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

21–964 PDF 2016

FIREARMS LOST: GSA’S ADMINISTRATION OF THE 

SURPLUS FIREARM DONATION PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2016 

Serial No. 114–71 

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

( 

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, Counsel 

WILLIE MARX, Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 2, 2016 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Carol Ochoa, Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration 

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

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

Mr. William Sisk, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of General Supplies 

and Services, U.S. General Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. Steve Ekin, President, National Association of State Agencies for Surplus 

Property 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

FIREARMS LOST: GSA’S ADMINISTRATION OF 

THE SURPLUS FIREARM DONATION PROGRAM 

Wednesday, March 2, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Walberg, Massie, 

Carter, Chaffetz, Connolly, Maloney, Norton, and Clay. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Since 1999, the GSA has provided over 9,800 firearms to State 

and local law enforcement agencies through its surplus firearm donation program. And this program has helped to ensure that our 

law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to protect and 

serve the American people. However, today’s hearing is about a disconcerting finding by the GSA inspector generals that the firearms 

program is being poorly administered. 

The IG found a program besieged by mismanagement, poor inventory, accounting procedures, and reliance on outdated and ineffective data management tools. The results of these problems are 

a system that the IG found to be placing firearms, such as grenade 

launchers, Uzis, M16s in a situation that is ripe for theft and loss. 

Allowing extremely dangerous firearms to be managed so carelessly 

is deplorable. The government needs to get its house in order. 

The GSA is managing the firearms donations program using a 

haphazard system consisting of a digitally ancient Web platform, 

disorganized and practically unusable paper files, and spreadsheets 

riddled with incorrect and missing information. 

When the IG began its evaluation of the surplus firearms donation program, the record-keeping system was so poor, in fact, that 

the IG could not even fully finish its review. The IG found that this 

program, which must track thousands of dangerous weapons 

throughout the country, was being administered using this paper 

file system and the paper files that the GSA officials described as 

the backbone, according to them, of the program. These paper files 

were, for practical purposes, incapable of being used to keep track 

of the firearms. The IG was told by the sole individual—one indiVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:48 Dec 06, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\21964.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

vidual—managing and tracking the program that it would take 

days to search the files for a single item. To compensate, the administrator of the program resorted to creating a spreadsheet to 

track nearly 10,000 firearms spread across 831 different law enforcement agencies, yet these spreadsheets were really in no better 

shape than the paper files. The spreadsheets contained information 

that contradicted the paper files and the digital records. The 

spreadsheets were missing information critical to knowing the location and use of the firearms. 

The only other way that firearms were able to be located was 

through a Web platform that had not been updated since 1999. Let 

me repeat that these firearms were being managed using a program that is now over 16 years old. 

All told, the menagerie of half-accurate, unsearchable, pre-newmillennial software, paper, and spreadsheets created a system 

where the firearms were practically impossible to accurately be 

tracked. This atrocious quality of the program’s records resulted in 

the IG being unable to even verify the GSA’s reported number of 

missing firearms. 

The current program manager’s sole individual overseeing this 

program identified the need to create a better tracking system 

early on and communicated that need, yet, despite the fact that the 

GSA knew about the deficiencies, the agency appears to have only 

begun to address the deficiencies in light of the IG’s report. This 

poor system contributed to hundreds of firearms going missing. Between 2001 and 2016, 485 firearms went missing. Of these, only 25 

firearms were ever found. That’s right, 25 of 485, which is just unbelievable. 

Among those firearms that went missing were a set of 130 handguns, 5 Uzi submachine guns, and a pair of, get this, grenade 

launchers. In each of these instances, the firearms were sold to private gun shops, which is not allowed under the program, and appears to have never been recovered. 

In fact, the GSA IG discovered yesterday that two of the missing 

grenade launchers were now located in Florida and Colorado and 

available for sale to the general public. In some cases, the firearms 

would go missing for as long as a decade—yes, 10 years—before 

anyone realized that the firearms were not where they were supposed to be. It is beyond unacceptable that these firearms were 

lost, let alone the fact that they were not recovered and, in some 

cases, were missing for years before anyone knew about it. 

But pure luck, it appears that—but for pure luck, it appears that 

none of the missing firearms ended up in criminals’ hands, so we 

can be thankful for that. Regardless, one shudders to think what 

might have happened if those missing Uzis or the grenade launchers ended up in the hands of an individual that was bent on using 

them for nefarious purposes. 

The IG found that the GSA had weak and inconsistent, to quote 

them, ‘‘weak and inconsistent inventory controls.’’ So the GSA has 

a responsibility to maintain and track these firearms inventory 

checks. However, the GSA only apparently determined the need to 

require validated annual inventory reports in 2014, roughly 14 

years into the program’s existence. Based on this, it seems the GSA 

considered an accurate inventory to be an afterthought. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Even with recent annual inventory requirements, the practices 

used by GSA were feeble. The SASPs were provided with only limited training on how to acquire the firearms and conduct inventory 

review, leaving them on their own to create an inventory process 

and procedure, resulting in inconsistent procedures across States. 

We, obviously, are having this hearing today, and in spite of all 

of this, what I would ask that each of you do is try to address your 

remarks—the results of these flaws still remaining is that the firearms may still be subject to the same threat of loss, theft, or improper sale. 

So I appreciate all of our witnesses coming here today, and I’m 

optimistic that, through our conversations today, we will be able to 

help safeguard against these firearms being used improperly. 

I’ll now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, Mr. Connolly, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

I’ve got to say to the chair, listening to this long list of problems, 

you know, the question comes to mind, well, what could go wrong 

with that? Unfortunately, the answer is pretty ugly. 

This hearing is a very important hearing on the loss of missing 

firearms that have been donated to State and local law enforcement agencies through the GSA surplus firearm donation program. 

The numbers are very disturbing, as you point out, Mr. Chairman: 

486 missing firearms since 1999; 308 of them traded to firearms 

dealers without required GSA approval. In 2002, the New Ellenton, 

South Carolina, Police Department traded five Uzi submachine 

guns it had received through the program to a gun shop for new 

equipment. In 2012, the Cayce Police Department in South Carolina sold two grenade launchers it had received through the program to a firearms dealer in Tennessee. GSA then lost track of the 

weapons. 

We agree on the fact that the missing weapons from this program are a problem, but it’s no ordinary problem. Can anybody tell 

us why the Cayce, South Carolina, Police Department, which polices a city of less than 13,000, needed two military-style grenade 

launchers in the first place or why any civilian would need to own 

a grenade launcher for hunting or self-defense? 

This begs the question, why do our gun control policies allow for 

the purchase of a weapon designed for maximum destruction? The 

flaws in our lax gun control policies are highlighted in the unbridled buying and selling of these dangerous weapons by just about 

anybody. 

In the fall of 2014, Federal programs that outfit State and local 

law enforcement agencies with weapons, military-style vehicles and 

riot gear received heightened scrutiny when we saw disturbing images of highly armed police officers during the protest in Ferguson, 

Missouri. The GSA firearms donation program is much smaller 

than some of those other programs. It can serve a valid purpose: 

donating law enforcement equipment to police departments that 

need it in order to outfit officers with basic supplies. It’s not a program we need to end, but it’s clearly one that needs reform, as you 

point out, Mr. Chairman, in terms of inventory accountability and 

technology. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

I commend the President for taking executive action last year to 

scale back the type of military equipment and heavy weaponry that 

are donated to local law enforcement agencies. The executive order 

establishes standard procedures for all law enforcement acquisition 

programs and seeks to ensure local law enforcement agencies are 

trained in the proper use of controlled equipment. The President 

established a working group that reached out to stakeholders, including law enforcement and civil liberties groups, in an effort to 

strike the right balance between policing and civil rights. 

The inspector general, Ms. Ochoa, also made recommendations to 

improve data management and the inventory process following 

these firearms. Incredibly, the IG found that, in some cases, 

records for this program were kept in paper form. That’s unbelievable considering the magnitude of the program and the potential 

consequences of weapons getting into the wrong hands. 

And this brings us back to a recurring theme on this committee 

and our subcommittee, particularly, Mr. Chairman, and that is the 

inadequacies of our IT investments in the Federal Government and 

what could go wrong with that. 

Without question, tighter controls and additional reforms are desirable. For example, yesterday, committee staff asked the IG: Oh, 

by the way, whatever became of those missing grenade launchers? 

And we learned, just yesterday, that they are currently for sale by 

gun dealers in Colorado and Florida, as the chairman indicated. 

There appear to be no consequences to the law enforcement agencies that violate the program. It’s my understanding the Cayce Police Department only had to pay GSA fair market value for the 

weapons as a restitution. That’s the full extent of the correction for 

violating the terms of the weapons transfer. 

There’s no provision I’m aware of to recover Federal weapons 

that have been put into general commerce by local police departments in violation of the terms of their contracts with GSA, to say 

nothing of the potential threat to public safety. 

I want to know today whether the GSA or GSA IG intends to, 

in fact, recover those grenade launchers. Some of my colleagues, I 

know, will disagree on whether or not the general public should be 

able to purchase grenade launchers. Even if you do disagree with 

me on that, surely, you would agree that the sale of such weapons 

and hundreds of others we donated to local police departments at 

least must be accounted for. 

Ms. Ochoa, as inspector general, you are charged with rooting 

out waste, fraud, and abuse. This seems to be in one of those categories. I thank you for the work you have already done to highlight the issues in this program. I’m curious to hear from all of you 

today what happens from here, and I look forward to working with 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try to find common 

ground to tighten up our program that certainly started out with 

good intentions and has gone awry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I’m pleased to welcome the Honorable Carol Ochoa, inspector general of the U.S. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

General Services Administration. I’d like to also thank you for not 

only your involvement but your flexibility in so many ways to work 

with this committee in a humble way, being as flexible as possible. 

It is so refreshing, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to 

thank you personally for that. 

Mr. William Sisk, acting Assistant Commissioner of the Office of 

General Supplies and Services of the U.S. General Services Administration. And Mr. Steve—is it Ekin? 

Mr. EKIN. Ekin. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ekin, president of the National Association of 

State Agencies for Surplus Property. 

Welcome to you all, and pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So, if you will, please, 

rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, I would ask that you please 

limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but your entire written 

statement will be made part of the record. 

Ms. Ochoa, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL OCHOA 

Ms. OCHOA. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to testify here today. Thank you for asking for testimony regarding the inspector general’s evaluation of the GSA surplus firearm donation program. 

As you know, the OIG found in that evaluation that GSA’s 

records of firearms donations were incomplete and inaccurate and 

that inventory controls are not sufficient to monitor firearms donated to State and local law enforcement agents. As background, 

Federal agencies are required to report to GSA when they have excess property, including firearms, available for transfer to other 

Federal agencies. Excess property that is not needed by other Federal agencies becomes available as surplus property for State and 

local law enforcement use. Donations of Federal firearms to eligible 

State and local law enforcement agencies are for exclusive use by 

those agencies and only for law enforcement purposes. 

Since 1999, GSA’s surplus firearms donation program has coordinated the donation of surplus firearms, working with State Agency 

for Surplus Property representatives. To request surplus firearms, 

a State or local law enforcement agency must first submit a donation request to State officials. State officials then initiate the donation transfer process using GSA’s Web-based property transfer system called GSAXcess and submit the donation request to GSA for 

approval. Once GSA approves the request, the donating Federal 

agency transfers the firearms directly to the State or local law enforcement agency. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Certain terms and conditions apply to firearms which are donated to those agencies. The law enforcement agencies must use 

the firearms solely for authorized law enforcement purposes. They 

may not sell or trade the firearms. They must report annual inventories to the State agencies, and they must immediately report lost 

or stolen weapons. Once the law enforcement agencies no longer 

have use for their donated firearms, they must notify GSA through 

the State agency, and GSA can then give permission to reassign 

the firearm to another agency, or the firearm must be destroyed. 

The OIG began an evaluation of GSA’s surplus firearm donation 

program in October 2014. We sought to determine whether firearms donations were made in compliance with Federal regulations, 

whether they were adequately monitored and reported, and to what 

extent donated firearms were missing or stolen. 

We were unable to complete all of the objectives of this evaluation because we found that GSA’s records of firearms donations 

were incomplete and inaccurate and that inventory controls were 

not sufficient to monitor firearms donated to State and local law 

enforcement agencies. 

And just as examples, we found that information in GSAXcess 

used to record the initial transfer of the firearms was incomplete, 

often missing such basic information as the names and addresses 

of the law enforcement agency to whom the firearms were donated. 

Other information was entered incompletely or placed in the wrong 

data fields, including information such as the serial number, make, 

and model of the donated firearms. The database wasn’t designed 

to record any transfers after the initial donation, such as information about a transfer of the firearms to another agency, reports of 

missing or stolen weapons, or destruction of weapons. The program 

officer for GSA sought to keep paper records of the transfers and 

used spreadsheets to manually track the subsequent activity. Those 

records, however, could not be sorted or searched electronically. 

They contained inaccuracies, and they were incomplete. 

We also found that inventory controls were incomplete. States 

did them inconsistently. GSA provided no uniform guidance, and in 

general, there’s been a lack of oversight from GSA on the inventory 

process. As a result, donated firearms have been overlooked in the 

inventory process, increasing the risk of theft or unauthorized use. 

As a result of our review, we made several recommendations to 

GSA centered around improving data management, both electronically and also improving the inventory process, providing guidance 

to the States, implementing an inventory-wide review process, and 

implementing standardized procedures for conducting and reporting inventories. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and for the subcommittee’s support of inspectors general. I ask that my testimony 

and the OIG’s report be made part of the record. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Without objection. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Ochoa follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 21964.001
8 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 21964.002
9 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 21964.003
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 21964.004
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 21964.005
12 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Sisk, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SISK 

Mr. SISK. Good afternoon. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member 

Connolly, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. My name is Bill Sisk, 

and I’m the acting Assistant Commissioner for the Office of General Supplies and Services in the Federal Acquisition Service at the 

General Services Administration. 

GSA takes its responsibility for the surplus firearms donation 

program seriously and has implemented a number of changes to 

the program in response to the GSA inspector general’s June 2015 

report. GSA’s Federal surplus personal property donation program 

makes the property that is surplus to the needs of the Federal Government available to State and local public agencies, eligible nonprofit organizations, and veterans service organizations. 

The surplus firearms donation program enables law enforcement 

agencies to acquire firearms at little or no cost to support their 

mission. I’d like to thank GSA’s inspector general for looking into 

this program at the request of the GSA Administrator and providing recommendations to assist in improving the program. GSA 

is working to complete the remaining actions to implement all four 

recommendations by the spring. 

In response to the recommendation to implement a data management system to facilitate program maintenance, report, and oversight, GSA has created new data fields in GSAXcess to collect more 

complete information on the recipients of the donated firearms, and 

GSA is in the process of populating those new fields with data collected and the fiscal year 2016 inventory verification completed by 

the law enforcement agencies and State Agencies for Surplus Property. Regarding the recommendation about implementing a comprehensive inventory process, GSA has issued a standard operating 

procedure for requesting and processing donations, inventory and 

compliance, disposal and destruction, and internal controls. 

For the recommendation about implementing standardized procedures for conducting and reporting donated firearms inventories, 

GSA has issued guidance to the State Agencies for Surplus Property on how to conduct inventories to help assist law enforcement 

agencies with their obligation to account for all donated firearms. 

GSA also encourages law enforcement agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards and other applicable standards to the maximum extent possible while adhering to State and local laws and 

regulations governing the asset management and inventory practices applicable to them. The remaining recommendation about providing inventory data to State Agencies for Surplus Property to facilitate reconciling inventory data from the GSA law enforcement 

agency information is on track to be completed in the spring. 

Additionally, GSA is a member of the Federal Support for Law 

Enforcement Equipment Working Group, which addresses ways for 

the Federal Government to streamline programs that provide 

equipment and support to law enforcement agencies. The working 

group released recommendations in a report in May 2015. In line 

with the working group’s recommendations, GSA has ceased donations of any items on the prohibited list, which includes grenade 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

launchers. Per the working group’s recommendations, our request 

and donations of controlled and prohibited equipment, GSA also 

issued policy guidance to regional offices and State Agencies for 

Surplus Property last fall. Since the firearms donation program 

began 15 years ago, 488 firearms have been reported as missing. 

Upon review of these firearms reported missing, 66 percent were, 

in fact, not missing but had been sold or traded by a law enforcement agency in violation of the terms of the conditional transfer required to be in compliance with receiving firearms through the surplus firearms donation program. In most instances, where the firearm is not under Federal Government restrictions, the sale or 

trade-in to a firearms manufacturer or licensed dealer is not inappropriate. 

Due to the difficulties with tracking these firearms and ensuring 

that law enforcement agencies know which firearms have Federal 

Government restrictions, GSA is reevaluating its role in the firearms donation program. GSA is considering limiting the program 

to handguns and eliminating perpetual restrictions, meaning that 

the full title will transfer to the law enforcement agency after the 

initial statutory requirement to use the firearm for 12 months have 

passed. Elimination of perpetual restrictions will require GSA to 

modify the current Federal management regulation language on 

the donation of firearms, removing the requirement for perpetual 

restrictions. 

GSA looks forward to keeping the committee updated regarding 

our progress, and we welcome the committee’s and the OIG’s oversight of this important program. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to speak to all of you. I’m 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Sisk follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 21964.006
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 21964.007
16 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 21964.008
17 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 21964.009
18 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Sisk. 

Mr. Ekin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE EKIN 

Mr. EKIN. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and 

honored members, my name is Steve Ekin. I’m the director of the 

Georgia State Agency for Surplus Property, and in that position, I 

manage the Federal surplus property program for Georgia as well 

as the State surplus property program for Georgia. 

Today, I’ll be testifying in my capacity as the current president 

of the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property. 

NASASP is a 501 organization whose members are comprised of 

the 56 State Agencies for Surplus Property; that’s the 50 States 

and territories. And we, essentially, are GSA’s agents to the State 

for surplus property. 

The Federal surplus property program is a highly scrutinized 

Federal program. We routinely review and are audited by not only 

the Federal Government through GSA but our own State governments and State legislatures. We conduct annual inventories of all 

of our assets, not just firearms, as well as ensuring adequate security and approval of qualified recipients and compliance to all 

terms and conditions based on the Federal management regulations. We do this on a daily basis. Discrepancies that we do find 

must be reported to either local authorities, GSA, and, if advised, 

to the U.S. Department of Justice and our State’s attorneys general 

offices. So SASP and NASASP take these responsibilities very seriously. 

I think it’s important to point out—we have talked about the 

weapons and the amount that have been put out to the local community—it’s important to point out that, except the grenade 

launchers, all of the weapons that we receive at the State level are 

weapons that can be acquired by the law enforcement agencies in 

the open market. They are not specifically military weapons. 

These law enforcement agencies represent both State, county, 

and local governments across our counties, including colleges and 

universities. Some of the folks that get our weapons are small rural 

departments that require—need these weapons, because it’s the 

only weapons that are available to them to buy in a cost-effective 

manner. And, conversely, large departments would not be able to 

acquire large volumes of weapons that we can supply due to cost 

prohibits. 

Over the years the SASP has participated in the GSA program, 

we found GSA to be instructional and informative and communicative and conscientious. In the beginning, there was a great deal of 

instruction and education. That continued on a routine basis for 

years. GSA continues to participate in our annual meetings and 

provide training to the SASPs. We correspond with individuals 

SASPs, not just to check up and see how things are going, but in 

official capacity to make sure that we’re complying with all the regulations. 

During the short time that we’ve had to prepare for this hearing, 

we pulled seven of our top States that were using this program. All 

of them agreed to the benefits of the program and have voiced the 

same concerns about the recordkeeping. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

Each State has undergone inventory checks with GSA, and the 

discrepancies that were indicated have been corrected. Things like 

the numbers and types of weapons not matching between what the 

SASP received and what GSA still do occur. 

NASASP and the State Agencies for Surplus Property stand 

ready to assist Congress, GSA, and the Federal Government to 

make changes to the weapons program and improve the program 

across the board. We’d be happy to meet and provide any other information for this very important matter. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ekin follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 21964.010
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 21964.011
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 21964.012
23 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank each of you for your testimony. 

The chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for a series of 

questions. 

Mr. Ekin, I find it interesting that you say you go through an 

annual Federal audit? 

Mr. EKIN. For weapons, yes, sir. We’re required to. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what do they audit it to? If we don’t have a 

good list, I mean—— 

Mr. EKIN. And this is where we completely agree with the inspector general’s findings and GSA recommendations. We get that 

spreadsheet that is either incomplete or where we have transferred 

a weapon several times—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you go through an annual Federal audit that’s 

meaningless? 

Mr. EKIN. For weapons. I don’t consider them meaningless, sir, 

because at the end of my audit, I know exactly where my 416 

weapons are that I’m responsible for. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, assuming—so what you’re saying is you 

keep good track of the ones you’re receiving? 

Mr. EKIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Then what’s the purpose of a Federal audit? 

Mr. EKIN. We send the same spreadsheet with the information 

back to GSA, and—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I just want to caution you: don’t—listen, I know 

all my sheriffs by first name. I know my chiefs by first name. I love 

law enforcement. I’ve got them on speed dial. I understand that the 

task of which you are here in your association, but let’s not take 

that issue and go overboard with regards to justifying what is, obviously, a problem. 

Mr. EKIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay? 

And so, Mr. Sisk, can you explain to the committee how it took 

10 years to find five Uzi submachine guns that were missing? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, that I could explain why 

that took 10 years. I do know we share your concerns with our ability to keep track of an accurate inventory. I think that’s part of the 

reason the agency asked the inspector general to come in and review the program. They’ve made some recommendations on how we 

can improve our ability to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So why did you do that? I mean, I heard that in 

your original testimony. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I guess I’m a little troubled by that, because according to the information we have, is this person that’s in charge 

of this program knew that there was a problem, needed additional 

resources, probably had a notebook of stuff. So if it were just a 

management problem, why would you ask the IG to come in? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know that I can speak for the former Administrator that asked for the review. I do think—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you sure that they asked? 

Mr. SISK. The information that I received, sir, is that is what—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ms. Ochoa, did they ask you to come in? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

Ms. OCHOA. This also predates my tenure with GSA, but I am 

told the same thing, that Administrator Tangherlini did make a request. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. All right. So, as we look at that, it took 10 

years. So I’m curious. Ms. Ochoa, when did you do your report? 

Ms. OCHOA. Our report was issued in June of 2015. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Mr. Sisk, when were the Uzis found? 

Mr. SISK. I’m not sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. 2012. 

Mr. SISK. Okay, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we had five Uzis that were missing for 10 

years. We found them, and we waited 3 years to have the IG come 

in and look at it? Do you not see a problem with that? 

Mr. SISK. I can absolutely see your concern, sir. I think, at the 

time, when the firearms were reported as missing, that we took the 

steps that were in our program at the time to report those as missing to the Office of Inspector General and then took administrative 

action on those—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So you, in your testimony, Mr. Sisk, you 

talk about a new procedure that you put in place. When did you 

communicate that new procedure? 

Mr. SISK. I believe it was this past fall, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. When—I think you made—so as we look 

at that, I guess the IG’s report came out in July, was it, of 2015? 

June or July? 

Ms. OCHOA. June. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Of 2015. 

Now, this is not a complicated problem, I wouldn’t think, you 

know, in the big scheme of things. Why would it take so long to 

start making real changes to this? Is it the fact that the ranking 

member and I are holding a hearing today that you started getting 

to work on it? Mr. Sisk. 

Mr. SISK. Well, clearly, after we received the IG’s report, sir, in 

June, we began working on the recommendations. There is definitely much more visibility on the program than there was previously. But we began work on the program then. We’ve made some 

of the changes with GSAXcess that are going to give us the ability 

to track this inventory much more closely than we could previously. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So explain to—I guess—so everybody 

understands—I guess there’s a new procedure that you’re recommending, that we got notice of 2 days ago? Is that correct? On the 

29th. 

Mr. SISK. It was issued prior to that, sir. I would have to go back 

and check my records. And I’d certainly be glad to get back to you, 

sir, with the date it was issued. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So why are you deciding to change the program? 

Because that’s not necessarily what the IG recommended. I mean, 

so, as you start to look at it, what problems with the IG’s report 

do you see that you don’t agree with? Do you agree with everything? 

Mr. SISK. We agreed with the IG’s recommendations, yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So, with that, you’re saying that you’re 

making good progress? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir, we believe we are. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Is it surprising to you that, in preparation 

for this hearing, the committee staff and your staff, I guess, found 

these grenade launchers for sale? 

Mr. SISK. I was aware, sir, that the grenade launchers had been 

sold in 2012. I just received, actually, just the beginning of this 

hearing, that they had been found, yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So that was a shock to you, a surprise to you? 

Mr. SISK. Not a shock, no, sir. But I was not previously aware 

that they had been found. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I mean, I guess if you have an inventory of 

submachine guns and grenade launchers that goes missing, I would 

leave no stone unturned to try to find it. I guess the ranking member and I are sitting here trying to scratch our heads: Why would 

it take a congressional hearing before we find out where those are 

if it’s really a priority? 

Mr. SISK. Sure. Sure. As I said—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you see why a reasonable person would think 

that the GSA is not treating it as a priority? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir, I can. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I’m out of time. 

I’ll go ahead and recognize the ranking member for a very generous 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Sisk, I’m going to ask you to pull this up close, because 

we can’t always hear you. Thank you. 

Let me start with how this works, because—first of all, how long 

have we had this program? 

Mr. SISK. I believe 1999 is when—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. 1999. So what’s the inception of it? So somebody 

sits around the office saying: You know, we’ve got these extra grenade launchers. 

First of all, where do you get the weapons from? GSA isn’t an 

armory? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir. For the GSA program, it comes from Federal 

law enforcement civilians. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay, civilian agents? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And somebody had some grenade launchers, just 

to pick an example? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So you get them. Do you have a choice? 

Can you say, ‘‘We don’t want those’’? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know that we have a choice, sir. They never actually physically come into our custody? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it’s a paper responsibility? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. They are located somewhere? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. They would be with the Federal law enforcement agency. We would process the transfer through the State 

agency. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But that means you’ve got a tracking system so 

you know where they are in order to transfer them to somebody? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. So somebody has grenade launchers in the 

Federal civilian sector, and you get them—I mean, not physically, 

but your responsibility. Now what happens? Do you sit around saying, ‘‘Well, I wonder who could use a grenade launcher; what do 

you think?’’ Is that what happens? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What happens? What’s the analysis that gets us 

from, ‘‘we’re in possession of this’’—not physically—‘‘and we need 

to divest ourselves of it’’ and hopefully deploy it somewhere where 

it could do some good? 

Mr. SISK. Sure. The Federal property is reported to us through 

our GSAXcess program. The local State law enforcement agencies 

would work with their State Agency for Surplus Property to identify the need and identify the Federal material that was available 

for—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sorry. I can’t hear you. 

Mr. SISK. I’m sorry, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Maybe pull the box a little bit closer to you. Yeah, 

there we go. 

Mr. SISK. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Go ahead. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. Federal agencies would identify the process— 

I’m sorry, the material or firearms in this case that were excess to 

their needs. And after a screening process through other Federal 

agencies, if no other Federal agency needs the firearms, it would 

become available for donation through the State Agencies for Surplus Property. So the State and local law enforcement agencies 

would work with their State Agency for Surplus Property to identify those needs. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So Mr. Ekin in Georgia would say: Hey, they’ve 

got some grenade launchers; we could use those. Is that what happens? They’d bid on them, or they put in an application? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. There’s no charge for—the material from us 

is donated, so it’s not a bidding process. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, but what if Georgia wants—you only got 

two. Georgia wants them, and—I don’t know—Michigan wants 

them. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. It would be GSA’s responsibility to allocate 

that material through one of the State agencies. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Based on what criteria? 

Mr. SISK. Based on some general criteria of what the needs are 

of the State and local agencies. They try to have somewhat even 

distribution, if we have competition—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. That brings us to the two grenade launchers. 

Mr. SISK. Sure. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, in that process that you just described, someone decided that a place called Cayce, South Carolina, with 13,000 

population, needed two grenade launchers? Is that correct? 

Mr. SISK. I believe that need would have been identified by the 

local law enforcement agency working with their State Agency for 

Surplus Property that identified that those launchers were available through the Federal surplus program, yes, sir. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, but you pass no qualitative judgment on 

that? So South Carolina says Cayce needs them; Cayce needs them, 

unquestioned; let’s get rid of them, get them off our books? 

Mr. SISK. I believe it’s up to the State Agency for Surplus Property to identify that the local law enforcement agency—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So you absolve yourself of all responsibility as an 

agency in terms of justification? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir. Our role is definitely tracking the material, 

and we’ve, obviously, had some shortcomings there—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m not talking about tracking. We’re not there 

yet. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m talking about justification a priori. 

I represent a jurisdiction—well, I was chairman of a jurisdiction 

of 1.1 million people. I can’t imagine my police department putting 

in for grenade launchers, but maybe they did. But a town of 

13,000, did anyone kind of raise the eyebrows a little bit going, ‘‘I 

wonder what Cayce, South Carolina, is going to do with two grenade launchers’’? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know, sir, if anybody did at the time. I can tell 

you that those items are now on the prohibited list, and we have 

ceased—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Got it. I understand. I’m trying to understand 

the problem. 

Mr. SISK. Sure. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, subsequently, apparently, Cayce sold these 

two grenade launchers? Is that correct? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is it your understanding that the purpose of this 

program, inter alia, is a revenue source for localities, a way of raising money; let’s sell dangerous weapons and raise some money? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir, that is not the purpose of the program. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So when Cayce sold two grenade launchers, it 

was in violation of their contract? Is that not correct? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. They signed a contract. 

Mr. SISK. They can sign—they signed a conditional transfer document, yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. With you? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And they signed that document? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, clearly, they violated it. Was it a willful violation? Did you even look into that? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know that I could speak to that, sir, whether 

it was willful or what their intent was. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I think one of the purposes of our hearing 

here is to try to understand what happened. I mean, I only was 

half jocular when I said: You’ve got to ask yourself the question, 

what could go wrong? 

Now, Ms. Norton and I represent urban-suburban areas of the 

United States, and it is a very important question to us, what can 

go wrong? In my community yesterday, we buried a young police 

officer. She was 90 minutes on the job, first day. She was gunned 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

down by a man who had access to lots of weapons, who also had 

killed his wife just before in a domestic violence dispute. That isn’t 

a grenade launcher, but it is a reminder. Certainly, in congested 

areas like Ms. Norton and I represent, we want to be real careful 

over what gets into whose hands. 

And I got to tell you, this question of accountability in this program—while it’s not a huge program and it’s dwarfed by the number of arms in America—but it is troubling to think that somebody 

could so easily divest themselves of grenade launchers. And, again, 

what could go wrong with that? 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

And I think I join all of colleagues on the dais here for the condolences of losing one of your constituents, and certainly one of 

Prince Williams’ finest. 

And so, with that, I’ll recognize the vice chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I associate myself with your remarks and that of a Representative who had to do a tough thing yesterday to attend that funeral. 

Mr. Sisk, how many program administrators have there been in 

the life of the surplus firearm donation program? 

Mr. SISK. If you’re speaking to the individual that directly runs 

the program, sir? I’m just trying to make sure I’m clear on the ‘‘administrator.’’ 

Mr. WALBERG. Yes. 

Mr. SISK. I believe there’s been two over the life of the program. 

Mr. WALBERG. That’s my figure as well. 

Mr. SISK. Okay. 

Mr. WALBERG. Ms. Ochoa and Mr. Sisk, you can answer as well, 

did any program administrator ever identify the need for a new 

system during the person’s time with GSA? 

Ms. OCHOA. We were told that she did, yes. 

Mr. WALBERG. That’s accurate? Your understanding as well, Mr. 

Sisk? 

Mr. SISK. I’ve been told the same thing, sir. She did not identify 

that need to me personally, but I’ve been told that that is accurate, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Sisk, there have been about 9,800 firearms 

donated through the GSA program. Is that correct? 

Mr. SISK. 9,800, yes, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. You have one person, as I understand it, assigned 

to manage this program of nearly 10,000 firearms. That’s correct, 

right? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. GSA is making a number of changes to the program in response to the IG report. Do you plan to have more than 

one person assigned to managing the program going forward? 

Mr. SISK. That is currently not in our plans, sir. We’re hoping 

with the new IT technology that’s available to us and the improved 

inventory capabilities that we are going to have that—— 

Mr. WALBERG. One person would still be able to handle that? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

Mr. SISK. If it is not, sir, we are always willing to look to add 

more to improve the program going forward, yes, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. Your report took issue with the GSA only having 

one individual responsible, Ms. Ochoa, your report, for this entire 

program. Can you elaborate on why this practice is problematic? 

Ms. OCHOA. Well, the issue that we saw was the information 

being essentially stovepiped with one person for a nationwide program, one person who was trying to keep track of it manually, 

which proved to be nearly impossible. 

Mr. WALBERG. Do you think this new system that they are working toward would take care of that; one person will be able to care? 

Or would you still say, ‘‘We think you need to expand the numbers’’? 

Ms. OCHOA. It’s hard to say. We haven’t yet evaluated the corrective action that the agency is undertaking. They told us that they 

won’t complete it until end of May, beginning of June, and we’ll 

take a very close look then at whether the steps actually achieve 

the spirit of the recommendations. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Sisk, did GSA speak with or consult any of 

the program administration’s—administrators at DOD regarding 

the practices used in administering its 1033 program? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. Our staff has been in contact with the folks 

at the Defense Logistics Agency. 

Mr. WALBERG. To what end? 

Mr. SISK. Well, for example, some of the new changes that we 

have made in the GSAXcess program, we’re trying to model that 

interface to be similar to what DOD is doing, because they are two 

separate programs to administer by the State Agency for Surplus 

Property. 

Mr. WALBERG. No intent to look toward transferring the program 

to DOD? 

Mr. SISK. We did have that conversation with DLA. I believe, because we operate under different authorities, they found that to be 

problematic. 

Mr. WALBERG. Did you consult with any of the SASPs who participate in both programs to adapt best practices in redesigning the 

administration of your surplus firearm donation program? 

Mr. SISK. We do have continuing ongoing conversations with the 

State Agencies for Surplus Property. I’m not aware of any myself, 

sir, specifically directed to—— 

Mr. WALBERG. But you didn’t consult with any SASPs about 

this? 

Mr. SISK. I didn’t personally, sir. I would have to go back and 

check to see if we did that and get back to the committee. 

Mr. WALBERG. I think that would be important to do, to see what 

their record has been, what their experience has been, especially in 

finding a way to make sure that the loss of firearms, the loss of 

contact with the firearms, the loss of understanding where they’re 

at seems to be important to find out if there’s any better way of 

doing it. 

So we trust that the new system you’re putting in place, the 

plans forward will ultimately meet the approval of OIG but, more 

importantly, that we will gain control again. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my friend yield just for a quick followup 

to his—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Yes, I would. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. 

DOD has a separate parallel program? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is it also following the reforms you have made, 

the limitations you have put on, what can be transferred? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir. Those are just some of the options that we are 

exploring strictly within the General Services Administration, and 

they are just options that we are considering going forward. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So grenade launchers might be transferred by 

DOD’s program? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t believe so, sir, as part of the working group. I 

believe that’s part of prohibited materials for everybody. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. We’re going to want to know more about 

that. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the vice 

chair of the subcommittee. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of 

Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly 

appreciate this hearing. 

I want to offer my condolences to Mr. Connolly and the family 

of the slain police officer, who, apparently, served us doubly, served 

us in the armed services as well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. 

And if you could hold the time, we also very much appreciate 

Chief Lanier, who represented the District at the service. 

Ms. NORTON. With all of the concern about police abuse that we 

see, particularly among young people, I do want to be clear that police lives really matter, particularly to those of us who see police 

go into the toughest neighborhoods; we thought well-armed, by the 

way—that my own city has very tough gun laws. I’m always concerned that guns get away from people, because any guns in the 

District of Columbia must come from outside. They can’t be generated or almost surely are not generated here. 

So keeping track of this program and making sure I understand 

this program is important to me. 

I understand that 60 percent of the firearms have been traded 

to dealers without the approval of GSA? Is that the case? And if 

so, how could that occur? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am. Roughly 66 percent of the firearms that 

were in care and custody of the local law enforcement agencies 

were either found to have been sold or traded in violation of our 

agreement with them. 

Ms. NORTON. Traded to the firearms dealers? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am, that’s my understanding. 

Ms. NORTON. So what was the rule? 

Mr. SISK. The rule was that they could not do that without GSA’s 

consent. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Ms. NORTON. What did you think was going to happen to these 

weapons? 

Mr. SISK. Again, weapons were in the care and custody of local 

law enforcement where they were identified in excess to the Federal Government’s need, and the agreement with them was that 

they would not dispose of them without GSA’s agreement. 

Ms. NORTON. But if they were in the control of law enforcement—— 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. —officials and the mission of the program was to 

outfit law enforcement officials with the weapons necessary to perform their own duties, can it be any wonder that they would trade 

away or try to get out of their own department’s grenade launchers, for example, or weapons of the kind that local police departments don’t use? One wonders, what were they doing with them in 

the first place? Did you have any option, other than to dispose of 

them to law enforcement, who, of course, would have no legitimate 

use for grenade launchers and the like? 

Mr. SISK. Sure. Again, many of these firearms can, in many 

cases, be what is not controlled material. After the working group 

that has been established, we had prohibited equipment, controlled 

equipment, and then noncontrolled equipment, which would be the 

handguns and perhaps the shotguns that would generally be assigned to patrol officers. 

Ms. NORTON. I still don’t understand, then, if you have submarine guns—— 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. —and grenade launchers—and they are not used or 

should not be used by law enforcement—what should GSA do about 

those weapons in particular? 

Mr. SISK. Those weapons in particular, if they are in the custody 

of Federal law enforcement, the rules have changed now, that some 

of that, the grenade launchers specifically—— 

Ms. NORTON. But those are weapons—in other words, you could 

sell anything, or you could dispose of anything to law enforcement 

without making some—without taking efforts to see whether or not 

they were legitimately usable by local law enforcement. That just 

wasn’t part of what you were supposed to do? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am. Again, after the working group has gotten 

together, those grenade launchers are now prohibited equipment. 

Ms. NORTON. What are you going to do with them? 

Mr. SISK. I believe the process would be for the Federal agency 

that has those—in this case, I believe those came from the FBI 

Academy at Quantico—that that material would have to go up for 

destruction. 

Ms. NORTON. I just thought that would be self-evident, but forgive me if those were not already included in your rules. 

I believe that the DOD, of course, has bigger—— 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. —weapons, can recall those weapons. Is that right? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Where you had to sell them? 

Mr. SISK. That’s my understanding of their process, that they can 

recall those weapons. Again, be that’s a DOD program. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have any problem with that? I mean, is the 

reason they can’t recall them is they do not pass title to them? 

Mr. SISK. We’re still trying to get some specific guidance on that 

particular issue from legal counsel. The material that we deal with 

the firearms are in the care and custody of local law enforcement. 

Our responsibility is to maintain an accurate inventory of those 

firearms, and clearly, we’ve had some issues there that we are 

working on with the GSA IG to get that fixed. If the actual legal 

transfers is a subject that we are still trying to seek additional 

guidance from legal counsel, and we’ll be glad to do that and get 

back to you. 

Ms. NORTON. It seems to me you would minimally need that. 

Finally, let me just ask you this, do you really think you are the 

appropriate agency for this mission? 

Mr. SISK. We’re the agency that has the legal authority—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, again, what is it about your expertise that 

makes you the appropriate agency for the transfer of weapons to 

police departments? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah, the gentlewoman’s time has expired, but 

you can answer the question. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. Our expertise primarily is in donated excess 

personal property. Firearms, specifically, we don’t really have a 

level of expertise in firearms themselves. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that that’s part of the 

problem: the GSA was given a mission outside of its own legitimate 

expertise. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here. We appreciate your presence 

today. 

Mr. Sisk, how many employees run the GSA surplus firearms donation program? 

Mr. SISK. It’s currently one employee, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. SISK. Currently, one employee, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. We have an agency in the Federal Government, and 

just one person that runs that program? 

Mr. SISK. For this particular program, yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. Wow. 

Mr. SISK. It’s part of a larger program, but we—— 

Mr. CARTER. I understand. I understand. 

Ms. Ochoa, it’s my understanding that the program records are 

kept in a paper file system. In fact, this system has been referred 

to as the backbone of the program. Is that correct? Is it kept in a 

paper file? 

Ms. OCHOA. The program administrator seeks to track all of the 

firearms through paper records, yes. That’s correct. 

Mr. CARTER. How would you describe the accessibility of this 

paper filing system? 

Ms. OCHOA. It’s not particularly accessible, as you can imagine. 

She keeps boxes of records. She told us that in order to trace one 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

particular firearm, it could take days. When we tried to compare 

her records to the spreadsheet—she was keeping to try to centralize in paper the whereabouts of the weapons—we found a lot 

of inconsistencies. She also inherited some records from her predecessor, so it’s not a very accessible system. 

Mr. CARTER. Wow. In fact, in June of 2015, the IG’s office reported—the report by the IG indicated that during their evaluation, they were unable to assess critical information, and this prevented the IG from completing all of the evaluation objectives that 

they had set forth. So, obviously, we’ve got some problems there. 

Mr. Sisk, how many firearms has the program lost in the past 

15 years? 

Mr. SISK. Since the program’s inception, our records indicate that 

488 total have been reported missing. 

Mr. CARTER. 488? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. Have been missing. How many have been recovered? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know that any of them specifically have been 

recovered. We do have a breakdown of how many were sold and 

traded: 30 of them actually—320 were either sold and traded; 30 

were actually found after they were initially reported missing; 29 

were either lost or stolen; 6 were destroyed; and 1, the police department actually had closed at one point. So—— 

Mr. CARTER. Seriously? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. 488? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. And you said 30 had been accounted for, and 29 had 

been lost, and 6 had been destroyed? 

Mr. SISK. The primary principal part of that 320 were sold and/ 

or traded improperly in violation of the conditional terms. 

Mr. CARTER. So how many are unaccountable—are unaccounted 

for? How many are unaccounted for? 

Mr. SISK. We have, so far, 102 that we don’t have information 

on, you know, what actually eventually happened to them, that 

they were reported missing or stolen, and there was not a resolution of that. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. Well, let me ask you something, how many 

does the surplus firearm donation program currently have? 

Mr. SISK. Well, there are 9,836 that are currently in the program. 

Mr. CARTER. 9,000 and some odd, is that what you said? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. How many of them—how many of these have been 

distributed to law enforcement agencies? 

Mr. SISK. They all have been, sir. We don’t—we never actually 

have them in our custody. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. But, I mean, they are in the custody right 

now of the law enforcement agencies? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir, State and local law enforcement agencies. All 

488—— 

Mr. CARTER. All you have is the recordkeeping, right? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

RPTR MAAR 

EDTR SECKMAN 

[3:02 p.m.] 

Mr. CARTER. You know, Mr. Chairman, this is my problem here. 

This is my concern. I mean, here we have a Federal agency, a program that is totally dedicated to registering and controlling firearms, yet they don’t even know how many they have. They don’t 

know where they are. They don’t know who has them. In some 

cases, they don’t know what they are, and, yet, we have an administration that’s trying to impede on our Second Amendment rights. 

It is true. It is true. I mean, here we have an agency that can’t 

even account for it. Every responsible firearm owner knows where 

their guns are. They know what they have. They know where they 

are. And, yet, we have the government here who has no idea. This 

is appalling, Mr. Chairman, appalling. I mean, seriously. I just cannot believe this. 

It’s happening in—and, listen, I’m from the South. And let me 

tell you: we take our firearms seriously in the South. I mean, I can 

tell you right now how many I’ve got. I can tell you where they’re 

at. And I can tell you exactly where they’re at. And I know where 

they’re at. This is—Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I’m appalled at 

this. I’m just, I’m just taken aback by this. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia’s appalling demeanor. 

We’ll recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CLAY. Let’s hope that I’m not as appalled, Mr. Chairman, 

with these answers. 

You know, many of us were horrified—I know I was—in August 

of 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, when officers looked like they were 

going to war and not serving and protecting their community. 

President Obama issued Executive Order 13688 on January 16, 

2015. The President recognized the need for these programs to assist law enforcement officers’ critical mission of keeping the American people safe. The executive order also recognized the need for 

law enforcement officers to be trained in proper use of the equipment and training on the protection of civil liberties. 

The executive order established a working group to identify agency actions that can improve these programs. One of the recommendations was to prohibit certain items for transfer, such as 

grenade launchers and firearms that were 50 caliber or higher. We 

know that, prior to this, the GSA program facilitated donations of 

grenade launchers. 

Mr. Sisk, were there other weapons that were donated through 

this program that are now on the prohibited items list? 

Mr. SISK. Not that I’m aware of, sir. I believe the only thing GSA 

had that was now on the prohibited list was the grenade launchers. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. And then the Department of Defense has begun 

recalling some of the weapons that are now on the prohibited items 

list. And is GSA recalling those weapons? You are? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir. We’re working with our legal counsel. We’re 

asking for voluntary return of those items. Our legal counsel is givVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:48 Dec 06, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\21964.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

ing us some additional guidance on whether or not we have the authority to recall those grenade launchers. 

Mr. CLAY. Well, it is an executive order. You all don’t follow the 

executive order? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. We absolutely follow the executive order. And 

we’ve issued guidance that we’re no longer going to facilitate the 

donation of items that are on the prohibited list. The issue comes 

into play where we have a conditional transfer document that was 

in place for the 22 grenade launchers that we still know exist with 

local law enforcement agencies, if they’ve not violated the conditions of that agreement, if we can force them to return those grenade launchers. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. One of the requirements for transferring control 

equipment, such as specialized firearms that are not service-issued 

weapons, is that law enforcement officers have training on proper 

use of the equipment. Mr. Sisk, what is GSA doing to ensure that 

officers are trained to use weapons that are now on the controlled 

equipment list? 

Mr. SISK. For items that are on the controlled equipment list, the 

law enforcement agencies that we donate to would have to absolutely comply with that additional training requirement, yes, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. And how do you confirm that? 

Mr. SISK. I believe we work through the State agencies for surplus property to make sure that was done. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. The working group also recommends sanctions 

for violations of controlled equipment programs. Will this apply to 

existing controlled equipment that is already in the hands of law 

enforcement? 

Mr. SISK. I don’t know, sir, that that would apply to equipment 

that’s already out there, that would be the grenade launchers in 

our case. I would have to get back to the committee on that question. 

Mr. CLAY. So tell me why local law enforcement would need grenade launchers. 

Mr. SISK. Again, I don’t know that I can speak, sir, exactly to 

what the need was for that equipment at the time that it was donated. We do know that it’s there. We’ve still got track of 22 of the 

items. And we no longer will facilitate the donation for prohibited 

items. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Mr. Ekin, can you maybe respond to why local 

law enforcement would need grenade launchers? 

Mr. EKIN. I’m not a law enforcement expert. But when we have 

the agencies send us a letter of intent, where they explain how 

many officers they have that are post certified, what the equipment 

is going to be used for, they explained to us grenade launchers 

would be used for gas dispersal, not explosive incendiary things. So 

we do require that. And the head law enforcement officer, whether 

it be a chief, sheriff, whoever it is, signs those documents, and 

that’s what we submit to GSA for them to make the allocation determination. 

Mr. CLAY. And are you aware that, that local law enforcement 

is receiving the proper training to operate these weapons? Or do 

you know anything about that? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

Mr. EKIN. Only that they’re certifying that they have the appropriate training, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. It sounds pretty loose, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. 

I’m going to go ahead and recognize myself for a series of additional questions, because I want to follow up. You know, the gentleman from Georgia was, obviously, indicating that he finds it very 

difficult, as I think the ranking member and I both do, that we can 

somehow have 9,800 weapons that come from different agencies. 

And I think, to be clear, it comes from—it may come from the FBI, 

the Department of Homeland Security, Social Security, whomever 

has it, it is deemed surplus, is that correct, and then you just track 

it? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me follow up on maybe the less than articulate way that I asked the question earlier that I think maybe 

we got off—I asked a question that you answered. But I don’t know 

that I was very clear. So let me go back to that. In terms of the 

perpetual restrictions in your testimony, when did that come about, 

the loosening of the perpetual restrictions? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. We’re exploring different options right now. 

For noncontrolled equipment, things like handguns that a patrol officer would normally carry, the intent of the program is if the Federal agency has excess material that the local law enforcement 

could use, then we would transfer that property to their use. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So that, essentially, would do away with an inventory list? 

Mr. SISK. It would be a clean transfer of title to the local law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So did you make that recommendation on the 29 

of February? Because that’s when we found out about it. 

Ms. Ochoa, when did you find out about it? 

Ms. OCHOA. I learned about it when I read Mr. Sisk’s testimony 

for the hearing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So has this been in the works since last fall? Or 

is this just an idea that popped up before this hearing? 

Mr. SISK. It’s an idea that the agency is exploring internally. 

Nothing has been finalized. No decisions have been made. But if 

it is for noncontrolled equipment—for example, 9mm pistols—that 

State and local law enforcement has and manages all the time—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, essentially, it was put as part of your testimony to say: We’re going to try to figure out a way to do this by 

getting rid of an inventory list that we can’t control because we 

can’t actually track the weapons. Is that accurate? 

Mr. SISK. The inventory was that is currently in place, sir, we’re 

doing everything we can to follow the IG’s recommendations to 

make sure—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Your recommendation on the 29th, so let me be 

specific here, your recommendation on the 29th, why did you make 

that recommendation on that day? What was the genesis or the 

causal effect of coming up with that recommendation to get rid of 

the perpetual restriction? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Mr. SISK. One of the things that we are considering is looking at 

removing the perpetual restrictions for noncontrolled equipment, 

specifically for handguns, that would be going forward. If it’s actually better for local law enforcement that those handguns that 

would be transferred to them would be under all the rules and regulations—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you’re doing this because it will benefit local 

law enforcement? Is that what you’re saying? Is that your testimony? 

Mr. SISK. We’re trying to do what makes sense to follow—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m trying to figure out why, 2 days before a hearing, we get a recommendation on an IG’s report that was issued 

back in the summer of last year and that, 2 days before a hearing, 

we get this new idea that shows up with my staff, who have been 

working on this—let me tell you, the work that comes here is not 

mine; it’s the staff’s. As you well know, they’re doing a yeoman’s 

job. And, yet, when they have a briefing a day or so before this 

hearing, there’s this new idea of getting rid of the perpetual restriction. So was that thought out? Or was it just put in the testimony 

to make it sound like you got a plan? 

Mr. SISK. Sir, it is one of the recommendations that we’re exploring. It’s not—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. When did you start exploring that recommendation? 

Mr. SISK. The conversations probably began around that several 

weeks ago. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. That’s helpful. Because counsel has not 

weighed in on that, right? I guess here’s the interesting thing, is 

since you don’t own the firearms—you’re taking the list—how do 

you make the determination that you can give it to a local law enforcement agency after 12 months? It’s not yours to give. It’s surplus property that you’re managing, but it actually belongs to the 

FBI or DHS or whomever. Doesn’t it? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Has counsel weighed in on that, that says you 

have the ability, from a statute standpoint, to do that? 

Mr. SISK. Legal counsel reviewed my testimony. The 12-month 

requirement, I believe, is a statutory requirement. And I believe it’s 

also so that we’re not just donating things to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. It may be a statute. But it would be a statute for 

the FBI to do it or the DHS, not necessarily—I don’t know that 

that statute—does it transfer? Did counsel say it transfers to GSA? 

Mr. SISK. I’m sorry, sir, the title of the equipment? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Your ability to convey title to the State of Georgia, do you have that ability, from a statute standpoint, right now? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. We donate material that’s, right, that’s—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you’re following me, so you have that ability 

is what your counsel has told you? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, in the last 2 weeks, you’ve made that determination, that that’s how you’re going to get rid of this inventory 

list? 

Mr. SISK. One of the options we explored, sir, is if for noncontrolled equipment, if it should be transferred like any other kind 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

of property that we transfer to State agencies for surplus property 

that don’t have the perpetual requirement for inventory—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Listen, you may have two different ideological 

points of view up here as it relates to our local law enforcement. 

But I guess we are of one mind when it comes to tracking it. Here’s 

the problem: You’ve got a tracking problem. You’ve got an accountability problem. And instead of changing your accountability and 

tracking, you’re changing the program to say: Well, let’s give it 

away; that way we don’t have to track it. 

Are you following? It just doesn’t make sense. Does it? Does it 

make sense to you? 

Mr. SISK. I understand what you’re saying, sir. The intent—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Does it make sense to you? 

Mr. SISK. The intent of exploring that option was to look to see 

if—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me—and I understand—so let me 

go interrupt myself. And I’ll ask, so if that’s the case and you’re 

going to convey ownership to, let’s say, Mr. Ekin and the State of 

Georgia, what would preclude him from saying, ‘‘I want 130 of 

those Glocks’’; they keep them for 12 months, and they sell them; 

and he says, ‘‘I want 130 more Glocks’’? So it becomes a funding 

stream. If you get rid of the perpetual restriction, it becomes a 

funding stream where they don’t have to reimburse the Federal 

Government. I can tell you: it would be a business that I would get 

in immediately if you did that. Do you see the problem there? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. But we are transferring this material through 

the State Agency for Surplus Property to State and local law enforcement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. But what I’m saying: it becomes a de facto 

grant to that State agency. Would it not? 

Mr. SISK. I—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Am I missing something? 

Mr. SISK. Sure. In the same sense that any other material that 

we donate through the State Agency for Surplus Property, yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Let me tell you: Georgia and South 

Carolina may get a lot. North Carolina, I saw on the thing, I get 

zero. So I’m—— 

Mr. EKIN. But they may have property—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can I interrupt one second—Mr. Ekin, I’m 

sorry—on this issue you’re bringing up? I asked you specifically in 

my questioning, Mr. Sisk, was this a revenue-generating program, 

or was this an enhancement of capability program? And you said 

it was not a revenue-enhancement program. And now where the 

chairman just took us, actually, that is the practical effect of what 

you’re contemplating doing, which is lifting the perpetual restriction, because then, they—all you’re doing is transferring your surplus program and making it a revenue-generating program for local 

law enforcement, not an enhancement program. And what I worry 

about is then it could get into the wrong hands. And we already 

know that happened with grenade launchers. So I’m not reassured 

by your answer at all. And it seems to contradict your earlier answer as to, with respect to Cayce. 

Mr. SISK. And I’m sorry, sir. And I appreciate the opportunity to 

clarify that. There would still be a requirement that the equipment 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

would be kept and used for 12 months. That requirement would not 

go away. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well—— 

Mr. SISK. In a sense, sir, the entire program that we run, the donation program through the State Agency for Surplus Property, 

where we transfer excess property or surplus property from the 

Federal Government to the State and local agencies, in a sense, sir, 

we are providing equipment. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Ekin, I interpreted you, and I’m sorry. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Ekin, you wanted to jump in there because 

you were disagreeing with an analysis. And it’s fine. 

Mr. EKIN. I just wanted to put in that there are those restrictions already. And the State agencies for surplus property, as well 

as the donees, by the regulations, can’t do that for exactly that reason. All the property that we receive at the State level has to either 

be donated within 12 months, or when we turn it back in or sell 

it, it’s with GSA. GSA does get proceeds of that. So those—it 

doesn’t happen that those items just—we just hold onto stuff for a 

year and then turn it into profit. Just like our donees have to use 

it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Which I understand that’s the way it is today. 

But I guess what I’m saying is, does that change under this new 

scenario? If you get fee title to it in 12 months, does that change 

that? Or would they still have to compensate? Would they still 

have to compensate the FBI, let’s say? Would the State of Georgia 

still have to compensate, if they kept it for 12 months and on the 

13th month they sold it, would they have to compensate the FBI? 

Mr. SISK. No, sir. I don’t believe they would. 

Mr. EKIN. Under the current regulations, we would be compensating GSA. GSA conducts the sale. 

Mr. MEADOWS. No, I understand that. That is what I’m saying. 

He’s talking a new—here’s my concern, Mr. Sisk. This is not a complicated problem. This is not rocket science. I mean, I can tell you 

I can go buy an off-the-shelf program today that would track this 

and be able to sort it. In fact, if you need some help with that, I 

can probably get you four or five vendors that would fall all over 

themselves to do it very cheaply, where Ms. Ochoa doesn’t have to 

come back and check on it, because it would actually be sortable, 

and we could track it. Then it becomes an ideological problem on 

whether we supply it to the State of Georgia or whomever. But 

what it sounds like is you’re about to change a program because 

you won’t fix the reporting. Am I wrong there? 

Mr. SISK. Sir, we’re fixing the problems, sir, there with the inventory process. We absolutely agree with you that the process was 

not—it had shortcomings, and we’re fixing that. We are exploring 

different options on how to improve the process going forward. 

None of these decisions are final. We are—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But they were in your testimony. 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir, they were. So we’re going to continue to work 

with our Office of Inspector General. We’re going to work with our 

Office of Government-wide Policy just to explore different options. 

And we would certainly welcome the committee’s input as well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The ranking member has been very gracious. 

I’ll—— 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Not at all. I completely agree with you, where 

you’re headed, Mr. Chairman. 

Is it correct, Mr. Sisk, that in all of 2015, a total of 57 firearms 

were donated? 

Mr. SISK. I believe it was 73, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Seventy-three? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Even so, given all the grief, wouldn’t it have been 

easier to destroy them? I mean, you can’t argue that it makes an 

appreciably significant impact on local governments with the number 73. 

Mr. SISK. I understand that, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And given all of the headaches and a bad IG report and congressional hearings—and now we’re going to consider 

legislation about whether you’re even the right agency to be disposing of these—why not just destroy them? 

Mr. SISK. I certainly understand that, sir. I think the intent of 

the program was where the Federal Government had excess firearms that could help local law enforcement, that that was the purpose of the program, was to get that equipment to local law enforcement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But you would concede it’s gone awry? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. We definitely have issues with our inventory 

process, yes, sir, that we’re addressing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But even on the receiving end, I know it’s not 

necessarily indicative of the whole program, but the example of the 

two grenade launchers is instructive. It goes to a small town in 

South Carolina. And there’s no one with a straight face at the 

State level who could have said: I think they need grenade launchers there in Cayce. And, of course, they didn’t because Cayce 

promptly sold them illegally. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That was a good South Carolina accentby the 

way. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m from Virginia, as you know. And they didn’t 

need them, apparently. They sold them for revenue in violation of 

the contract, but they did. And so that is also troubling. There’s no 

substantive analysis or set of vigorous criteria to guide this program. And that—when it’s tainted at the very beginning of the program, no wonder we got problems at the end of the program. And 

I could understand if we’re talking about, you know, 73,000 or 

730,000 weapons or firearms; we got to get our arms around this. 

But the number is so small; it makes you wonder whether it’s 

worth the grief. And that’s something that, seems to me, the Federal Government ought to consider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I want to thank each one of you. And let me be 

clear, Mr. Sisk. I understand that this is an inherited problem for 

both you and your boss. And so I would say that the commitment 

to get it in the heat of which you’ve had to respond to questions 

today, we understand that you’re not the causal effect of this. 

But let me also share, the OIG has done great work in identifying this. I still have questions of whether they were asked to 

come in or they came in. And that’s a moot point because people 

have moved on. But let me be clear in that what we don’t want to 

do is to ignore the work that the IG and their committed staff has 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

done. And so we’re going to stay on top of this. The American people don’t understand it. I don’t understand how something so simple can’t be done. We can put a man on the Moon, and, yet, we 

can’t track firearms going to State agencies. 

At the same time, I don’t want it to be, Mr. Ekin, be viewed as 

anything—I understand, I’ve gotten rural law enforcement officers 

that have participated, you know, sometimes getting pistols that, 

truly, they wouldn’t be able to afford in their local budget. I get 

that. But where I do come with this, Mr. Sisk, is, is that the time 

is now to fix it. And what I don’t want—what I would ask you and 

if I could get your commitment that you, within the next 120 days, 

will have not only a plan in place but more than just a visionary 

statement in an opening remark, that we have, within 120 days, 

where we’re tracking this, where at least the problem stops in 120 

days, and that you’ve implemented all of the IG’s recommendations. So I have your commitment that you will do that? 

Mr. SISK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for your time today 

on this important topic. And if there is no further business, without 

objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER