U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–194 PDF 2016

FIREARMS AND MUNITIONS AT RISK: EXAMINING 

INADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 6, 2016 

Serial No. 114–74 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

PATRICK HARTOBEY, Professional Staff Member 

WILLIE MARX, Clerk 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 6, 2016 ................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Thomas R. Kane, Ph.D., Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Mr. Steven A. Ellis, Deputy Director of Operations, Bureau of Land Management 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Mr. Jeffery Orner, Chief Readiness Support Officer, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

1. Report from the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & 

Firearms, titled, ‘‘Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers’’ entered by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York. The 

Report can be found online here; http://everytown.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2014/08/Following-the-Gun Enforcing-Federal-Laws-Against-Firearms-Traffickers.pdf 

2. Report conducted by the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and 

Defense, titled, ‘‘Report to the President Outlining a Strategy to Expedite 

Deployment of Gun Safety Technology.’’ Entered by Ranking Member Elijah 

E. Cummings of Maryland. The report can be found online here: https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final report-smart gun report.pdf 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

FIREARMS AND MUNITIONS AT RISK: 

EXAMINING INADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS 

Wednesday, July 6, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Jordan, Walberg, 

Amash, Gosar, Gowdy, Meadows, Mulvaney, Walker, Blum, Hice, 

Russell, Carter, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Lynch, Connolly, Cartwright, Kelly, Lieu, Watson Coleman, Plaskett, and 

Welch. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

I want to thank you all for being here. This is an important topic 

as we discuss firearms and munitions and examining the safeguards that may or may not be in place there. And that is of utmost concern, I think, to the public and certainly to the Congress. 

There have been reports and investigations, and I think this is a 

good opportunity to have a candid discussion with members asking 

questions. 

Obviously, keeping a list on what government agencies own 

should be a routine practice. It is always fascinating to me that we, 

for instance, don’t have an inventory of all the assets that the government owns, can’t tell you how much real property they own, 

can’t tell you exactly how many buildings that we own. You can’t 

go online and say show me a list of these things. 

There are some things that maybe shouldn’t be out there in the 

public; I understand that. We don’t want to let the adversary know 

the details of specifics regarding ammunition and munitions, but 

when you have a list and you are tracking it adequately, you know 

it is inventory. And you know when something is no longer there, 

if it goes missing, you know if you have a problem with theft. And 

when we are talking about guns and ammunition and even more 

powerful things than your regular .22, then you have got an issue 

that we need to discuss. 

The Office of Personnel Management does not have a list of its 

servers, its databases or network devices, and then it lost information on 21 million Americans. GSA was trying to maintain an inventory of surplus firearms around the country, which was on an 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Excel spreadsheet, and it lost 485 firearms, including grenade 

launchers, Uzis, and assault rifles. 

Government-wide, Federal agencies purchased roughly $1.5 billion worth of firearms, munitions, and equipment between 2006 

and 2014. We need to make sure this is safeguarded and there is 

adequate auditing in place. 

This past March, the Department of Justice inspector general released a report detailing the lack of proper inventory and control 

procedures at the Bureau of Prisons. The inspector general started 

its audit of armory practices after a bureau employee pled guilty 

to stealing flashbang stun munitions. When the IG reviewed seven 

of the 120 armories at BOP facilities, it found insufficient firearms 

and munitions controls and practices, which created increased risk 

of loss and theft. The audit discovered the records system that was 

used to track munitions did not record changes to the inventory, 

and forms used to check out munitions and firearms were incorrect 

and incomplete. And again, this was only at seven of these facilities. Again, without adequate tracking it is extremely difficult to 

maintain an inventory. 

When onsite inventory counts were conducted at armories, auditors found actually inventory did not match what was reported. 

There are numerous instances where the inventory reports stated 

more or less than the actual amount of munitions present at the 

actual armory. The result of these discrepancies is that the only 

person who knows the correct count is the officer in charge of the 

armory, and we even question whether that is true. 

The Bureau of Prisons is not alone, though, in its inventory trouble. And the release of Department of Justice inspector general report came only a short time after equally troubling finding at the 

Department of Homeland Security’s at the safeguarding of firearms. In February 2016 multiple news agencies reported that during a 31-month period between 2012 and 2015, Homeland Security 

lost 165 firearms, along with more than thousands of badges and 

credentials. 

When the committee reviewed the documentations for losses between 2012 and 2015, it was discovered the number of lost firearms 

actually exceeded 220, including at least one firearm known to 

have been later used in a violent crime. Loss of a single firearm 

is cause for concern. The loss of what amounts to roughly five a 

month is totally unacceptable. 

This is especially concerning for a department charged with 

keeping our homeland secure, but it is not the first time Homeland 

Security has had issues with firearms inventory practices. In 2010 

the DHS inspector general found that between fiscal years 2006 at 

2008 the agency lost roughly 289 firearms. That means that in just 

7 years Homeland Security has lost more than 500 firearms. 

High-profile crimes connected with firearms lost by their agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management indicate that weak 

inventory accounting and controls are potentially widespread 

among Federal agencies. 

It is abundantly clear that when it comes to Federal agency firearms, ammunitions, nobody is minding the store. It is a problem 

that must be fixed. That is why we are here today. And we appreciate the testimony and the interaction we will have. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. With that, I will now recognize the ranking 

member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for calling this hearing. 

Last month, a deranged terrorist walked into a nightclub in Orlando and shot down 49 innocent people in one of the most devastating gun massacres in our nation’s history. To say that our 

prayers go out to the families, while certainly true, is simply no 

longer enough. We do not have the right to remain silent. We cannot ignore them. We must act, and we must act now. 

Every year about 12,000 Americans are killed with guns. I 

haven’t even included the suicides. My hometown of Baltimore 

more than 300 were killed last year alone in shooting-related homicides. We as elected officials here in the Congress should be able 

to agree that suspected terrorists, suspected terrorists should not 

have guns. 

The American people already agree, law-abiding gun owners 

agree, people who support the Second Amendment agree. But this 

proposal is opposed by the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and Republican leaders who will not allow a vote to close this terrorist 

loophole. Instead, Speaker Ryan announced plans this week to call 

up a phony bill endorsed by the NRA that continues to allow suspected terrorists, suspected terrorists, suspected terrorists to buy 

guns unless there is an arrest warrant against them. And now 

even that proposal has been put on hold. 

Let me ask you this. If we ban a suspected terrorist from boarding a plane, why in the world would we let him walk across the 

street into a gun store and stock up on military-style assault weapons within 72 hours? It makes absolutely no sense. But that is 

what this NRA bill would do. 

We here in Congress should also be able to agree that no convicted felon should have guns. If people are convicted of violent 

crimes, they should not be allowed to buy semiautomatic firearms, 

.50 caliber sniper rifles, or other types of deadly weapons. Having 

a background check for any gun changes hands is a commonsense 

proposal supported by a wide majority of Americans, including lawabiding gun owners and strong supporters of the Second Amendment. But again, the NRA, gun manufacturers, and their Republican supporters in Congress prevented this from happening. 

We here in Congress should be able to support a Federal law 

against illegal gun trafficking by drug cartels or other criminal organizations. We have heard firsthand from law enforcement agents 

in testifying at this very witness table that the current statute is 

just a slap on the wrist. And they begged us to address it. They 

called it a toothless paperwork violation. 

That is why Congresswoman Maloney and I introduced the Gun 

Trafficking Prevention Act. This bipartisan bill, cosponsored by Republicans, including Patrick Meehan, Michael Fitzpatrick, Scott 

Rigell, and Peter King, again, more than 100 cosponsors and supported by law enforcement organizations across the country. But 

that was more than 3 years ago, more than 3 years ago. Since that 

time many people have died, shot down with a gun. 

Since then, there has not been one hearing, one markup, or one 

vote on our bipartisan proposal. Our bill, like so many other comVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:12 Oct 24, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22194.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

monsense proposals, has been gathering dust because Republican 

leaders refuse to allow a vote. 

Of course, Federal agencies must safeguard their firearms, which 

is the subject of today’s hearing. Everyone on this panel agrees 

with that. Last year, a young woman Kate Steinle was killed by 

a convicted felon when a duty pistol that belonged to a ranger from 

the Bureau of Land Management—she was killed with it. The gun 

was stolen from his vehicle week earlier. 

Of course, it is appropriate to examine crimes committed with 

Federal firearms that are lost or stolen and to identify improvements in the way Federal agencies keep their inventories. But we 

can no longer ignore the far more massive carnage caused by nonFederal guns every single day in this country. 

There have been some very high-profile shootings, and these 

shootings cause people to demand action. But there are also many, 

many shootings every single day that do not get the attention. Directly across the street from me in Baltimore 30 feet from my 

house lives a young man named Rassaan Hammond. He is a 36- 

year-old who has a master’s degree and he owns a sound studio in 

east Baltimore. His mother is the graduate dean emeritus of the 

Maryland Institute of Art. 

Just last week, last week, Mr. Hammond was driving away from 

his studio in Baltimore when his car was shot at six times. One of 

the bullets entered his heart. And my neighbor of 20 years had the 

good fortune that his heart miraculously pumped the bullet into his 

aorta. Mr. Hammond was also shot in the arm. The doctors say 

that he will survive, he will be okay, and it is one in a 10 million 

chance that somebody could be shot in the heart and survive. Miraculously, the bullets were recoverable and he survived and is now 

recovering. 

Police have not identified a suspect in this shooting, but this one 

example highlights the scope of this epidemic. That is that people 

just like young Mr. Hammond are gunned down every single day 

in our country, and many are not as lucky as he was. 

As I close, the bottom line is that we do not want any suspected 

terrorists to get a gun, we do not want any felon to get a gun, and 

we do not want any trafficking organization to get guns. But there 

has been no credible action by Republican leaders to address these 

issues. The American people want us to move beyond false choice 

of no guns at all or the Wild West of firearms on demand. We 

can—yes, we can and we must make commonsense improvements 

on a bipartisan basis, and it is our solemn duty to act now to prevent the further loss of life of our own citizens. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the courtesy and 

I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. I will hold the 

record open for 5 legislative days for any members who would like 

to submit a written statement. 

I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. We are pleased to 

welcome the Honorable Michael Horowitz, inspector general of the 

United States Department of Justice; Mr. Thomas Kane, Ph.D., 

acting director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Mr. Stephen Ellis, 

deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management in the United 

States Department of the Interior; and Mr. Jeffery Orner, who is 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

the chief readiness support officer at the United States Department 

of Homeland Security. We welcome and thank you all for being 

here. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before 

they testify. If you will please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the 

record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I think all of you had testified before Congress. If you will please 

limit your verbal comments to 5 minutes. We will give you some 

latitude obviously, but your entire written statement will be entered into the record. 

Mr. Horowitz, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cummings, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. 

The safety and security of Federal prisons remains one of the 

Justice Department’s top management challenges, and the proper 

authorization, use, and tracking of BOP armory munitions and 

equipment are critical factors in ensuring the safety and security 

of our Federal prisons. 

