and prevent unauthorized access to personnel, equipment, installations, and information by employing a layered security concept known as security in depth. the department requires the development and maintenance of
plans to address a broad spectrum of natural and man-made scenarios. these include the development of joint response plans to adverse or terrorist incidents such as active shooters and fries access to facilities. unauthorized access to facilities. military commanders and civilian equivalents conduct a local vulnerability assessment and are higher every 3 years to headquarters assessment such as a joint staff phone ability assessment. vulnerability assessment. he had worked hard to produce efficiencies and effectiveness info securities. efforts to harmonize with other federal agencies, the military commanders located in dod occupied facility space not must utilize the risk
management process, including the incorporation of the physical security standards and dod guidance, for example, the unified facilities criteria. dod participates in interagency forums, along with representatives from many other federal agencies and departments. fora unable the sharing of best practices, security standards, and threat information and support of our to enhanceresolve the quality of security of federal facilities. on -- acrossatives the department. the development of an identity management enterprise services architecture, imesa.
approachl provide an to information and complement ongoing efforts. provide real-time vetting of information, require unescorted access to duty facilities, and these will be stateainst dod, federal, and other data sources. imesa users will be able to authenticate credentials to enter a facility. will enhanceesa the security of dod worldwide. >> i am going to call on dr. coburn. then we will lead to senator heitkamp. >> general patterson, go through recommendations that
you all have met and when they were met. my understanding was of the 26 gao recommendations between 2010 and 2012, prior to the navy yard, only 4 of those have been acted on. is that correct? ofi can get you a listing all of the recommendations -- >> and your testimony, you listed several. do that again. >> i don't think i listed them specifically. >> you said numbers, that is what i want. >> i can get you the specifics, i do not have the recommendations before me. the numbers are accurate. there was 20 six outstanding gao recommendations between 2010 and 2012. them had been acted on an accomplished based on the recommendations. you gave a litany of others who have acted on. >> i was give you a general
oversight of the number that we had -- >> give that to me again. submitted, fps documentation foreclosure and consideration pertaining to 13 gao recommendations including humanrategies to enhance capital planning and improved telecommunications. prove tenantnd medications -- and improve tenant communications. 6 were close, seven are pending internal review. >> that is half of them of that
26. my question to the secretary, were you aware that there were 26 outstanding recommendations made by gao. and only 4 have been acted on up until 2013. >> yes. i am aware of the various gao recommendations that are open and that have been closed. from a more high-level standpoint, the department has initiated an overall effort to make sure that all of the open , departmentsations work together with gao to address those recommendations and to take steps to close them. >> when did you initiate that? as recommendations are we beginto us by gao,
our work -- >> i understand that. you said you initiated a process where they would be addressed. >> that is a standard process within the department. and we receive a recommendation from the gao, we have to submit a letter about whether we agree or disagree and that begins the process. i do not have specific oversight recommendations as the assistant secretary for the office of infrastructure protection, i handle recommendations specific to my programs, including the isc. have five open gao recommendations and work closely to document we are doing to address those and provide regular updates to the gao through letters to document what we are doing and the timeline for which we think we will meet the mitigation measures or the measures that we have taken to
address the recommendations. see if i have got this right. the interagency security committee does not monitor agencies for compliance. correct? on the executive order, departments and agencies shall comply with the standards that are produced by the executive -- >> i understand that. -- they do note monitor the individual agencies to see if they are in compliance. those agencies are supposed to, but isc does not monitor to see that it happens. >> that is correct. >> it is the responsibility of each individual agency to make sure they comply. >> yes, based on the executive order. >> let's go back to fps.
how is it that your agency is complying with the standards set by the isc? with our federal partners. we make assessments, recommendations as they are outlined by the isc. and for a variety of reasons, a federal partner may or might not be able to implement. because of cost or a variety of t they may decide that they cannot meet those recommendations. once we do understand that they are not able to, we work with them to mitigate those shortfalls as much as we can. it is not as if we walk away. >> i am not saying that. for example. active shooter training. >> yes. >> a large proportion of our officers that we contract or have are not trained --
>> yes, sir. if i may explain. the reason is because historically, as i stated in my testimony, active shooter response, not awareness, but response, has been a function of law enforcement. pso's are not law enforcement officials. to put them in a position to where they are responding as a law enforcement officer requires at least coronation with the state. -- at least coronation with the state and a contractual agreement -- at least, state andon with the a contractual agreement. in some instances, our pso's will be the only folks to respond in a prompt manner. we are working with the national association of security k at how weo loo
can provide training to where they can apply some response in that manner. the bottom line is we still want law enforcement folks to respond because that is where they are trained. we spend any number of hours with our inspectors and our agents in learning how to respond to an active shooter situation. we have not done that with our pso's. we have to find a happy medium so we do not put our pso's in harm's way. we need to find out the right level of training for them to respond effectively. >> so, we have security personnel at federal buildings. but if we have an active shooter, we do not want them, right now, they are not trained to handle that. >> is what they're trained -- what they aree is
trained in. to keep folks from entering the building. to help people evacuate in a timely manner. approached or come in contact with a shooter, they are trained to engage. what they're not trained in is to go find the shooter and take action. >> they are trained to engage? >> they are trained to engage, all of them. ipass my time -- i am past my time. >> senator heitkamp. thank you. the first obligation of any employer is safety. you will find that in a lot of facilities across the country, whether they are manufacturing plants or processing plants of any type. even in a major office. it is not only good employee
management, it actually saves money. i think this committee is deeply concerned about the safety of public employees in buildings. certainly, the navy yard is yet again another example where we do not live in a perfect world. things thatere could have been done that should have been done differently that would have prevented it or limited the deaths once the shooting began? i want to go back to a couple critical points. even though we have executive orders and we have all of the gao reports and recommendations, it is like the words get written but no one is responsible for following -- for follow up or implementation. no one is responsible to say,
yes we have done everything. we know what the path forward is to enhance your safety. we made these recommendations and we hope that whoever manages thisbuilding or runs agency is taking safety seriously. i will tell you that i am concerned, listening to this, that there does not seem to be a lot of coordination. even when there is, there is not follow up in terms of making sure these get done. back to what i am not understanding, the engagement of an active shooter. on schooltask force safety when i was attorney general. we made everyone in the building have training. our recommendation, which was carried out by many schools across the country, is that we trained on what happens if there is an active shooter. the person we needed to train, give the clearest training to, was the woman who answered the phone at the reception desk.
in most federal buildings, the first person you encounter will under your general, jurisdiction. what recommendations would you make to change what you are currently doing in an active shooter situation? >> as an agency, we have thought long and hard about this. we have been working diligently with our vendors to take a look at where we need to be and helping them and helping us to understand how do we go forward now in training. what training do we need to provide for our pso's? >> have you considered that maybe someone who is law enforcement trained and authorized to engage at a higher level should be on duty. not always to do the scanning and the screening, but have
someone there who has a role in providing protection. about 600 inspectors who are law enforcement in a numbero are of our buildings on a regular basis. but we have thousands of put folks and i cannot in every building. we have great relationships with state and local authorities that we can call on quickly to respond if we have a problem. at this point, i do not have the resources that would allow us to put a law enforcement individual in these facilities. there is a possibility that we could deputize some of our contracted personnel. that would clearly be more costly and we would have to figure out how to do that. >> it is troubling that there does not seem to be a lot of
creative thinking on how we can use the resources we have more effectively to protect folks. mr. lewis, i am -- this is a great tragedy. i know many people within your area are dealing with this tragedy. i suggest the best way is to assure people we have learned the lesson. can you tell me what lessons your agency has learned from this. i know you are undergoing a review. give us a peek into the thinking. >> since we talked a little bit about active shooter awareness and training, within the department, we have incorporated active shooter awareness into the anti-terrorism level on training. that has been introduced through the -- throughout the dod. workplaceblished
violence and active shooter prevention and response. this was in response to the fort hood incident. place to notres in only deal at an awareness level, but in terms of response. since the washington navy yard tragedy, we have really focused on continuous evaluation of our cleared and that of personnel -- cleared and vetted personnel. people who have access to dod installations. you can do the best people --ion, but things change over time. we have to be constantly aware of what those changes are. ilot on established a p
continuous evaluation that will look at automated queries of public and dod records to look for issues of concern. .his is an ongoing effort we are trying to expand it to include individuals who are visiting installations on a regular basis. and issued asmesa i mentioned. that would, in an automated fashion, allow for sharing of information of concern between ad facilities so that if installatione dod presented a problem, that would be available to other installations that that person might we going to visit. that is our focus. of do we become apprised
information as it develops and yearsit 5 years or 10 for the next reinvestigation. >> i would like to see better coordination and better follow- up. gao has recommendations that sit around for years and we come and h, we are working on it. that is a source of frustration. we are working on it. we are concerned about it. that does not cut it anymore when we are talking about safety of public employees and the integrity of your missions. i would like to see follow up on the gao recommendations, what the timeline is forgetting that it's implemented. a moment toe address the coordination issue. i want to go back to the interagency security committee. we have last 17 years, had the chief security officers
and other senior executives from 53 different departments and agencies who participate as part of the committee and look at evolving threats and involving hazards. produce together to standards and best practices. whether on occupant emergency plans, prohibited federal items in buildings, on the training of federal security committees. certainly, the risk management practice that we released this past august. it is a highly collaborative body. there is not a formal compliance mechanism, the fact that these 53 security officers come together and work over months to produce these standards. it becomes incumbent on them to ensure their facilities adopt them. softve some informal, compliance mechanisms we are looking at. tools in development to better assess how facilities are implementing our standards and
best practices. mythted to dispel the that it is not highly collaborative. coming out of the navy yard, we have established an active shooter working group. designed to look at what happened at the navy yard and to leverage the work we have done over the last 6 years in the commercial facility space. we have online training, in person training, part of the goal is to look at the various documents, trainings that are available to leverage those so we can bring them to the federal workplace. training is an important aspect. it is something that director patterson does as part of his responsibilities. there are other things we can do re augment that and to ensu that as we look at developing best practices and standards that we are encouraging and
recommending that we exercise the traininge -- that we do. sure that there are documents and materials available to employees. be done a lot that can and i can be leveraged from the work that we have done with commercial facilities. that is the goal of our active shooter working group. senator heitkamp. we request to have several members of the committee who have served as attorney general. thank you for bringing that expertise to bear. , i am goingrkovich to ask you to help make real this interagency security committee. notthrough the jargon, that you are using jargon.
bage.ederal verg where did it come from, why did we create it, describe its missions. working,u think it is how do we measure whether it is working well? >> absolutely. thank you for the opportunity. the interagency security committee can about after the bombing at the alfred p marra murrahg -- alfred p. building in oklahoma city with ition we had to do a better job protecting our facilities. almost every agency participates in the committee. it is often the most senior physical security person in that department, the chief security officer. we take evolving threats and evolving challenges.
it is the chief security officers who look at the threat and decide how do we as a federal family best address that threat and make sure our facilities are able to mitigate them. there is both a formal risk management process that the committee has produced. it is the standard by which we all federaluring civilian facilities with the military of dod, installations. it begins with determining what is the facility's security level. you look at a particular federal facility. and based on what its function is, is it a headquarters, a field office, does it have historical significance, for example, the declaration of independence or bill of rights contained.
are there childcare facilities. that allows us to determine whether a facility is a level 5, the highest level, or a level 1 , which is more of your storefront office. then we apply the security criteria. based on the level and what we call the design basis threat standard. that weirable events have determined are most attractive for most likely to happen to a federal facility. it arranges -- it ranges from arson to active shooters and weather-related events. based on those, what are the right security measures to put in place at these federal facilities. it is a risk-based process. as you pointed out, it is difficult to apply all of these.
as you have noted, not all buildings were built 100 years ago with a 15 foot to 18 foot setback. we have to think about mitigating vulnerabilities based on real-world realities. we help provide facilities with options to include thinking resistant windows. the establishment of security committees, ensuring that individuals on this committees have the training they need to carry out their duties is a core part of what the interagency security committee has thought about. and again, when there are unique functions with inside a building, how do we make sure we protect those functions? things like child care and other efforts. is is the racist -- that
the basis for what the interagency security committee does. we keep those how standards fresh and recognizing we live in a world where our adversaries are adaptive. when we start to see emerging s, we bringnew trend the 53 chief officers together tocome up with a standard ensure that all federal facilities are working from a certain baseline. with active that shooter. we are thinking about, as we start to see small-scale complex attacks, how do we account for them and ensure we have the measures and the training. that we have done preparedness to mitigate the threat. i think -- >> let me interrupt. come back, you may have said this. success, whatsure
metrics are we using to measure whether or not the work of the interagency security committee is successful? secondly, talk with us about across of best practices the range of the members who comprise this committee. will answer your first question by saying i do think the interagency security committee has been a success. we have done an surveys, but if you survey each agency, you will find that they have implemented all of the isc standards. >> those continue to be updated? >> they are the one to come together to help develop these standards. we do not have a formal mechanism for measuring what has been a minute. there i -- measuring what has
been implemented. there is one school, we are working on others. anecdotally, i am confident that all the member departments have implemented the standards. when they cannot, they are responsible for coming to us and telling us why they cannot. >> talk about sharing best practices. >> again -- >> and how this committee facilitates that. >> a benefit of the interagency security committee is that you may have a chief security officer who represents a level 5 facility that can talk about things they have done, a headquarters building that sits on constitution avenue. the things they have put in place to mitigate the fact that setback.ot have a the very nature of the interagency security committee
is the fact that we can convene the senior level executives to talk about best practices. what is unique about what we are isc, with a -- with the for over the last six years, we have been working with commercial facilities. buildings, stadiums, then use where the public passes through. the publichere passes through. we have thought about security that might not be obvious to the public. how do we take those best practices to federal facilities? as part of the active shooter working group that we have, you will see a mix of what we are doing in the federal sector and the lessons learned, the leading practices we have developed into commercial sector. >> dr. coburn. >> a follow-up -- i want to put
in the record a letter from dhs police deputy director of operations that was released november 22. new active shooter guidelines. i am confused after reading this. not understand the engagement. if somebody is with a firearm in a federal building and we have a pso' officer there, nothing here says they will engage him. >> yes, sir. my point was that the original objective and mission of the pso' was to ensure the safe ingress and egress of people in a facility. it was not to pursue an active shooter. that has always been the purview of the ground of law enforcement personnel.
as we have re-looked at how we have our pso's engage, we were looking at legal obstacles that we may have to overcome as a result. as well as any state requirements that they may have to meet. about --in talking that they will engage is an armed individual comes into that facility and they recognize that there are and ask that individual to drop the weapon. they are authorized to engage. if they are clearing the building and getting people out of the building and they run into the active shooter, they will engage. but they are not trained is to go from room to room. >> my point i and making from this letter is that is not clear. this is the new requirement for active shooters -- >> yes, sir. >> that is not a clear part of
this. >> that was stated in november. in early december, we had a conversation with our vendors, to tell themndors we would be coming out with new instructions about how to engage. it is evolving. >> right now, if an event happened today, they would be following this, that what you testified. -- not what you testify. >> they would continue to engage. they priority-- is the safety of the folks in the building. they keep people in and help folks get out. if they engage the shooter and come into contact, they will engage. what they will not do today is pursuit -- >> i understand. it is not clear in terms of reading this letter that says
they will engage. >> i will have to take a look at that. >> this is what you put out november 22. one other area to cover, general patterson. contractedt fps security to do joint exercises with local law enforcement? a dry run. much like senator heitkamp said. >> yes. we conduct a lot of exercises. a number of active shooter training exercises -- >> you are missing my point. contractors to do joint training with local law enforcement. >> they do it when we do it. -- is ita contract of a requirement of their contract to local law-enforcement training so we have dry runs. >> yes.
their exercise would be part of as we practice with local law enforcement. have anre not going to exercise in every building. >> that is true. fact that youhe have directed these contractors not to do joint training with local lawn force -- local law enforcement? >> i would not say that we have not. we do not have anything specifically that addresses joint training in our contract. i will have to get back with you. i do not have a contract before me. >> senator heitkamp. i was not intended on following up, i want to pick up from where senator coburn has taken the discussion. if i can say it this way -- is best done when it
is clear that this is a high priority. publicerns me that employees and really the public sees someone sitting at a desk. usually in a uniform. there is an assumption that come withpowers that that. that there is an aura of protection with that. not include engagement and having folks who are at least capable of some kind of immediate intervention. if those rules are not clear, i think we have left the wrong message with people in public. and so. know, for many of these buildings there was not any kind of electronic screening ray machines at the navy
yard. correct? if you scanned in through the turnstile and waved in, that was it? this is a building that has thousands of public employees. i can understand that if you are looking at the building that houses public employees for the farm service agency in north dakota, you might not want to put any kind of screening device. for a building that houses and employees thousands of employees. it seems like there might be some cost benefit in safety and looking at electronic surveillance, some benefit in ned people at-trai the front to engage. that we might look at those kinds of procedures. i do not hear that today.
i thought i was going to hear that we are looking and doing cost-benefit analysis. not that my folks in north dakota are not important, i do not expect you to higher a -- to guard.law-trained i might expect you to think about that in a building that houses thousands of people in a city that frequently is a target, symbolically, of terrorism or these kinds of attacks. i would ask you guys to go back are saying what you today about how you can enhance security looking beyond simply continuing the process you have engaged in today. >> if i could address your concerns. diligence indue pursuing this matter. we are working aggressively with the vendors to one, look at what
statesties -- the entitle them to do with regard to engagement. we are looking at what authorities we could render to these folks relative to legally. from the federal sector. we are looking at how we might address this moving into the future. we realize it is a concern. one of the other things that i have spent a lot of time doing is engaging with the federal executive boards across the country. looking at some of the challenges they are having and the concerns from their people in these facilities. how can we provide better training to those folks as to how to respond to an active shooter. that is very important as well. how do we get people out of harm's way when there is an event in progress. i would tell you we are taking this very seriously. it may not come across that way in some of the testimony we are
providing. we are spending a lot of time with contractors and with legal to find the ground we can take. ultimately, we have to figure out who is going to bear the cost. how can we do this in a smart way but still provide the same result of protecting folks. not toto the later -- -- ifr this, -- not to i were in your shoes, i have got 1000 people in a building in a city that is a target. devices and we do not have law-trained guards. theart of when we set facility security level, the recommended security practices. 3 or above, wel
recommend that there are guards on site. up, at any headquarters buildings that you see along constitution avenue, you will find advanced screening techniques. magnetometers, run bags through. similar to the buildings today. down to the storefront in the states, that is where you will not see that level of security. based on what your security level is, there is a standard that goes with that. that is part of what the interagency security committee does. you make recommendations and there is no mechanism to mandate that those are carried out. is that what we are hearing? have a formal compliance mechanism to monitor
what has been adopted. >> if i may. i want to clarify. youral, what i am asking specifically on the gao recommendations is the date at which you submitted. the dates they were cleared. 2012 gao through recommendations. for secretary durkovich, is it public knowledge what federal buildings are rated what? cannot go on a website and find out? >> i have to -- no. it is not public knowledge. we can make that available to you. --presents a security >> sure, i understand. that's why i asked. i want to stick with the matter of gao recommendations. gao has a lot of people but they
have a lot of work. they have not been given the resources they need to do all we are asking. starting withe, general patterson. explain to us the process. in, they look at the work that is being done and how it is being managed. they make recommendations. process and the give-and-take before they finalize fragmentation. >> i'm sorry? examines whaten, is being done, makes a recommendation and you have an opportunity to respond. recommendations, especially high risk lists as a to do list. as we do oversight. describe the back and forth that leads to recommendation. he said there were 26?
about 13 has been responded to. half of that 13 has been accepted. the gao makes a recommendation, one of the first things we do is we sit down with my staff to take a look at what is -- what is the genesis and the challenge that we have for the recommendation. and the background on the recommendation. we move forward to look at how we are going to resolve the issue that -- or the challenge that gao has brought forward. what i recognize is that some things that we can handle and move forward quickly. other things, not so. will require extensive resources and we have to figure out how to do that. one of the challenges we have is rds,e have 13,000 pso's, gua
that we have oversight responsibility for. but we do not have technology available to do our best job in folks wheng those they come to work, when they theirin, to make sure certifications are up to date. one of the challenges i have set forth for the agencies to come up with a technology-based system that will allow us to move forward with that. to figure out, to know when a pso'o is on post, when he selecs out, that swipes in, he or she has the proper certifications. that is an issue gao has brought. law-enforcement folks out there to do this for 13,000 guards. it is a challenge.
these guards generate about 170,000 records that we must review over a period of time. we are looking for an automated process to help with that. science andth dhs technology to help us look for ways and some off-the-shelf recommendations that we can begin to put into place that will allow us to better oversight these 30,000 guards. guards. 13,000 it is challenges like that that keep us from moving forward as quickly as we would like. >> let me raise a question. contracted guards and 600 people working directly for you that our law enforcement. that is less than 22 people a person. >> yes. >> we need an automated system
to do that? what about random audits. >> every one of my regions is responsible for doing 10% to 20% random audits per month. is thatthe challenge because there are so many records, in any given time, we can do about it today. -- an audit today. if that is not a record we are auditing tomorrow, the individual may lose certification based on expiration or having to recertify. being able to automate our records would help us in better oversight. >> why should you automate? why should you force contractors to automate. >> that is an option. >> it is not an option, it is thing youommon sense
would do. if you into contact with the federal government, you demonstrate people are compliant. then you audit whether or not they tell you the truth. rather than us running all 13,000 when they are not our employees. they are employees of someone who today contract. it goes back to contracting. putting in a contract what you expect contractors to supply, certified people doing their jobs. >> many of the contractors do have automatic processes. from time to time, we find discrepancies and recordkeeping. >> then you fire that contractor. that is a reason for you to lose a contract. we will have somebody else have this contract next time. these are not non-lucrative contracts. they are making money off of every hour every car works. works. guard
>> without objection. this letter will be made part of the record. i want to pivot a little bit. as a defense contractor with a valid department of defense id card, aaron alexis was allowed access to the washington navy yard. and otheremployees workplaces, he was considered a trusted employee. not screened for weapons. workplace violence continues to be a threat. i want to start with you, mr. lewis. could each of you answer the following two questions. you believe that we should consider screening employees as well as visitors at federal facilities? we shouldieve
consider screening employees as well as visitors at federal facilities? downside tohere a screening employees? is there any potential downside to screening employees? i would like for each of you to answer that. mr. lewis. >> current dod policy does not require that type of screening. where someone goes through a metal detection device. it does allow for random selection of individuals for that type of screening. are procedures in place. there is the action in place. we rely on the judgment of the installation commander to make a determination as to what is appropriate under local circumstances. the drawback to screening every employee coming through is the negative impact on mission a compliment. -- mission
accomplishment. there are facilities where there are 10,000 employees coming through in roughly the same window. screening every employee would be disruptive to getting work done. that is the balance. factoring in cost and mission accomplishment. >> general patterson? it is something that can be considered. we put a lot of trust in the system that we have. we put a lot of trust and the fact that we do background investigations. once a background investigation is completed, we believe that the individual that has received that investigation is trustworthy. decidepoint that we maybe we do not believe in that background investigation, that
is the time we start looking at a system that we screen all our employees as they come in. it is a way to begin to mitigate, if you will, some of the risk. would bethink it something that we would have to think through very carefully before we do that. i know that in many of our and some of our facilities, we have both. -- in thent department of transportation headquarters, they threw everybody. and others, the only screen visitors. to date, we have not had a problem in most of our facilities with our employees. if we decide we are going to creen, it might be a challenge because it is a new process that will require a longer processing time for folks
to get through. we would have to work with gsa and others and how we organize that flow. at 8:00 in the morning when you have hundreds of people entering a building and they are accustomed to moving through and based on aadge security clearance, it could create a challenge. >> secretary durkovich, same question. >> the interagency security committee has put some has put some thought to how we screen visitors. part of that is based on the facilities security level. i would agree with my colleague, director patterson, in that we have to have trust in the system. at the department of homeland security, in addition to evaluating clearances, we ensure employees and contractors affiliated with the department
undergo a suitability. in order to ensure that there is not a negative impact on the mission, we have to account for the fact that there are resource opportunity and costs associated with screening employees. the system that we have in place works overall. incidentsely, we have where it is incumbent on us to look at those incidents and make sure we are leveraging the lessons learned. so we make sure it does not happen again. overall, there is a downside to screening employees. as you know from your oversight of the department, we all have taken on a lot of work to ensure the safety and security of the american people and that its way of life can thrive. obstacle tont or
allowing our employees to do their important job everyday is an impact on the mission. we have processes that allow us to ensure that we have employees represent the highest standards. in thathould trust system as opposed to screening everyone. at certain facilities, we have measures in place, asterisk the patterson recognized. when i go to the nac, i have to swipe and show my badge. bringing a vehicle onto the premises, there are dogs and vehicle searches. there are different layers of security. before i recognize -- any questions. let me ask one last question.
some of you have been before as before. do here as can we far as what you are expected to do. what can we do in the legislative branch to an sure you are able to meet the responsibilities placed on you? for workplace protection. while you think about that, our colleagues are debating a budget resolution. a framework for a spending plan for our federal government for the balance of the fiscal year. it does a number of things. three things to make it simple. entitlement reform that saves sabotage poor not people. tax reform that eliminate a number of tax expenditures. we have a lot of them.
met their purpose and need to be retired or modified. use revenues that we generate to reduce corporate tax rate and use that for deficit reduction. number three, look at everything we do and say how do we get better results for less money for everything we do. those are three things i harp on. that we move away from sequestration to allow agencies and departments to say these are the ways we need to allocate resources. that will hopefully enable us to and be able to put less money there with less risk. if you could give me one good idea, it if you could speak very briefly. >> i will start. in some