Today we are examining the federal protective service and security of our Federal Buildings and facilities. With 1300 personnel, including Law Enforcement officers and 14,000 contract guards, we are charged with protecting over 9000 Federal Buildings and nation,es across the owned or leased by the General Services administration. While fps is not responsible for all federal facilities, its role is central to protecting federal workers and visitors to Federal Buildings nationwide. Since the 9 11 attacks, our country has taken steps to prevent and be better prepared for terrorism and other threats. Unfortunately, public buildings are a proven target. Whether because of their symbolism or because of the number of federal employees and visitors that use these facilities, the threat the federal government has a long history. In 1995, Timothy Mcveigh and his coconspirators used a truck filled with homemade explosives to bomb the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children. In 2010, a person targeted a building in austin, housing 200 irs employees by crashing a plane into the building. Active shooter incidents have been an ongoing threat as well. This includes shootings at the navy yard in washington, fort hood, the u. S. Capitol building, and United States holocaust museum. Because of these threats and the steps taken since the Oklahoma City bombing, we should nearly 20 years later have significantly improved the security of public buildings. Unfortunately, problems persist. Over the past five years the Government Accountability office or gao and others into new to identify very real deficiencies. Penetration testing done by the gao has revealed fake bomb components and guns have been secreted past security. The oversight of contract guards in their Training Needs improvement, and while the guards are armed, they lack training on active shooter situations. Partnerships with local Law Enforcement agencies are patchy, raising questions as to whether state and local lawenforcement agencies are clear on their authority to respond to incidents on federal property. The facility Risk Assessment conducted on the Federal Buildings to help identify their risks and needed security measures are behind schedule and sometimes ignored by custom agencies. On top of this, confidence may be eroding. Steps have been taken to remove fps from the security aspects in its nebraska facility. Building security is difficult. If it were not, these problems would have easily been resolved years ago. We have seen that even with the best security there is still a terrorist risk, and there have been improvements including the revamping of its Risk Assessments, improved relationship with local Law Enforcement, particularly here in the capital, and the strength and working relationship with gsa. Today i hope this can be a productive hearing. We need to understand the challenges and problems, but we also want to hear solutions. Ultimately, whether it is the members of the public or federal workers, those who come to Federal Buildings, must have confidence we are doing all we can to protect them. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and i thank you all for being here. I will call on Ranking Member of the subcommittee, mr. Carson, for a brief opening statement. Thank you. I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. I also want to welcome the witnesses to the hearing on federal protective service. As a former officer with over a decade of experience, have a strong interest in examining fps and ensuring it is functioning at the highest possible level. I find the issues facing fps deeply troubling. Fps is responsible for protecting employees and visitors in approximately 9600 federal facilities across the nation. Yet the department of Homeland SecurityInspector General and the gao have issued at least six reports since 2009 detailing serious challenges that fps has been having in meeting this expectation. The shortcomings detailed in these reports are troubling. They effectively highlight that fps relies on a private contract guards forced to provide security to federal facilities under the control of gsa. The gao has consistently noted that fps lacks effective Management Controls and systems to ensure its contract guards had met their training certification requirements, which are necessary to ensure a slight of security in these buildings. It is unclear whether many of these contract guards have been trained on how to respond active shooter incidents or use xrays and magnetometer equipment. These contract guards are often the first line of defense for our Federal Buildings and people inside. We must have assurances that they are prepared to offer the highest level of protection. More broadly, gao has reported that fps has limited ability to manage risk across facilities and implement security countermeasures. Fps lacks a comprehensive strategic approach to providing security to the buildings in gsas inventories. The problems are worsened by an inability to ensure it has a sufficient amount of Law Enforcement officers, and inspectors, necessary to conduct regular assessments. It is also uncertain whether the current Fee Structure is sufficient to fund a strong lawenforcement presence. We have to be very mindful that federal facilities where federal employees work, particularly the pentagon, navy yard, and Oklahoma CityFederal Building, have been the site of major attacks. Federal facilities are symbols of our government terrorists want to take down. Terrorism is not the only threat. We must stay vigilant to protect federal employees and our constituents who visit these buildings on a daily basis. Congress cannot afford to wait for an attack button. We are heralding this hearing to learn about our stakeholders how to better protect millions of federal workers and visitors to these facilities. I thank the witnesses and the chairman. Thank you. We will have two panels. On the first panel we have the director of physical infrastructure, u. S. Government accountability office, and the director of federal protective service, the department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses speeches be included in the record. So ordered. The subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony to five minutes. Mr. Goldstein, you may proceed. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and discussed the federal protective service. Recent incidents demonstrate the continued vulnerability to attacks and other acts of violence. As part of dhs, fps is responsible for protecting employees and visitors in about 9600 facilities. To help with the mission, fps conducts assessments for the guards deployed. Fps charges fees for Security Guards to tenants. My discussion includes ensuring guards are properly trained and certified and conducting Risk Assessments of federal facilities. It is based on gao reports issued until 2014. As part of our work we found the federal protective service continues to face challenges ensuring contract guards had been properly trained. Before being deployed. In september 2013, gao reported that providing training for shooter scenarios and screening access to facilities poses a challenge. According to officials at five Guard Companies, their contract guards had received training how to respond during incidents involving shooters. Without ensuring guards know how to respond, fps has limited assurance their guards are prepared for the threat. An official stated 133 guards had never received screener training. As a result, guards deployed to federal facilities may be using equipment they are not authorized to, raising questions about their ability to fulfill primary responsibilities to screen access. Gao was unable to determine the extent to which the guards had received response and screener training in part because fps lacks a reliable system for oversight. Gao also found that fps continues to lack controls to ensure its guards had met its certification requirements. Although fps agreed with the 2012 recommendations that it develop a conference of system for managing information guard training, it does not have such a system. Additionally, 26 of the files properd did not have the documentation. For example, some files, like documentation of screener training and firearms qualifications. Additionally, we also found that assessing risk at federal facilities remains a challenge. Gao found in 2012 that they pay millions to assess risks that facilities, but they are not assessing risks in the manner consistent with federal standards. Gao found that this is still a challenge for fps and several other agencies. ForRisk Management process standards requires risk assessed assess thees that threat and consequence to undesirable abilities. They identify and evaluate security risks that implement protective measures they use to assess federal facilities until there is so longer term solution. The level, duration, and age come from an undesirable event. A tool thatthat does not estimate consequence does not allow agents to from the sets that they have limited knowledge of the risks facing the facilities around the country as a result. Officials stated to us that it was not part of the original design of the system as they incorporated now. Gao has made 31 recommendations to approve the contract guard Risk Assessment processes, of which six have been implemented, 10 are in process, and 15 have not. This concludes my oral statement and i will be happy to respond to any questions the members of the subcommittee have. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Patterson . You may proceed. Thank you, chairman. Ranking member, distinguished members of the committee, i am the director of the federal protective Service Within the National ProtectionProgram Service and Homeland Security. Testifying before the committee today regarding the operations of the service, we are charged with protecting and delivering integrated lawenforcement Security Services to 9000 facilities owned or leased by the General Services administration. Employ over 1000 sworn officers to provide uniformed lease response at fps protected facilities and participate in tactical andcises with personnel conduct Facility Security assessment nationwide. Utilizing the modified infrastructure surveys, inspectors document existing postures of the facility, compare how the facility is or is not meeting the a sign of protection for its silly the security level, providing recommendations for security appropriateith countermeasures to mitigate risks. This process was designed to meet the requirements of the interagency Risk Management process for federal facilities and we are in the process of the tool to the isc for validation. Utilizing this tool, fps is on track to have completed the assessment on all level three through level five facilities in the portfolio by the end of the calendar year 2014. I am also pleased to report that the Second Generation tool is in acceptance testing. This system will feature among other improvements and enhanced user interface and improved visibility across the portfolio. At this time we expect the appointment of this system to begin in the fall of 2014. ,nspectors also oversee staff approximately 13,000 protected Security Officers. They are responsible for controlling access to federal facilities, detecting and reporting criminal acts, responding to emergency situations. They also ensure that prohibited items do not enter federal facilities. They must all undergo background checks to determine their fitness to begin work on behalf of the government and are rigorously trained. However, it is important to note that they are not sworn Law Enforcement officers. Rather they are employees of private Security Companies and fps does not have the authority to deputize them in a Law Enforcement capability. An individuals authority to perform protective services are based on state laws where they are employed. Partner with private sector Guard Companies to make sure that guards have met certification, training, and qualification requirements specified in the contract. Additionally, they are working closely with the National Association of Security Council news to develop a National Lesson plan to establish a basic and natural Training Program for them to ensure that standards are consistent across the nation. These efforts will further standardize the training they receive and provide great capability to validate training in facilities with rapid adjustments to account for changes in threat and technological advancements. To ensure High Performance in the workforce, fps Law Enforcement personnel conduct postinspection to monitor vendor compliance and countermeasure effectiveness. Additionally, vendor personnel files are altered periodically to validate that they reflect compliance and contract requirements. To supplement this current partnered withe science and technology to develop a posttracking system. This system will be capable of integrating an individuals the timeand tracking or position in training and certification records in real time. We expect the first iteration of the system to begin testing within 12 months. Continuously strive to further enhance and transform the organization to meet the challenges of an evolving Threat Landscape and are committed to the outstanding recommendations pertaining to operations. To facilitate the closure of open recommendations we have implemented a Program Management approach, utilizing this process fps has closed to open gao recommendations this year and expect to submit documentation for closure of eight additional recommendations by the end of june, 20 14. In total, fps hopes to close 10 to 15 of the 31 open recommendations before the end of this fiscal year. In closing . I would like to it knowledge and thank the distinguished members of this committee for the opportunity to testify today. We remain committed to the mission of providing safety, security, and a sense of wellbeing to the thousands of visitors and federal employees who work at our facilities daily. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I will now begin the first round of questions, limited to five minutes for each member. If there are additional questions following the first round we will have additional rounds of russians as needed. Federal Protection Services directly responsible for protecting Federal Buildings in the 1 and the 1. 4 million workers and visitors to those facilities. The public openings act crafted by this Committee Gave fps and Law Enforcement authorities that very purpose, protecting the buildings and the people in them. Iner moving from gsa to dhs 2003, there has been report after report detailing serious security deficiencies at federal facilities. Given the importance of this would expect the department of Homeland Security to make Federal Building security a top priority. Yet these problems continue. Just recently we received a copy of our may 1 memo from the dhs Security Officer, chief Security Officer, to the dhs under security for management that removed the federal Protection Service from its lead role of providing security at the Homeland Security headquarters complex on the nebraska avenue. My first question, mr. Patterson, is why was this Protection Service removed as the lead security provider . Does this mean that dhs has more confidence in fps . To answer your question, sir, to my knowledge this was not an issue of performance, ok . Believe that the department has lost confidence in the federal investigation services. I believe that this was an issue of support from the secretarys decision. In effect, fps will continue to provide security, including Law Enforcement, canine support we will continue to do it with a robust presence at the facility, as we alway