The OIG recently audited the BOP’s munitions controls following 

an OIG investigation that resulted in a BOP special operations response team member pleading guilty to stealing stun munitions 

from a BOP facility. Our audit identified several weaknesses in 

BOP’s policies and practices for safeguarding armory munitions 

and equipment, although we did find that BOP had not lost any 

firearms in those munitions facilities. 

Specifically, we found weaknesses in BOP’s controls over tracking, issuing, and reporting on both active and expired armory munitions and equipment, as well as institutions’ compliance with existing policies. Significantly, we found that a BOP security officer 

can move inventory in and out of the armory and change information in the BOP’s inventory data system without leaving any record 

that a change in inventory occurred. 

We also found that information in the data system was neither 

complete nor accurate. Our audit also identified inventory errors 

that BOP institutions should have identified themselves during 

their quarterly physical inventories but did not. Additionally, the 

authorization and use of armory munitions and equipment was not 

always adequately documented. 

Finally, we found that the BOP’s controls are not adequate to ensure that only authorized armory munitions and equipment are 

stored in those armories. We identified unauthorized chemical 

agents and ammunition among BOP institutions’ armory inventories. And in many instances, we were not able to determine if the 

munitions were authorized because BOP’s lists of authorized munitions were outdated and otherwise inadequate. Our report made 14 

recommendations to the BOP, and the BOP agreed with all of 

them. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

The challenge of prison safety was further demonstrated in a report we issued last month assessing BOP’s efforts to prevent contraband from being introduced into prisons. We found that recoveries of weapons, narcotics, and tobacco in BOP institutions had increased significantly. We also determined that BOP had not effectively implemented its staff search policy to deter staff introduction 

of contraband. 

In a 2003 OIG report we recommended that BOP revise its policies to require searches of staff and their property when they enter 

prisons. More than 10 years—after more than 10 years of negotiation with its union, BOP implemented a new staff search policy in 

2013. However, last year, the Federal Labor Relations Authority 

ordered BOP to stop using that 2013 staff search policy following 

a union challenge to it. As a result, more than 13 years after our 

2003 report, BOP still has no comprehensive and effective staff 

search policy. We made 11 recommendations in our report to BOP 

to improve its ability to interdict prison contraband, and BOP 

again agreed with all of those recommendations. 

Weapons in BOP prisons represent not only a life-threatening 

danger to BOP staff and inmates but also to those in law enforcement such as FBI, DEA, and OIG agents who investigate serious 

criminal conduct in Federal prisons. My office knows those dangers 

all too well. In June 2006 OIG and FBI agents were at a BOP prison to arrest six correctional officers on charges of smuggling contraband and sexual abuse of inmates when one of the corrupt correctional officers drew a firearm that should not have been in the prison and shot both a BOP staff member and OIG special agent 

Buddy Sentner. Agent Sentner returned fire, killing the corrupt 

correctional officer and likely saving the lives of fellow agents and 

innocent bystanders. The BOP staff member survived his wounds. 

Agent Sentner did not. 

Such tragic events demonstrate the critical need for the BOP to 

have an effective staff search policy to keep dangerous contraband 

and weapons out of prison and to make sure it has sufficient measures to control and account for all of the munitions and other weapons that are legally kept in its armories. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I’d be pleased to answer 

any questions the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 22194.001
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 22194.002
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 22194.003
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 22194.004
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 22194.005
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 22194.006
13 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz. 

Mr. Kane, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. KANE 

Mr. KANE. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee. I appear before you 

today to discuss the mission and operation of the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons and specifically our armory policies. We appreciate the 

committee’s interest in this issue. 

Our detailed response to your inquiry regarding lost and stolen 

firearms was provided on June 24, 2016, and our records indicate 

no lost, stolen, or missing weapons. 

We also appreciate the considerable work of the OIG on their 

audit of Bureau armory ammunitions and equipment. We concurred with all 14 recommendations in the report and provided the 

first status update on June 21, 2016. The overall status of the report is now resolved with three closed recommendations, and we 

look forward to continuing to work with the OIG as we improve our 

systems for documenting and tracking munitions equipment in our 

armories. 

I am honored to speak on behalf of the nearly 39,000 Bureau 

staff, law enforcement professionals who are correctional workers 

first and support the agency’s mission and core values of respect, 

integrity, and correctional excellence. 

Every day, when staff go to work at Bureau facilities around the 

country, they put the safety of the American people above their 

own. These dedicated public servants are committed to the highest 

standards of professionalism. Their courage, bravery, and sacrifice 

are essential to keeping our communities safe and our institutions 

secure. 

As our nation’s largest correctional agency, the Bureau houses 

approximately 195,500 inmates in our Federal prisons nationwide. 

Our mission, which dates back to the Bureau’s establishment in 

1930, is twofold. First, to protect society by confining offenders in 

prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, costefficient, and appropriately secure; and second, to ensure that offenders are actively participating in programs that will assist them 

in becoming law-abiding citizens. 

We have had great success with respect to both parts of our mission. Our facilities are safe and secure, and the latest research indicates 34 percent of released Federal offenders are rearrested or 

have their supervision revoked within 3 years as compared to almost 68 percent of offenders released from State prisons. Those 

numbers are a testament to the quality of evidence-based programs 

our staff provide in an environment that promotes respect and selfimprovement. 

In support of our public safety mission, the Bureau maintains armories for emergency equipment that is made available as required 

for certain correctional posts, for particular emergency situations, 

and for training. In 2011, a Bureau staff member pled guilty to one 

count of transfer of a stolen flashbang device, which was taken during a Special Operations Response Team training exercise at Florence, Colorado. The staff member was terminated from the Bureau 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

and was sentenced to 6 months home confinement, 3 years’ probation, and restitution for the value of the stolen goods. 

The Bureau reported this incident to the Department of Justice’s 

Office of Inspector General and cooperated fully in the investigation. We also took immediate steps to modify the armory tracking 

form for better accountability of the munitions taken out of and returned to the armory. Since that time, we have also made additional changes to the form, as recommended by the OIG, to further 

improve the accountability. 

As I stated previously, the Bureau agrees with all 14 of the OIG 

report recommendations. The OIG has closed three recommendations, and the Bureau has recently completed two additional recommendations that will be reported to the OIG in our next status 

update. We are developing a national database that will strengthen 

and enhance our systems of control to support the remaining recommendations. We are confident that in addressing the issues 

identified in the report we will be enhancing the safety of our staff, 

inmates, and the public. 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, members of 

the committee, this concludes my formal statement. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 22194.007
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 22194.008
17 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 22194.009
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 22194.010
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 22194.011
20 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Kane. 

Mr. Ellis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. ELLIS 

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the committee. I am Steve Ellis. I’m 

the Bureau of Land Management’s deputy director for operations. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss BLM’s firearms management practices here this morning. 

The dedicated men and women who make up the BLM law enforcement program play an integral role in ensuring public safety 

and fulfilling our agency’s multiple use and sustained-yield mission. Every day our officers put themselves in harm’s way to investigate vandalism and looting, support emergency response, and provide a safe environment for employees and the visitors to our nation’s public lands. 

Nationally, the BLM manages a wide variety of resources spread 

over 245 million acres of public land and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. There are many Federal laws and regulations that guide BLM in managing these public lands. The BLM 

has been given specific resource protection of law enforcement responsibility to further that mission. 

The BLM manages more than 10 percent of the Nation’s surface 

area and yet has one of the smallest law enforcement organizations 

among the Department of Interior’s bureaus. The BLM is roughly 

one law enforcement officer for every one million acres of public 

land that we manage. 

The public lands managed by BLM are predominantly located in 

the Western United States, including Alaska, and consist of a very 

diverse landscape and resources. As a result, the specific duties of 

each BLM law enforcement officer can vary considerably. In all 

areas, BLM law enforcement officers work in cooperation with local 

sheriffs’ offices, State agencies, and other Federal law enforcement 

agencies. 

BLM has approximately 185 law enforcement rangers and 75 

special agents on staff who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in preventing, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources. BLM provides each law enforcement officer with the necessary tools to protect themselves and others as 

they carry out their official duties. 

The BLM is vigilant about its responsibility to control, secure, 

and safeguard firearms that its law enforcement officers are issued 

to carry out their duties and their responsibilities. The standard 

firearms issue for each officer is a semiautomatic pistol for primary 

duty carry, semiautomatic pistol as a backup weapon, a shotgun, 

and a semiautomatic rifle. 

The Department of Interior outlines policies for firearms inventory, accounting, control, disposal, and destruction, as detailed in 

the Department’s letter to the committee on this issue that was 

sent last month—transmitted last month. Those procedures are included in the Department manual and Federal regulations and 

GSA Federal property management regulations. Among other requirements, departmental policy mandates that the bureau perform 

a fiscal firearm inventory of issued firearms twice year. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

On rare occasions, BLM’s law enforcement officers may seize or 

confiscate firearms as part of criminal investigations or when an 

owner voluntarily surrenders them. Federal regulations, GSA 

guidelines, and Department of interior property management directives are also followed when BLM periodically disposes of or destroys seized or confiscated firearms and other firearms deemed 

unserviceable, excess, voluntarily relinquished, or abandoned and 

not suitable for government use. 

In the event that a firearm is lost or stolen, BLM complies with 

departmental policies that mandate notification of the Department 

within 24 hours for all lost or stolen firearms. Documentation and 

investigation of each incident occurs. It’s entered in the lost or stolen firearms National Crime Information Center database and entered each incident in the Department’s internal affairs database. 

Over the last 10 years, the BLM has reported one firearm lost 

and seven as stolen. Six of these were recovered. There was only 

one instance during that period in which a lost or stolen BLM firearm has been implicated in subsequent criminal activity. On June 

27, 2015, a BLM officer’s handgun was stolen from his personal vehicle in San Francisco, California. The theft was immediately reported in accordance with BLM’s policies and procedures. The gun 

was confirmed to have been used in a shooting that occurred in 

San Francisco on July 1, 2015. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today, and 

I’d be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 22194.012
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 22194.013
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 22194.014
25 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Ellis, thank you. 

Mr. Orner, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFERY ORNER 

Mr. ORNER. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am Jeffery Orner, DHS’s chief readiness support officer, a career civil servant with 35 years of experience in the Federal Government, including executive leadership positions at Department of 

the Navy, the Coast Guard, and DHS headquarters. My office provides policy and oversight of DHS’s real estate, mobile assets such 

as vehicles and aircraft, environmental compliance, logistics, and 

personal property, including firearms. Our goal is providing our 

dedicated workforce nationwide with the operational tools and support they need to keep our nation safe and to be strictly responsible 

stewards of government resources as we carry out those missions. 

Today, I will discuss how the Department ensures accountability 

for firearms and ammunition. 

DHS is the Nation’s largest law enforcement agency. Firearms 

are critical tools for the men and women who perform the Department’s various law enforcement missions on the borders, in our cities, and in the maritime domain. Any lost firearm is a very serious 

matter, and my office has placed strict controls on reporting requirements to ensure 100 percent accountability at all times. 

The foundations of our program are personal accountability, rigorous internal controls, and comprehensive data that we use to continually improve our internal controls over the DHS firearms program. I am pleased to report that DHS has made significant 

progress in reducing the number of firearms lost each year. Since 

the inspector general reported on this issue in 2010, DHS’s weapons portfolio has increased by 9 percent. However, at the same 

time we have cut our annual firearms losses by 28 percent. DHS 

annual firearms losses now stand at 69 annually out of a total inventory of more than 204,000 weapons. This represents a loss rate 

of approximately 3/100 of 1 percent of our inventory. 

In performing our headquarters role we have significantly improved the management and oversight of firearms, as well as all 

accountable personal property and sensitive assets through implementing the first DHS-wide firearms policy in April 2010, which we 

updated again in 2013. We strengthened the DHS management directive covering personal property asset management in 2012, and 

we updated the DHS personal property asset management manual 

in 2013. 

Through these governing documents, we have established strict 

accountability procedures that clearly guide how our operational 

components are to process lost, damaged, or stolen property, including firearms. For example, those procedures require immediate internal notifications, as well as external alerts to law enforcement 

authorities in the event of any lost or stolen firearms, law enforcement badges and credentials, or other mission-critical assets. Departmental policy also requires our components to establish internal policies to ensure proper accountability, tracking, loss reporting, and safeguarding of all firearms. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

In addition to improved policy and procedures, we also enhanced 

our data systems. Since 2012, department-wide reporting and 

tracking of lost, damaged, destroyed, and stolen government property has greatly improved with increased visibility of our data. For 

example, we moved from a system of manually combining multiple 

spreadsheets into one form to a real-time database that is updated 

directly by our operational components and is visible to my staff at 

headquarters. This enables DHS to monitor compliance with policy 

and procedures for firearms and other accountable assets through 

a monthly scorecard measure utilizing standards derived from the 

American Society for Testing and Materials. 

Although it’s clear we’ve made progress in reducing the number 

of lost and stolen firearms, the loss of any firearm is unacceptable. 

At the same time, it is important to understand that unlike the 

military, which generally does not allow its members to take firearms off base and usually stores them in a secure armory, DHS 

law enforcement personnel are seldom without their weapon. They 

take them home with them, carry them in their vehicles, and employ them in a very austere, demanding environment because they 

are always on call to respond. 

One example of such a loss involves a U.S. Border Patrol officer 

stationed in Arizona near the southern U.S. border. The officer’s 

home was burglarized and his service weapon, a pistol, which was 

secured in a CBP-issued lockbox, was stolen. In this case, as in 

other similar cases, it could be surmised that the officer and his 

residence were known in the community, thereby making his residence an optimal target for such a theft. 

Given the environment in which our law enforcement agents operate, it is very difficult to ensure all losses—to eliminate all losses. 

However, when the losses occur, our procedures are very clear. The 

officer’s supervisor is notified within 2 hours, as is local law enforcement. This initiates a chain of events leading up to a formal 

report, a survey being completed, and a lost, damaged, or destroyed 

report, which is sent to my office where the information is loaded 

into our data system and incorporated into our scorecard measures 

of loss rates, submission timelines, and adjudication timelines. Follow-on investigations and any disciplinary actions are determined 

by each operational component by the operational chain of command. 

The Department takes very seriously its role as a steward of government resources, and we will continue to evaluate our current 

policies and procedures, and we will continue to identify areas for 

improvement and to act on those. 

Thank you for the opportunity to give my opening statement 

today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Orner follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 22194.015
28 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 22194.016
29 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 22194.017
30 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 22194.018
31 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 22194.019
32 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 22194.020
33 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. Horowitz, you have done some good, thorough work with the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. They have, according to Mr. Kane, accepted all of those recommendations, but what about the implementation? Where are we at with the actual implementation? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. About 2 weeks ago we got an update report from 

BOP requesting as to four of the recommendations that we close 

them. We agreed that three could be closed. We disagreed on the 

fourth. And so at this point, 11 of the 14 remain open, and we 

would expect an update within 90 days from BOP on its progress 

on all 11 remaining items. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Is that behind schedule, ahead of schedule, 

what you anticipate? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Generally speaking, it’s consistent with the 

schedule we require of components that within 6 months we have 

made substantial progress towards closing recommendations. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And, Mr. Kane, you are committed to implementing all of those? It is one thing to accept the recommendations? It is another thing to actually implementing it. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We are, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. All right. Mr. Ellis, we have sent you a letter back in March trying to get an assessment of the ammunition, 

weapons that the BLM has in inventory. We have yet to get that. 

You have approximately 260 rangers and special agents, right? 

Mr. ELLIS. That’s correct. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And you are sitting next to Mr. Orner, who 

has hundreds of thousands of employees at the Department of 

Homeland Security. How many weapons, what types of weapons, 

and how much ammunition does the BLM have? 

Mr. ELLIS. We have approximately 1,000—approximately 1,480 

firearms, and of those, 1,040 are issued to law enforcement officers. 

I mentioned in my testimony four weapons per officer, and we have 

about—with 185 rangers, 75 agents, four weapons each, that’s 

1,040 issued. There are at least 440 that are unissued. Of those, 

there are—approximately 290 are suitable for use, 150 unsuitable 

for use. Of those that are unsuitable, about 30 of those are training 

weapons, and at least about 120 that are damaged or old. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When will this committee get a written 

record of your current inventory and the things that we had requested back in our March 9 letter? When will we get that answer? 

Mr. ELLIS. Okay. It’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the 

Department provided a great deal of information in response to 

your questions, and it —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You copied your personnel manual and 

sent it to us. That is not what I am looking for. The letter was very 

specific. I shouldn’t have to send you a couple letters and have a 

hearing to finally start to hear some numbers. It can’t be that difficult. And if it is that difficult, that highlights the problem that 

you can’t just go somewhere and print out the current inventory 

and what the inventory has been for the last few years. 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, if there’s some additional information, Mr. 

Chairman, that we need to provide, I’ll look into it. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. Go back and look at the letter of 

March 9. I want to know when I will have not significant but I 

want 100 percent of the response to that letter. When is it reasonable to get a response to that letter? 

Mr. ELLIS. I will get back to the committee on the information 

that you requested. As I indicated it —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. What does that mean? I mean, boy, that is 

generous of you, but should I issue a subpoena? Is that what you 

need? Do you need a subpoena? 

Mr. ELLIS. No. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How about this. I will issue a subpoena by 

the end of the week unless you provide the information. 

Mr. ELLIS. Okay. We will look into providing you the information. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So you do have information. You do have 

data. You just have been unwilling to share it with the committee. 

This is what is ridiculous. Why should I as the chairman and the 

other members of this committee, why should I have to sign a subpoena? Why is this a difficult exercise? 

Mr. ELLIS. We—Mr. Chairman, as I said, we will—I will be 

happy to look into the information that you requested, that you indicated is not —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. When did you first know that I sent Mr. 

Kornze a letter? When did you first understand that? 

Mr. ELLIS. I cannot tell you what the exact date is. I see a lot 

of —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Your first clue should have been that we 

sent a letter, the second clue should be that there were other letters, and then there should be another clue that we had a hearing 

and then we rescheduled this hearing. So you have no excuses not 

to have this information at your fingertips and be able to provide 

it in writing to this committee. 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, I know there was a response that was 

sent to you from the Department. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Part of it was a copy of your personnel 

manual. That was not what we asked for in the letter. Look, get 

it to us by the end of the week. If we don’t have it by noon on Friday, I will issue a subpoena. Is that fair? 

Mr. ELLIS. Fine. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Is what? 

Mr. ELLIS. I—there’s a letter that —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Did you say fine? What did you say? 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, fine, fine. I understand. There’s a letter that the 

Department sent to you on June 14, 2016, that does summarize the 

firearms of the various agencies in the Department. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. We want the specifics of it. Just go back 

and read the letter, and then I want you to tell me and I want Mr. 

Kornze to tell me, who I find to be a very nice gentleman, but I 

need some competency here and actually providing that information to this committee in its totality, not significant, but its totality. 

My time is expired. I have other questions, but let’s recognize 

Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts for 5 minutes. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I share your frustration with the lack of information, so maybe we could work together 

on that subpoena. 

I do want to ask you, Mr. Orner, and maybe Mr. Horowitz you 

could jump in here. We are talking about the custody of firearms, 

and we have a bill on the Floor maybe later today and tomorrow 

that ties in with DHS in a direct way. The bill would prevent anyone on the terrorist watch list from obtaining a firearm, but the 

language of the bill requires that there be probable cause. 

Now, that is a pretty high standard, and I am concerned that in 

many cases we do not require probable cause. We require reasonable cause for somebody to be placed on the terrorist watch list. So 

we have a reasonable suspicion that this person might be engaged 

in terrorist-related activity. 

But the bill would require, in order to stop that person from purchasing a firearm, a higher standard. In other words, DHS or the 

Joint Terrorism Task Force or the FBI would have to have probable cause, a higher standard, in order to stop a person who is on 

the terrorist watch list or on the no-fly list from purchasing a firearm. 

Now, Mr. Orner or Mr. Horowitz, would you hazard an estimate 

of the efficacy of that provision of requiring probable cause to block 

somebody who is on the terrorist watch list but we don’t necessarily have probable cause, we have reasonable cause, what the 

impact of that provision might have on the safety of the American 

public? 

Mr. ORNER. Congressman, that is a critical issue. However, I am 

responsible for the Department’s real and personal property and for 

—— 

Mr. LYNCH. And you are an advisor, too, though, sir, right? 

Mr. ORNER. I do not have professional involvement in the issue. 

The Department would be happy to provide you with a witness who 

can address that, but I can only discuss our property-related programs. I’m sorry. 

Mr. LYNCH. You can’t blame a guy for fishing, though, right? 

Mr. ORNER. No, you can’t. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. Mr. Horowitz? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Congressman, we obviously are not involved as 

DHS and the Department is in maintaining the terror watch list. 

We’ve done oversight work on how the FBI maintains the terror 

watch list —— 

Mr. LYNCH. All right. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—but on the question of what standard to —— 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—to include, that’s not something that, as a policy 

matter —— 

Mr. LYNCH. All right, Mr. Horowitz. All right. You have suffered 

enough. Let me ask you something you might know about. In my 

experience, I spend a fair amount of time in the prisons in my district briefly, and in most cases there is fairly good coverage of cameras. There is, obviously because of prison violence, accusations 

against corrections officers, contraband, so most of the prisons that 

we visit have strong surveillance. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

And I am just wondering, you know, you have got this armory 

and you yourself in your testimony admitted that there is no record 

really of munitions going into an armory, leaving an armory, there 

is no written record, and I am just worried—I am concerned 

about—what is the status of our surveillance, our camera surveillance at those facilities if you could enlighten the committee. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. A very significant issue, Congressman, that we— 

because of the munitions issue, as you laid out, and what we just 

found in our contraband report from a couple of weeks ago that I 

referenced, one of the significant weaknesses in the BOP system is 

known areas in institutions where correctional officers and inmates 

who might want to engage in wrongdoing know they can go and not 

be on camera. 

That relates to firearms issues, that relates to drug dealing, that 

relates to other contraband trafficking, and it also relates to a big 

issue for our office, which are alleged civil rights violations. We are 

responsible in my office investigating allegations that Federal corrections officers abused inmates. And the FBI is responsible for investigating inmate-on-inmate abuse. 

And what we often find is whether we can make those cases and 

address those alleged civil rights violations turns largely on whether the action—the alleged events took place in an area where there 

was good camera coverage or not. And as I —— 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—you might suspect, oftentimes inmates or correction officers who want to engage in that kind of conduct know 

where to go so they’re not on camera. That’s a very significant 

issue the BOP needs to address. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. I see my time is expired unless, Mr. Orner, 

you want to add anything to that. 

Mr. ORNER. No, Congressman. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Mr. ORNER. I will stand by my answer. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right. Thank, sir. Thank you. I yield back. Thank 

you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. [Presiding] The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to have this hearing because certainly with all the posturing that is going on about the Second Amendment and about 

use of firearms, we certainly can agree that the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, but any violation of law, illegal 

activity, criminal activity relative to firearms has to be treated that 

way. And certainly we should not be adding to the potential of 

criminal activity by not having secure usage and storage of government-supplied firearms, and so I appreciate the panel being here. 

Mr. Orner, what are ICE’s requirements for how officers secure 

firearms in their parked vehicles? 

Mr. ORNER. As I noted in my opening testimony, we take this 

issue very seriously, and we have comprehensive data about the 

program. And we examine those data for trends. One of the things 

we noted several years ago was that the majority of our lost weapons are in fact stolen, and most of those are in fact stolen from veVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:12 Oct 24, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22194.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

hicles. When we saw that trend, what we did was put in place at 

ICE and at our other components a requirement that any officer 

who is permitted to carry a weapon in a vehicle now has a gun 

locker in that vehicle. And that is in place at ICE and departmentwide. 

Mr. WALBERG. With all the subcomponents as well? 

Mr. ORNER. Yes. 

Mr. WALBERG. I assume that part of that is a locked vehicle 

along with the locker? 

Mr. ORNER. The locked vehicle, the locker, and yes, any magazines or components of the—associated with the weapon are required to be in that gun locker. 

Mr. WALBERG. And that has been a policy subcomponent-wide for 

how long? 

Mr. ORNER. Just about 2 years. 

Mr. WALBERG. About 2 years? 

Mr. ORNER. I can’t give you the exact date but it was roughly 2 

years. 

Mr. WALBERG. What administrative actions, if any, have been 

taken against the officer involved in the situation, the lost weapon 

that led to the Ramos killing back in 2013? Or 2015, excuse me. 

Mr. ORNER. Disciplinary action is handled by the operational 

chain of command. I am not a part of the operational chain of command, so I don’t have an involvement in individual disciplinary actions. 

Mr. WALBERG. But I assume you know what took place. Could 

you inform us of that? 

Mr. ORNER. I’m aware of the tragic incident, of course, but I do 

not know the—that individual action. I can get that—I can get 

back to you on that. 

Mr. WALBERG. I would appreciate that if you could supply that 

to us, though I would hope that in evaluating your efforts to secure 

firearms, we would also have an understanding of how it is working and what has taken place as far as actions, administrative action against officers that, for one reason or another, lose their firearms. 

Did the incident lead to any changes in ICE protocols related to 

securing firearms, and have those changes been applied to other 

DHS components? 

Mr. ORNER. That particular incident didn’t lead to policy 

changes. It led to more scrutiny and a new look at the implementation of our current policy. 

Mr. WALBERG. So I guess I go back again. What did we learn 

from that particular incident, and what changes have been made? 

Mr. ORNER. Well, what we have learned is the criticality of securing officers’ weapons in their homes and in their vehicles. Every 

—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, that is a given. That I would assume is a 

given. 

Mr. ORNER. That is a given. Every individual case of a lost or 

stolen weapon is investigated. The actions taken as a result of 

those losses depend on the nature of the incident. Somebody who 

does not follow procedures and leaves a weapon sitting on the seat 

of a car, that would mandate a disciplinary action. On the other 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

hand, if you have, for example, a Coast Guard officer doing a 

boarding who is jostled and loses the weapon overboard, that’s an 

entirely different type of situation although it’s still a lost weapon. 

So the action taken is dependent on the nature of the incident and 

—— 

Mr. WALBERG. I see my time is expired. Unless you are willing 

to give me a little bit of extra time, and I see you are not, so I understand that. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Cummings of 

Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Horowitz, based on your audit, you said that there are still 

11 recommendations that have not been completed, is that right? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what would you say—give me the top two 

or three that you are most concerned about. But I know you are 

concerned about all of them; I know that. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Yes. Well, there are a couple, primarily involves 

updating their inventory control systems because we found you 

couldn’t track—you couldn’t—when we compared what they showed 

in their monthly reports versus what they had in the institutions, 

oftentimes the numbers didn’t match. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That such a basic issue —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—that has to get fixed. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how many guns are we talking about in 

total? Do you have any idea? In other words, I am trying to figure 

out how big the universe might be. It sounds like we don’t have a 

handle on when it—because we don’t have accurate information 

but —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I didn’t put down the exact number of guns. I’d 

imagine Mr. Kane —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would you know, Mr. Kane? 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—can. Do you know how many guns we are talking about? 

Mr. KANE. I do not know the number of guns, but they are not 

accounted for under the automated systems that Mr. Horowitz is 

referring to it this point. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. The inventories that I’m referring to, the firearms are tracked in a separate manner, which is why when we 

check those, we found no lost firearms because they actually did 

track the firearms. Our concern are what are called expendables, 

which is ammunition —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—in other words, things that you use up in some 

way, chemical agents, stun munitions, those kind of things that 

once you use them, they’re no longer in inventory. That was the 

problem BOP had. They weren’t keeping control and understanding 

what they were using versus what might have been stolen, for example. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, Mr. Kane, you had told the chairman you 

would be getting those 11 items done. When do you plan to do that, 

how soon? Because one thing I have learned about being around 

here for 20 years that folks just put stuff off and put stuff off and 

wait for another Congress, and things never get done. 

Mr. KANE. Thank you —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So I would like to have some date. 

Mr. KANE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. The safety and security of the public, the staff, and the institutions and the inmates 

is our highest priority, and we’re working very actively —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You are not answering my question, sir. Just answer —— 

Mr. KANE. We’re working with the OIG on the new automated 

—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you give me some deadlines? Give me 6 

months. Tell me something. 

Mr. KANE. We expect to be able to test that new system in early 

winter. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Early winter? 

Mr. KANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Because I’m going to ask the chairman 

to call you back. 

Mr. KANE. That’s fine. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because I realize that is the only way we get 

things done sometimes. 

Mr. KANE. That’s fine, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Inspector General Horowitz, do you agree that 

the inventory controls alone will not prevent Federal firearms from 

being used by criminals? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And why do you say that? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Tracking the weapon is obviously different from 

preventing their improper use. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you know, I support the President’s efforts 

to explore gun safety technology or smart guns that would require 

fingerprint verification. Mr. Chairman, in April the Department of 

Justice Homeland Security issued a report outlining the administration strategy, and I ask that that report be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. PALMER. Without objection —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you —— 

Mr. PALMER.—so ordered. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

That report states that this technology could ‘‘prevent use of an 

officer’s weapon if it fell into the wrong hands and it might discourage theft of such weapons in the first place. These developments 

could in turn shrink the supply of stolen firearms to the secondary 

black market, curtailing a dangerous source of weapons for criminals.’’ I would venture to guess that many of the guns used to murder people in my district to harm people are stolen guns, not from 

Federal agencies but stolen. 

Mr. Orner, given all of the potential of the smart technology, do 

you agree that it is at least worth exploring as one of the many 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

solutions that could help prevent criminals from doing harm with 

stolen Federal firearms? 

Mr. ORNER. I certainly think that that’s an issue worthy of evaluation. I’m reliant on the marketplace, and those types of technologies to my knowledge aren’t in the marketplace today. But as 

it’s evaluated as it’s become available, we will of course take a very 

close look at that, and we will determine in which of our operations 

such technologies will be efficient and effective and will improve 

the safety of the weapon. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see my time is up. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman yields. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Hice of Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Orner, let me just continue on here. Obviously, we are talking hundreds of weapons that have been stolen or somehow lost 

over the last several years. Do you have any idea how many of 

those weapons were used in crimes? 

Mr. ORNER. The only crime I’m aware of is the one that the 

chairman noted. I do not know that, but we will get back to you. 

We can go back to the National Criminal Investigation database. 

Mr. HICE. Have any of the firearms been recovered? 

Mr. ORNER. Yes. We regularly recover firearms. 

Mr. HICE. How many? 

Mr. ORNER. Well, for example, in 2015 we reported 72 lost firearms. We would now adjust that number to 56 to account for those 

recoveries. 

Mr. HICE. All right. So there are still 56. I mean, this is unacceptable. There have been people killed in America with weapons 

that were stolen or lost, whatever the case may be, by Federal 

agents. And the Customs and Border Patrol seems particularly 

egregious with this. Why does CBP stand out? 

Mr. ORNER. I think it has something to do with the nature of 

their operations. You have agents in the field sometimes running 

through vigorous environments. 

Mr. HICE. That is not an excuse to lose a weapon. 

Mr. ORNER. There’s no excuse for losing a weapon, Congressman. 

Mr. HICE. So my question is why are they the worst at losing 

their weapons? 

Mr. ORNER. The size of the organization and the nature of their 

mission would be the reasons. There is still no excuse for losing a 

weapon. 

Mr. HICE. Well, your answer frankly makes no sense. What in 

the world does failure to properly secure a weapon mean? If it is 

as you state inexcusable, there is no excuse to be losing a weapon, 

and yet the CBP continues to lose weapons. They are the worst at 

it. Why can they not secure a weapon? What does failure to properly secure a weapon mean? 

Mr. ORNER. We have very detailed procedures on —— 

Mr. HICE. That is not my question. 

Mr. ORNER. It means you did not follow established procedures. 

For example —— 

Mr. HICE. So why is following directions so difficult? Where are 

we dropping the ball here? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. ORNER. Overwhelmingly, our agents in the field do follow direction. 

Mr. HICE. Well, overwhelmingly, a sizable number of them evidently don’t follow direction. And we have got to get to the bottom 

of this. It is inexcusable for Americans to have to fear being injured 

or killed by weapons that were issued to government agents who 

are incapable of properly handling their weapon. Would you agree 

with that? 

Mr. ORNER. I would agree that any case of improperly handling 

a weapon is unacceptable. Seventy-five percent of our weapons 

losses were in fact thefts. 

Mr. HICE. All right. Well, I mean, that just poses more—that 

doesn’t help at all. I mean, how are guns continually being stolen? 

It just goes on and on here just trying to wrap my mind around 

this. 

Mr. Kane, let me jump over to you. What is a cause of the numerous inventory errors that OIG has pointed out? 

Mr. KANE. It’s the outdated systems that we are now replacing, 

and when they were constructed, they were built to serve the local 

institution, and now we’re moving toward a national database that 

will allow national centralized auditing of regular reports, et 

cetera, in addition to digital logs of —— 

Mr. HICE. So is that going to help you determine what is in inventory error versus what kind of weapon or ammunition has been 

stolen or missing? 

Mr. KANE. Other audits that are done in this part of the ongoing 

work of the Bureau of Prisons will check to see if those kinds of 

errors are occurring. And —— 

Mr. HICE. So is that a yes or a no? Are we going to be able to 

determine the difference between an inventory error and that 

which is stolen or missing? It is not a difficult question. That is 

what inventory is all about. We have got to know where these ammunitions and weapons are going. 

I see that my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I thank you. But 

we have got to get to the bottom of this. Americans should never 

fear the irresponsibility of our government agents who are incapable of keeping properly a weapon issued by our government. 

And with that, Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. 

Watson Coleman, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Although I doubt that anyone would disagree with making sure 

that Federal firearms are secure, this hearing seems to me to be 

a bit of a red herring. In the midst of the conversations sparked 

by last week’s Democratic sit-in, in the midst of calls to make commonsense changes to our nation’s gun laws, in the midst of public 

agreement on the two things that Democrats asked for a vote on— 

no-fly, no buy, and closing loopholes in background checks—we are 

having a hearing about guns. But it is about a tiny fraction of guns 

and certainly not the guns causing the majority of the problems. 

Even the title of today’s hearing is misleading because while 

there are a variety of inadequate safeguards when it comes to firearms in our nation, Federal weapons seem pretty low on the list. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

It may be more worthwhile, for example, to bring NIH in to examine the impact of the congressionally imposed and the NRA-endorsed ban on studying the impact of gun violence. 

I think our time would also be much better served with witnesses 

from the Justice Department or the FBI to talk about bullet stockpiles and how to track large ammunition purchases so that we can 

prevent mass shootings and make daily gun violence a little less 

frequent. I know for a fact that I would love to ask about my own 

Stop Online Ammunitions Sales Act. 

In Connecticut alone, there are more than 51,000 registered assault rifles. One hundred and seventy-nine of them are owned by 

one individual. And according to one 2014 estimate, nearly one million assault weapons have gone unregistered in New York. So I 

would love to hear from witnesses who could tell me more about 

what these owners typically do with these weapons and maybe 

something more about how we can ensure that they remain out of 

the wrong hands. 

All of that is to say that I hope that this hearing isn’t the end 

of our examination of inadequate safeguards, Mr. Chairman, because if it is, then I believe that it is our work that is inadequate. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. Will the gentlewoman yield? Will the —— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I yielded back. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the chairman. I yield to the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. And 

so let me follow up with my esteemed colleague opposite. I can assure her that this hearing is part of a series of hearings that we 

have had dating back long before some of the tragic events. She 

will recall obviously we have had GSA and a number of others that 

were in, and I have a strong commitment to work in a bipartisan 

way to continue not only the work that we have started many, 

many months ago but to continue to work on an inventory and control process that would address that. And so I just wanted to let 

the gentlewoman know of not only our previous efforts but our continuing efforts to address that. 

So let me go ahead and go to some of the issues —— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure, without a doubt. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. I certainly appreciate that, 

and I look forward to our working in a bipartisan way on this 

issue. At the end of the day I think our actions speak louder than 

words, and that as we approach these hearings in the future and 

we bring people before us, that I would like very much to get at 

the issue that is plaguing our communities both in mass killings 

and in individual lives that are lost daily, particularly in the urban 

communities and the poorer communities. The issue of —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Reclaiming my time. I appreciate your comments. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All I am saying is is that this is a long-standing 

process of which this committee has taken seriously long before 

some of the most recent political events that have sparked some of 

this controversy. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

And so let me come back to some of the issues at hand that seem 

to be systemic. And gentlemen, you are here this morning because 

of your inventory and your systems being deplorable. There is no 

other word to describe them other than to suggest that the lack of 

controls at your agencies need not only great work but systemic 

work to make sure that we can keep track of them. Would you all 

agree with that? 

Mr. KANE. [Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. I see, Mr. Kane, you are shaking your head yes. 

Mr. Orner, all of you would agree that you have systemic problems 

that need of major, major work. So let me ask you a little bit further because one of my concerns, the gentlewoman mentioned 

about the rounds of ammunition, and I honestly get questioned 

more from DHS with regards to rounds of ammunition and why 

you purchased so much only having, I guess, officially according to 

open the books—and Dr. Coburn, who I hold in very high regard, 

he said that there has only been 881 times that DHS has actually 

fired their weapon in terms of official capacity, but yet you have 

purchased 1.7 billion rounds of ammunition. Why such a huge inventory of ammunition? 

Mr. ORNER. We use a strategic sourcing on the purchasing of ammunition to get the best price. The numbers you quote —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But —— 

Mr. ORNER.—are contract ceilings, not the amount that is actually purchased. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But if we go to the amount that you actually contract, I have looked into this dating back 3 or 4 years. So let me 

shift to something else. Can you tell me why DHS would have acquired 4,700 bayonets? 

Mr. ORNER. I am not familiar with the issue of bayonets, and I 

will —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, it —— 

Mr. ORNER.—get back to you on that. I suspect it’s ceremonial 

units, but I’m going to have to get back to you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Forty-seven hundred bayonets —— 

Mr. ORNER. That may also be —— 

Mr. MEADOWS.—in ceremonial units for DHS? 

Mr. ORNER. That may also be a contract ceiling, but I will get 

back with you with the data on that. And on the issue of in ammunition, we do issue an annual comprehensive report on the purchase —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, I am very familiar with it. I am very familiar 

with it. So let me ask you in terms of coding because I’m going to 

come to you, Mr. Kane, very quickly, on coding as well. Can you 

tell me why you would code something to show that it was a procurement type for firearms code that in there—it was for the ‘‘cable 

dude.’’ 

Mr. ORNER. For the what? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Cable dude. 

Mr. ORNER. Did we code it that way? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. Would you say that that is something that 

should be used as a firearm code? 

Mr. ORNER. Absolutely not and it —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are starting to get my point. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

So, Mr. Kane, let me come to you because I am just as concerned that you have inmate clothing at $67,000 worth that is coded as 

body armor. Why would that be? 

Mr. KANE. I have no idea, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Or feminine hygiene products worth $15,000 

coded as body armor? Any reason why the Bureau of Prisons would 

do that? 

Mr. KANE. No, none that I know of it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. We also have that you had $113,000 worth of food 

that you coded as chemical weapons and equipment. Does that 

make sense? 

Mr. KANE. It does not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. I think we are all getting my point I believe at this point. If you can’t code it right, the best new system 

in the world isn’t going to fix the problem. And so what we need 

is real accountability, real coding, and a real inventory system that 

honestly you could probably put on QuickBooks today and do better 

than what we are doing. 

And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman yields. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Cartwright, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to you, Inspector General Horowitz, for being here 

today —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT.—and for your good work bird-dogging the Bureau of Prisons and watching how they handle their firearms. This 

is work that reminds us how important it is to make sure our Federal agencies effectively, efficiently, and safely manage their firearms. The reason we do this, of course, is that when guns get into 

the wrong hands, they can have devastating effects on our communities. The tragic massacre in Orlando that is not yet a month old 

acutely reminds us of this, and my heart breaks for those families. 

Inspector General Horowitz, given your investigative expertise, 

when looking for solutions to problems, why is it important to consider all contributing factors? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, when we look at issues, one of the things 

that’s important to us when we issue a report is to be prepared to 

answer questions about whatever the potential factor could be 

using the inventory and the issues here today. For example —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Sure. To get to the whole truth, and I totally 

—— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Try and make sure we get the whole story. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT.—agree with that. For example, we have to 

make sure our background check systems have the appropriate information in place so we can actually make sure that people who 

are prohibited from having guns actually do not have guns. That 

is why I support the administration’s efforts in this area. Attorney 

General Lynch has written the States on how important it is that 

they share relevant information so that the background check system can be accurate. The FBI is overhauling the system to make 

it more efficient in order to improve processing times. Even the Social Security Administration is working to make sure appropriate 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

information is shared with background checks system about people 

prohibited from getting guns for mental health reasons. 

Again, what are we doing here in Congress? Well, we are trying 

to change the subject. Just a few weeks ago, House Republican 

leadership blocked Democratic efforts to bring legislation to the 

Floor that would prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. 

Somebody needs to pinch me. Why would you prevent a bill like 

that from coming to the Floor? They wouldn’t even allow a vote. 

Even now, even now after Americans across this country have 

protested, Speaker Ryan won’t agree to hold a vote on meaningful 

gun violence measures. Instead, Speaker Ryan will allow a vote 

only on a proposal that was written by the National Rifle Association and rejected by the Senate, and even this now, even this deficient measure is being pulled back. It is unacceptable. There is still 

no action on legislation that would help improve our background 

checks, which is critically needed to keep guns out of the wrong 

hands. 

Mr. Orner, if we can stop the flow of guns to criminals, would 

this help support DHS’s efforts to keep our nation safe? 

Mr. ORNER. As a general statement, the obvious answer is yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. It is obvious, and I thank you for that. We 

have smart reform-minded solutions right at our fingertips that 

could help keep guns out of the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle to give these solutions a chance and 

at least bring them up for a vote. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman yields. 

I would just like to point out and remind the committee that this 

topic, this hearing topic again back in February with a hearing 

that we had with the GSA regarding Federal agencies’ handling of 

firearms. This committee sent letters to 34 agencies for information 

on their firearms inventories and how they are handling them, and 

I will also say that this discussion will continue. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Gosar, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Inspector General Horowitz, good seeing you again. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GOSAR. In March 2016 you released a report showing you audited three BOP armories in my home State of Arizona: FCI Phoenix, FCI Tucson, and USP Tucson. Did your audit find that firearms and munitions were secure in those three locations? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We found that they had kept track of the firearms, but we still found the inventory control issues that we found 

more broadly. 

Mr. GOSAR. Any other findings that you feel are important in regards to those three facilities? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, broadly speaking, what we found at the institutions generally was we couldn’t reconcile the monthly inventories with the actual inventories when we were doing it. So we 

didn’t have confidence in understanding how that discrepancy— 

those discrepancies occurred, whether it meant a poor tracking system or whether it meant something worse like people stealing or 

taking improperly various munitions. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Mr. GOSAR. Got you. Now, you testified in fiscal year 2014 the 

Bureau of Prisons recovered 2,410 weapons in BOP institutions, a 

5 percent increase from the fiscal year 2012. That is an astronomical number in that many weapons shouldn’t even be making their 

way into these secure prisons. It begs to highlight this. Can you 

quickly reiterate some of the important recommendations your office made to prevent contraband and firearms from making their 

way into the BOP facilities? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Absolutely, Congressman. This is a very important issue, and primarily, they involve tracking the contraband 

that’s found because BOP doesn’t know in a big-picture way how 

it might be getting—this contraband might be getting into institutions. Staff search is a very important part of this. There is not an 

effective staff search policy at the BOP. We talked about that 13 

years ago in 2003. 

Sadly, as the incident I recounted involving our own agent who 

lost his life at a BOP institution when a corrupt correctional officer 

had a weapon in the prison that he should not have had in there, 

used that firearm to shoot and kill Buddy Sentner, Agent Buddy 

Sentner, and shot but survived fortunately BOP staff member. 

There needs to be an effective staff search policy. 

There needs to be better camera systems. As I mentioned earlier 

in response to Congressman Lynch’s question, there needs to be 

tracking of what is occurring in the institution. BOP needs to do 

a better job on their new technologies they are using to their credit, 

but what we found when we went out to institutions was that the 

correctional officers and staff didn’t understand fully how to use 

the tracking technology and the new technologies were being used, 

also how to use them consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act, which requires various steps to be taken before x-raying various people going into institutions. So we had a number of findings 

that we think BOP needs to take to address these issues. 

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Kane, were you paying particular attention to 

that? 

Mr. KANE. Absolutely, we are, Mr. Congressman, and it we —— 

Mr. GOSAR. So some of the things that were brought up 13 years 

ago, why are we still even talking about them today? 

Mr. KANE. We have actually made changes in policy, as Mr. 

Horowitz referenced earlier, in 2013, and another update concurred 

with by our union this spring in 2016. But the OIG identified additional potential improvements. We agree, and we are going to actively pursue them. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, Mr. Ellis, were you paying attention? 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. Because it seems like all I get and this committee 

gets from you is doubletalk in regards to inventories, numbers. You 

know, we get handbook, pieces copied out of handbooks. So I want 

to ask you again, were you paying attention? 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, I might respond to your question, too, is one, the 

BLM does an inventory of their firearms every 6 months. We last 

did one—let’s see, was it last January—and recently completed one 

here it would be at the end of June. 

In regards to the question about the information that you get 

back, what I—I might say that the committee —— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. Let me interrupt you. I have got a limited 

amount of time. Do you know how many firearms have been lost 

since 2005 from the BLM? 

Mr. ELLIS. I do. 

Mr. GOSAR. How many? 

Mr. ELLIS. We’ve had eight firearms lost. One was lost in the 

mail, seven were stolen. Of these —— 

Mr. GOSAR. And how many were ultimately recovered? 

Mr. ELLIS. Six were recovered. 

Mr. GOSAR. Do you know how many of these lost firearms are actually connected to any criminal activity? 

Mr. ELLIS. One that we’re aware of, one. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I am running out of time here, Mr. Chairman, 

but thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman yields. 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. 

Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you for having this hearing. It is a truly 

serious, serious issue. Some of my colleagues and I just came from 

a meeting with 91 people, the average number of people who die 

each day, each day from gunshot wounds in our great country, and 

they were all people who had lost their loved ones and been shot 

themselves. I mean, it was heartbreaking, absolutely heartbreaking. 

And on June 21 in the city that I represent, New York, there was 

a van coming into the city that had a broken window so they 

stopped the van and they opened up the van and it was filled with 

machine guns, grenades, and a whole cache of weapons coming in 

to the city of New York. 

So really I want to thank you for looking at the Federal firearms 

inventories. I think it is important. But I would say it is a small 

drop in the bucket given the amount of guns that are in our country. Believe me, if guns made people safer, we would be the safest 

nation on earth. And one report showed that since 1968 our country has lost more men and women to gun violence than we have 

lost in all of the combined wars that we have experienced, including the great war for our independence that we just celebrated last 

weekend. 

So I want to talk about this, and I am glad you are looking at 

it, but I think it should be looked at in a broader way. The Department of Homeland Security is the largest law enforcement agency 

in the country, and of the 21 agents responding to it, the agencies 

responding to the Department of Homeland Security, they reported 

the highest number of lost, stolen, or missing weapons was an average of 69 per year. Now, that is important, but there may have 

been 69 weapons in that van that they stopped going into New 

York. I mean, it is a huge problem. In contrast, over 230,000 guns 

are stolen each year during burglaries from private citizens. 

So I would like to ask Mr. Horowitz, given these numbers and 

given your investigative experience searching for solutions to problems, would you agree that non-Federal firearms also affect our 

communities? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We’ve certainly had situations where non-Federal 

firearms have affected communities. The example I gave earlier 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

where our agent was shot trying to arrest the corrupt correctional 

officer was shot using an unauthorized firearm. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, actually, some of your agents testified before this Congress several years ago and asked for us to make trafficking in guns illegal, make it a felony. It is not even a felony now. 

How dumb can we be? And to increase the penalties on straw purchases. And they said, look, we want stricter gun enforcement laws 

to protect ourselves. This one agent testified that they don’t even 

bother to go after gun traffickers because there is really no penalty. 

It is not even a felony. 

So, you know, straw purchasing is buying guns for people who 

are prohibited from purchasing them. And in 2000 the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms examined its gun trafficking investigations and reported that straw purchasing from Federal licensed 

dealers was involved in nearly half of the ATF investigations studied and connected to over 25,000 firearms. 

So I would like to have this report entered into the record, which 

I think is called ‘‘Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws 

against Firearms Traffickers.’’ Could I have unanimous consent to 

place it in the record? 

Mr. PALMER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And this point out that straw purchasers and 

trafficking is a huge problem, and the chairman and I—not the 

chairman but the ranking member—we hope the chairman will join 

us—but the ranking member and a number of us on this committee 

introduced legislation making trafficking in guns a felony and increasing the penalty for straw purchasers. This would make our 

agents safer. This would make our people safer. 

And I just am really imploring my colleagues to not only follow 

up on this important report that has been done but to also respond 

by supporting this bill. Practically every law enforcement group in 

the country endorsed it because it said it would make their agents 

safer. 

And we are in an epidemic. We are losing too many people. I had 

to leave a speak-out of mothers and fathers who had lost their children dying in their arms from gunshot wounds because it was too 

horrible to listen to. And it is preventable if we could just crack 

down not only on the number lost from the agencies but the number stolen from homes, the number that are given to mentally ill, 

deranged terrorists, people —— 

Mr. PALMER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. MALONEY.—and let’s just join hands and work together to 

get the guns out off the streets, no fire, no buy, and comprehensive 

background checks. It is common sense. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentlewoman yields. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Russell. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, thank 

you for being here today. 

What training do agents receive on properly securing their firearms? Whoever would like to go first. Mr. Kane? 

Mr. KANE. Our officers are issued firearms in very limited circumstances, but they also do use them during training. They’re 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

issued from our armories and returned to our armories. They are 

tracked in a system, as Mr. Horowitz indicated, that is effective in 

maintaining accurate inventories of firearms. We have not lost or 

had any stolen since 2005, the time the research suggested by or 

requested by the committee. 

But our training begins in basic training. We have annual training. We do training in disturbance-control sorts of events, et cetera, 

and all of those types of training include that sort of focus in instruction. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And I realize that the Bureau of Prisons has arms 

room issuance of firearms, you know, for their duties, so we would 

expect a stricter control. 

Mr. Ellis, what type of training do the BLM agents receive, seeing as how they have their firearms with them 24 hours a day? 

Mr. ELLIS. That’s—yes. Congressman, our law enforcement officers are rangers, uniformed officers, and they’re special agents. It 

all starts with their—what’s called—well, their basic training, 

FLETC, 16 weeks of training for the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center. When they qualify on the job every 6 months on 

these weapons, you know, they receive, you know, additional training. 

And also, we have what we call our general orders, and our general orders cover the requirements for securing firearms, say in vehicles, in your residence if you have them in your residence. That’s 

all covered in our general orders —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. 

Mr. ELLIS.—and they’re all educated on these general orders. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And, Mr. Orner, in the various sub-agencies of 

DHS, I am assuming that there is some type of requirements to 

maintain possession of your firearm? 

Mr. ORNER. Absolutely, Congressman. Anybody who is issued a 

firearm in the Department of Homeland Security must first go 

through training. There is, of course, requalification training on a 

regular basis. The content of the training that officers are required 

to take varies depending on the mission of the component of which 

they are a part. So if you’d like, I can give you a —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I think it is important —— 

Mr. ORNER.—comprehensive list of those. 

Mr. RUSSELL.—to notice that because it appears we have some 

training deficiencies with retention of firearms, with leaving firearms in a vehicle instead of on your person or not having them as 

a part of your duties. Maybe they would be left unattended. That 

is a serious breach of any trained officer, and so it goes to really 

another question. And to you, Mr. Orner, okay, we had 69 firearms 

lost for 204,000 in a particular year. What happened to the 69 

agents that lost possession of their firearm? 

Mr. ORNER. In every case the supervisor is notified of the loss 

within 2 hours —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. We got the loss. What discipline actions happen to the individuals? Are they commended? Are they disciplined? 

Are they fined? Are they removed? Surely there must be some penalty for such a grievous violation. 

Mr. ORNER. The nature of the discipline depends on the circumstances of the loss. They’re—each one of those losses is invesVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:12 Oct 24, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22194.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

tigated by the operational chain of command who takes the appropriate action. I don’t have a personal involvement. It wouldn’t be 

appropriate —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, we would like to see that. And of the 69, I 

personally would like to know how many of those officers were disciplined that it was due to neglect. We understand if somebody was 

overpowered or they were, you know, in the course of their duties 

or something of that nature. 

I will say this: 24-hours-a-day duty or having possession of firearms every day is no excuse for their negligent care. Having served 

in battle in several different excursions around the globe, I never 

once under my command had any of my soldiers lose a firearm. I 

had some destroyed by combat actions, never had a soldier lose a 

single one. And I would suggest that at the root cause of much of 

this with firearms loss is proper care, proper training, and it also 

has to be proper discipline. If there are no ramifications, then it 

doesn’t even seem to be something serious. 

And, Mr. Chairman, with just a slight indulgence here, 

newsflash, it is a felony to make a straw purchase on a firearm. 

As the only firearms manufacturer in Congress, I can assure you 

for my Democratic colleagues that you cannot make a straw purchase without it being a felony. That just absolutely does not happen. And to this 30,000 number that we see every year of people 

that lose their lives to firearm homicide, let’s not forget that 63 

percent of those are suicide. 

Let’s have the debate, but let’s use real facts, let’s use real discussions, and let’s quit hampering this hearing on things that need 

to be addressed in a separate way. And I would welcome and champion anyone you want to put up —— 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. RUSSELL.—on that issue. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Russell. So I guess you are in favor of us having Floor debates on 

these issues, and that is great hearing that coming from your side. 

We would like to have those sooner rather than later. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Will the gentlelady yield for a question? 

Ms. PLASKETT. It wasn’t a question. I was just making a statement so —— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, would you just yield for a simple question? 

Ms. PLASKETT. Sure. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Just one question. Does that include showing proper respect to the esteemed chamber that we obey by the rules that 

we dictate for this wonderful republic of ours and that we conduct 

ourselves in a similar manner where that type of discussion could 

occur? Would you agree to that? 

Ms. PLASKETT. I would agree to that, and I have agreed to that, 

and I believe the Democrats have done that when this body also 

has respect for itself by bringing those things to debate and to the 

Floor and not disrespecting the American people by manipulating 

the rules so that that doesn’t happen. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. Horowitz, the committee appreciates the work that went into 

the audit over the course of the 3 years in the seven facilities, and 

the committee itself is in the middle of its own investigation of inventory practices. About 33 agencies received a letter from Chairman Chaffetz requesting the documents, and thus far, 22 have responded. Many of these agencies have either no losses or recovered 

all lost weapons, and that is really great news. 

From the responses we have received, it appears that the vast 

majority of firearms losses result from theft from a Federal agent, 

including vehicle and home break-ins. What are the best practices, 

Mr. Horowitz, for reduction of incidence of theft? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think there are several steps that agencies can 

take. First of all, having proper policies and training in place is 

critical. We’ve found in looking at the BOP, for example, they had 

several policies in some places that were, we thought, best practices, but that was institution by institution. It was not at a broader level. 

We think, in addition, making sure that the proper equipment is 

provided to agents so, for example, if they’re going to be in their 

car, government car, they should have an appropriate storage locker if they’re going to have a place to leave their firearm. They 

should not be leaving it obviously unsecure in a car. Those are 

some of the things that just off the top of my head that I think —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. And are there penalties in place for individuals 

or Federal agents who do not follow those procedures, and have 

they been put on those individuals that break those rules? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. There are disciplinary policies. We would oversee 

the ones at the FBI, DEA, ATF, the Bureau of Prisons, and the 

Marshals, which are DOJ components, and I can certainly get back 

to you on what the most recent numbers look like from those agencies in terms of discipline for any lost firearms. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay, great. And the inventories, you do believe 

that all inventories should submit to occasional audits, correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Absolutely. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And does that happen? How does that happen? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. At the BOP where we did this review it doesn’t 

happen regularly in the sense that there’s really no historical audit 

that can be done because of the way the current tracking system 

is kept. A real audit would look at the change in inventory over 

time. That can’t be done in the way the current system is fashioned 

but hopefully will be in the revised system. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And when will that revision go into effect? 

Mr. KANE. We are planning to begin testing the new system in 

early winter 2017. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And why not sooner? 

Mr. KANE. It’s a complicated system to put together. We’re working directly with OIG staff to satisfy all requirements. And we— 

we’re working very hard already to get it done. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So next spring you will be able to give us some 

outcomes of what that inventory, when you begin testing it, might 

have looked like? 

Mr. KANE. Yes, we expect we will. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. One of the other things the 

ATF says that there are currently—just a moment—sir, the numVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:12 Oct 24, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22194.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

ber of agencies that have not reported their numbers, so we got 

from others, were you not able to conduct an extensive review for 

every Federal agency? How many agencies can you review did you 

say, Mr. Horowitz? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We would have oversight over the DOJ, the Justice Department agencies —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—so the law enforcement components there being 

FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Who do you think have the most law enforcement 

or have the largest number of Federal guns or ammunitions or arsenal? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I believe the Department of Homeland Security 

has the largest total number. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Orner, would you agree with that? 

Mr. ORNER. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And —— 

Mr. ORNER. We do have the largest number. We have 204,000 

weapons. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And of that, how many have you had losses or 

thefts? 

Mr. ORNER. Losses or thefts over the last 4 years averages 69 of 

the 204,000. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. I have run out of time. Thank 

you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentlewoman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

Gowdy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had some questions 

and observations for the inspector general for the Judicial Department because I am a big fan of his and I always enjoy when he 

comes before Congress. And then my friend from Oklahoma said 

something that caused me to kind of divert my thinking a little bit, 

and I want to, first of all, tell my friend from Oklahoma thank you 

for your service to our country well before you ever came to Congress. 

You mentioned straw purchasers, and of course a straw purchaser is someone who purchases a firearm on behalf of someone 

who has been prohibited, and that kind of got me thinking, well, 

I wonder how long the list of prohibited persons is. And I was wondering from my friend from Oklahoma, it is already, I believe, 

against the law for persons who have been convicted of felonies to 

purchase firearms and ammunition, is that right? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, it is illegal, and it is also illegal to make straw 

purchases. It comes with a 10-year minimum prison sentence. 

Mr. GOWDY. You know what I found striking, there is actually 

a pretty long list of people who can’t purchase firearms, any kind 

of firearm or ammunition: those who used controlled substances, 

those who have been court-martialed, those that are not here legally, those that have overstayed visas, those that are subject to a 

restraining order in a domestic violence case. They already can’t 

possess firearms, any kind of firearm. So that got me wondering, 

to my friend from Oklahoma. I wonder how this administration is 

doing enforcing the current laws that are on the books for all of 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

those categories of prohibited persons. Does my friend know whether prosecutions are up or down over the last 8 years? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Actually, the prosecutions are down, sadly to say. 

The administration has not supported the ‘‘Don’t Lie for the Other 

Guy’’ campaign, which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the FBI both support, as well as all responsible gun manufacturers and Federal firearms licensees. This is a real problem, 

and the administration has not supported the efforts. It would go 

a long way if we saw a different policy. 

Mr. GOWDY. And, you know, I find that stunning. I guess I find 

it stunning at a logical level why you would ask for more tools 

when you are not using the tools that you currently have. And I 

would encourage all of my friends to look at the prosecution levels 

for 18 USC 922(g) crimes, firearms violations, look at the level of 

prosecution for the last 8 years under this administration, and you 

will see that gun prosecutions have gone down. 

So I am trying to figure out how another law that you are not 

going to enforce is going to make us safer. And to my friend from 

Oklahoma, I am struggling to follow the logic. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I would agree. In fact, with regard to the nofly list, you know, they say if you are a terrorist, you shouldn’t be 

able to buy a firearm. Newsflash: You can’t. Four hundred thousand are on the terror watch list. Over 97 percent of those are foreigners. They are prohibited from purchasing firearms. You have to 

be a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident and 90 days in residence at your current address to even have a firearm transferred. 

Otherwise, it is denied. 

So there is a lot of bad information. Of the 3 percent that remains, a fraction of that ends up being on the no-fly list, and of 

that, it will trigger what they call a Federal prohibiter likely going 

to be denied or delayed at a minimum and the FBI is notified for 

further investigation. This is tantamount to like saying, well, we 

need to stop murder. Why don’t they make a law to stop murder? 

Newsflash: We have. People still are sinful and commit crimes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am pretty sure we have laws against narcotics trafficking, too, and I have not noticed that going away in 

part because of a porous border but for other reasons as well. 

And in conclusion, my friend from Oklahoma, I notice the Governor of Virginia has begun a campaign to restore the rights of persons who have been convicted. It is a restoration of rights. I guess 

if that is what Virginia wants to do, that is what Virginia can do, 

but I would hasten to add, those persons have already been afforded due process. They were convicted. They were either convicted by a jury of their peers or they stood in front of a judge and 

admitted that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every 

element of the crime. So they have already been afforded due process, and yet the Governor of Virginia wants to restore their rights. 

And some of those same folks are now arguing to take away rights 

of folks who have had no due process whatsoever. Can the gentleman from Oklahoma help me understand that? 

Mr. RUSSELL. It is hard to fathom. I would think in cases where 

you have legitimate pardons by a Governor and evidence has been 

brought to bear, then obviously we would have constitutional rights 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

restored. Apart from that, I think that that is going down the 

wrong path. 

It is also worth noting in our gun violence that we see in actual 

murders with firearms, they have decreased 9 percent since 2010, 

they have decreased 10 percent since 2005, 20 percent since 1995. 

Last year, the last statistical data year that we had, of the 8,124 

murders committed with firearms, only 248 were done by rifles of 

any type. That was nearly half what it was for blunt force objects 

or clubs or things of that nature. Again, we have a lot of data that 

is being thrown out as inaccurate, but in the true communist textbook fashion, say it often enough and repeat it often enough, it becomes believed, and what is alive becomes truth. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, and I 

thank the chairman for his indulgence, and we would yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman yields. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Connolly from Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Surely my colleague did not mean to suggest that those of us 

who have a different opinion on guns are communists. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Of course not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Mr. Horowitz, how many firearms 

are lost or unaccounted for every year in Federal possession? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Congressman, I don’t have the total number 

across all Federal agencies with me. I can certainly get that —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—to you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY.—is it in the millions? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t even have an estimate. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Does anyone on the panel know? Well, surely it 

is dwarfed by the number of firearms lost in private hands, is it 

not? Anybody? Well, there are 230,000 private firearms lost or stolen every year. Does that sound right to anybody on the panel or 

—— Mr. HOROWITZ. I have no data on that, Congressman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, Mr. Horowitz, the point of this hearing by 

the majority, references to communism notwithstanding, is to try 

to prove that the Federal Government is reckless, and even by implication, talking about repetition of untruths, that the Federal 

Government might itself be culpable frankly for gun violence and 

gun deaths in America. And therefore, it is relevant to the topic to 

understand what percentage total firearms possessed by the Federal Government, and of that total, how many are lost or unaccounted for relative to the number of guns in private hands 

throughout the country that are lost or stolen every year. And it 

is rather self-evident that the latter dwarfs the former. And being 

prepared for that argument might have been helpful as you all prepared to come here today on a subject that has been in the headlines. 

I just came from the steps of the Capitol to have a colleague talk 

about a point of view on guns as a lie that gets repeated like the 

communists did. I would welcome bringing some of my colleagues 

who apparently hold that view to the steps of the Capitol where we 

heard a mother describe her estranged husband, drunk and abuVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:12 Oct 24, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\22194.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

sive, came to the home, shot her multiple times and killed her 10- 

year-old daughter, who died in her arms as her mother held her 

trying to understand and still recovering from the trauma, of 

course, of that incident. He got a gun online with no background 

check, no approval, not from the Federal Government, easy to possess by getting online. 

Here in the Congress, we had a sit-in last week not for the sake 

of making a political point but for the sake of trying to give witness 

to tens of thousands of victims of gun violence in America, the 

overwhelming majority of whom were felled by guns in private 

hands, some legal, some not, some stolen, some purchased. And 

this is an epidemic in the United States. We are losing over 30,000 

people a year to gun violence not because of the Federal Government losing weapons. 

So in that sense I don’t know whether this hearing is doing us 

a service to the greater debate, but I certainly want to assert as 

vigorously as I can that this is a point of view that is growing and 

that is not based on falsehoods or distortions. It is based on the underlying fact that every 2 years we lose more Americans to gun violence in this country than we did in the entirety of the Vietnam 

War. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman yields. 

I now recognize myself for questions, and would just like to point 

out that among those who were lost to gun violence, according to 

the FBI statistics, 11,900 and something were homicides and less 

than 8,200 were related to gun violence. 

Mr. Ellis, in July of 2015 an illegal foreign national five-time deportee from Mexico stole a Bureau of Land Management ranger’s 

gun and shot and murdered 31-year-old Kate Steinle who died in 

her father’s arms. How did the shooter manage to steal that firearm? 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, very tragic, very tragic incident, and —— 

Mr. PALMER. Just for the sake of time just answer the question. 

Mr. ELLIS. My understanding is that the BLM law enforcement 

officer had that weapon in his personal vehicle that he was driving 

to Helena, Montana. 

Mr. PALMER. Was the vehicle locked or did they break into it? 

Mr. ELLIS. It’s my understanding the vehicle was locked and it 

was broken into. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. Are the BLM rangers required to undergo 

training for firearm management? 

Mr. ELLIS. They are. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. Let me point out that they are required to 

attend special firearm training held by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and after the training is complete, the rangers complete a second field training and evaluation program where 

they learn the job and several duty locations across the States. Annual and quarterly training is also required for firearms, defensive 

tactics, physical fitness, and other job skills. In other words, the 

ranger is responsible for his assigned firearm, isn’t that true? 

Mr. ELLIS. Rangers are responsible —— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Mr. PALMER. And other equipment while off duty. Department of 

Interior departmental manual part 446, chapter 10, requires that 

each law enforcement officer is responsible for ensuring the security of his or her assigned firearm and other defensive equipment 

while on or off duty. And further, BLM’s own manual, handbook, 

1112–2 on safety and health for field operations, topic 17.6, requires that all firearms, when not in active use, shall be stored in 

a secure place out of sight under lock and key. Firearms will be unloaded prior to storage. 

Considering what happened and the tragic nature of events after 

the theft of the firearm, was that ranger disciplined? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, the ranger was not disciplined and 

—— 

Mr. PALMER. Why not? That is in direct violation of your handbook. 

Mr. ELLIS. After this incident, the BLM investigated why. Myself 

and many of us wanted to know how did this happen. At the time 

we did not have a policy in place for POVs. That’s personally operated vehicles. We now have a policy in place that —— 

Mr. PALMER. So this policy just—you are telling me that this 

manual policy that I just read you was put in place after Kate 

Steinle was murdered? 

Mr. ELLIS. No, there’s policy—there’s a general order 15 that covers government vehicles —— 

Mr. PALMER. No, I asked you —— 

Mr. ELLIS.—this was not covered —— 

Mr. PALMER. I am asking you, now answer the question. BLM’s 

manual handbook 1112–2 on safety and health for field operations, 

topic 17.6, was that in place before Kate Steinle was murdered? 

Mr. ELLIS. All —— 

Mr. PALMER. The answer is yes. I mean, you know your own policy, don’t you? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, the policy that was in place for personal vehicles essentially required the locking of the vehicle. The 

individual had the vehicle locked. It was broken into. The firearm 

was not secured to a hard point in the vehicle —— 

Mr. PALMER. Was it loaded? 

Mr. ELLIS. The policy —— 

Mr. PALMER. Was the firearm loaded? 

Mr. ELLIS. Now—the policy now requires that. 

Mr. PALMER. I am asking you was the firearm loaded? 

Mr. ELLIS. I do not know the answer to that. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me ask you this. You say that standard firearms issue for each officer is a semiautomatic pistol for primary 

duty carry, a semiautomatic pistol as a backup weapon, a shotgun, 

and a semiautomatic rifle. Would you describe that rifle? 

Mr. ELLIS. It’s a semiautomatic rifle. I don’t—I cannot tell you 

—— 

Mr. PALMER. What caliber? What caliber? 

Mr. ELLIS. It’s my understanding it’s similar to AR–15. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. So it is an AR–15, but the Federal inventory 

does not list that as an assault weapon. It lists it, properly so, as 

a semiautomatic rifle, is that correct? 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, it is a semiautomatic rifle, so —— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

Mr. PALMER. That is right. 

Mr. ELLIS.—my understanding, we have no automatic rifles, no 

automatic pistols, no automatic firearms in the BLM inventory. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank you for making that distinction between 

what is or is not an assault weapon. I yield back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend, 

at the same time find it difficult in giving the benefit of the doubt 

to reconcile what the majority would like to do here in terms of 

pursuing best practices on storage and inventory control on Federal 

public safety agencies and our inability to have an honest non-emotive if possible evidence-based debate about how we can deal with 

gun safety and violence in this country. 

I find it ironic that the history of the NRA started as a gun safety organization where perhaps 50, 60 years ago we could have that 

kind of discussion where the IG and the National Laboratories 

could investigate what is the best way to drop gun violence and increase gun safety, whether it is proper funding for prosecutors or 

laws that are effective or oversight. I for one would enjoy being 

part of that discussion and just remind and submit for the record 

if possible a letter that over 100 of us signed to the Republican 

leadership to continue or re-instigate the funding for Center for 

Disease Control funding around gun violence. And would ask that 

that be entered into the record. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I want to quote from an extensive article that 

was in the San Jose Mercury News being from the bay area as part 

of a bay area news group investigation, and it started after the 

Kate Steinle incidence, which I assume, Mr. Ellis, was the one exception to lost guns that you mentioned. At a previous questioning 

you said that there were eight lost guns, and that was the one that 

unfortunately ended up in a tragedy, as you said, is that correct, 

sir? 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So quoting from the San Jose Mercury’s story, 

a year after a bullet from a Federal agent’s stolen gun killed 32- 

year-old Kate Steinle, who I will mention was once a constituent 

of mine, on a San Francisco pier, this news organization surveyed 

more than 240 local, State, and Federal enforcement agencies and 

discovered an alarming disregard, disregard for the way many officers from police chiefs to cadets to FBI agents safeguard their 

weapons. 

Their guns have been stolen from behind car seats, glove boxes, 

swiped from gym bags, dresser drawers, and under bed. They have 

been left on tailgates, car roofs, and even atop a toilet paper dispenser in a car dealership’s bathroom. One officer forgot a highpowered assault rifle in the trunk of a taxi. 

In all, since 2010 at least 944 guns have disappeared from police 

agencies, State, Federal, and local, across California, an average of 

one almost every other day, and fewer than 20 percent have been 

recovered. ‘‘You just can’t leave a gun alone in a vehicle,’’ said retired FBI agent Jim Wedick. ‘‘You just can’t do it. It has to be in 

a compartment or in chains an inch thick wrapped around a lead 

box because God forbid someone gets hurt.’’ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

The extensive investigation goes on to talk about the lack of 

proper inventory control in Federal agencies, also in State and 

local. So I have started to work my office on a bill to address this. 

In talking to police chiefs in many of your departments and to 

rank-and-file, there are some issues that consistently come up, including—and sort of this goes to the earlier discussion about laws 

that aren’t enforced—but the disincentive or the incentive for best 

practices. 

So in the quote, the quote was ‘‘disregard for the way many officers’’—now, we are all humans. If there isn’t a proper disincentive, 

Mr. Horowitz, which my colleague, Mr. Russell, brought up in his 

comments, people need to be disciplined sometimes. If what we 

have got anecdotally is agents from your agencies know that there 

are colleagues who don’t really follow best practices. 

So, Mr. Horowitz, what do we do to discipline people? And, Mr. 

Ellis, as a follow-up, what did you do in this instance or at any instance to actually discipline the individual agents? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Congressman, I couldn’t agree with you more. 

There has to be consistent discipline. It’s—there’s got to be followthrough. One of the frustrations we’ve had as an IG office over the 

years is the failure to follow through on discipline by the agencies 

when we find issues. We’ve issued many reports, as you know, on 

that issue. And so I think there has to be two things. I think the 

inspectors general need to continue to call out failures to follow 

rules by the agencies that we oversee, and Congress needs to ask 

the hard questions when that—when those failures occur. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Mr. Ellis? And I will say this came up in the 

previous investigations about DEA officers overseas, that they 

didn’t think there was going to be any punishment, and in fact, a 

lot of them actually got promoted and all of them continued to 

serve in Federal service. 

Mr. Ellis, briefly? 

Mr. ELLIS. Congressman, when a firearm is lost or stolen, we do 

an investigation. If that —— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. No, the question was, was the individual disciplined? 

Mr. ELLIS. If the investigation shows that a policy was violated, 

we issue a disciplinary action. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I will take that that he was not disciplined. 

Mr. ELLIS. This individual in this particular instance was not 

disciplined because we did not find where he violated a policy. We 

did have an instance where a law enforcement officer was disciplined when a firearm was stolen from his residence that was not 

following the policy. Actually, the law enforcement officer resigned 

so the disciplinary action was never enacted because the law enforcement officer left the agency. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

I want to follow up on your line of questioning there. For what 

purpose was the BLM ranger in San Francisco? 

Mr. ELLIS. The BLM ranger was in San Francisco, as I indicated 

earlier, was on his way to an assignment in Helena, Montana. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. So it was official or unofficial for him to be 

in San Francisco? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Mr. ELLIS. It was official business. You know, from his duty station to Helena, Montana, that was between the two. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me ask you this. When you assign agents to a 

particular locality, whether they are assigned to the locality or in 

this case passing through on their way to another assignment, are 

they required to comply with State laws? 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, sure, they—Federal and State law, yes, when 

they —— 

Mr. PALMER. So —— 

Mr. ELLIS.—when they —— 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Ellis, are you aware that under California’s 

penal code 25610 a gun transported in a car must be kept in the 

trunk or within a locked container? 

Mr. ELLIS. I am not. 

Mr. PALMER. You are not aware of that. So do you know whether 

or not the BLM ranger had the gun in the trunk in a locked container? 

Mr. ELLIS. It’s my understanding that the firearm was under the 

seat on the driver’s side, the firearm that was stolen. 

Mr. PALMER. So the answer is he was not in compliance with 

California State law? That would be—the answer is yes. 

Mr. ELLIS. No, what I would say is it’s my understanding the 

weapon was in a pack under the seat on the driver’s side. 

Mr. PALMER. So the answer is no, he was not complying with 

California State law. Didn’t BLM also break California law? Would 

that be your understanding, and would they not be subject to penalties under California State law? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, I’m not familiar with the California 

State law, I’m not an attorney, but what I can tell you —— 

Mr. PALMER. Is it not your responsibility, though, to make sure 

that your rangers at least have a working knowledge of the State 

laws in which they are working or passing through? 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, I would expect that they would. I think that, 

you know, it would be difficult for them to understand the laws and 

the rules in every community, you know, that they’re passing 

through. 

Mr. PALMER. I —— 

Mr. ELLIS. I would hope that they would have an understanding 

—— 

Mr. PALMER. I don’t expect them to be experts, but you have a 

responsibility to make sure that your agents comply with State and 

Federal law. You said that at the outset when I first brought this 

up, but you clearly didn’t. 

I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings 

from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All I can say is we can do better, Mr. Kane and 

all of us. I mean, we can do better. It seems like it is kind of hard, 

wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Horowitz, if we can’t keep up with the bullets, to keep track? Do you think it is that difficult to get this done? 

I mean, what —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It’s not. It’s a standard inventory control system 

that needs to be built to track the munitions. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, we are going to follow up on this. And, Mr. 

Horowitz, I forgot to tell you I want to thank you for all your work 

on the IG bill. You are a real trooper —— 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS.—and we depend so much on what you all do. 

And again, I want to thank you. We think it is good, and the bill 

goes in the right direction and hopefully it helps you. 

Thank you all very much. 

Mr. PALMER. I would like to associate myself with Mr. Gowdy’s 

remarks in regard to Mr. Horowitz. I appreciate the great work 

that you have done. I also appreciate each of the witnesses. I want 

to thank you for your testimony today and for the members of the 

committee that participated. 

If there is no further business, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER