[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS: ASSESSING PROGRESS SINCE 9/11
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-647 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Filemon Vela, Texas
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Eric Swalwell, California
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Vacancy
Steve Daines, Montana Vacancy
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Curtis Clawson, Florida
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan O'Hara, Acting Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana, Chairwoman
Peter T. King, New York Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi, Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Vice Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Mark Sanford, South Carolina (ex officio)
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex
officio)
Kerry Kinirons, Subcommittee Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 6
Witnesses
Rear Admiral Ronald Hewitt, USCG (Ret.), Director, Office of
Emergency Communications, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. TJ Kennedy, Acting General Manager, First Responder Network
Authority:
Oral Statement................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Mr. Mark A. Grubb, Director, Delaware Department of Safety and
Homeland Security, Division of Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS: ASSESSING PROGRESS SINCE 9/11
----------
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:23 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Susan W. Brooks
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Brooks and Payne.
Mrs. Brooks. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony regarding
the state of interoperable communications.
Good morning. I first want to thank our witnesses for their
flexibility in scheduling this hearing. We had originally
planned to hold this hearing in September, if you recall, but
we had to postpone it due to a joint session of Congress with
the president of Ukraine. I appreciate you working with me and
our staff to reschedule this important hearing today. Also want
to thank you for accommodating us with respect to the delay
this morning.
Unfortunately, communication challenges persisted during
Hurricane Katrina. But we know much has changed since 9/11 and
Hurricane Katrina, because it exposed significant gaps in
communications capabilities. Congress then established the
Office of Emergency Communications, known as OEC, in the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to coordinate Federal
interoperable communications programs and conduct outreach to
support emergency response providers.
OEC has worked with States on the development of State-wide
communication interoperability plans and, in 2008, issued the
first National Emergency Communications Plan, which included
goals for achieving communications capabilities at the State
and local levels.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Grant Programs
Directorate reports that States and localities have invested
more than $5 billion in preparedness grant funding to enhance
their communications capabilities. These grants have been used
by the States for planning, training, exercises, equipment, and
to fund State-wide interoperability coordinator positions.
Congress finally addressed the 9/11 Commission's
recommendation to allocate the D Block to public safety with
the passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
of 2012, establishing the First Responder Network Authority,
known as FirstNet. This was long overdue, and as I discussed
with former 9/11 Commissioner Chairman Tom Kean at a hearing
the Committee on Homeland Security held earlier this year on
the 10-year anniversary of the release of the report.
These are all important steps. In fact, they have been
critically important steps, but we know that challenges still
remain and more work must be done. Despite all of these
programs, all of these investments, interoperable
communications continue to be a challenge during disaster
response, as evidenced during the response in Hurricane Sandy
and the Navy Yard shooting. We must continue to work to ensure
first responders have the tools they need to communicate.
I am pleased that, at the urging of myself and Ranking
Member Payne, last week OEC released an updated National
Emergency Communications Plan that takes into account the
changes in technology since the first plan. I am looking
forward today to hearing from Admiral Hewitt about this new
plan--and congratulations on the release of the plan--the
outreach he conducted with stakeholders during the plan's
development, and upcoming efforts to implement the plan's five
goals.
I am also looking forward to hearing more about FirstNet's
efforts to engage with States on the development of the Nation-
wide public safety broadband network. This is a huge
undertaking. I am interested in learning about the progress to
date and the plans for the future.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today as we
collaboratively work together to ensure our Nation's first
responders have the tools they need to communicate both in
their daily service and when disaster strikes.
We thank each of you for your service to our country, for
your service to your communities.
[The statement of Chairwoman Brooks follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Susan W. Brooks
I first want to thank our witnesses for their flexibility in the
scheduling of this hearing. We had originally planned to hold it in
September, but had to postpone it due to a joint session of Congress
with the president of Ukraine. I appreciate you working with me and my
staff to reschedule this important hearing today.
As you well know, the 9/11 Commission report examined the
communications failures first responders experienced at the World Trade
Center, Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania and recommended the
allocation of radio spectrum to public safety for the creation of an
interoperable public safety communications network. Unfortunately,
communications challenges persisted during Hurricane Katrina.
Much has changed since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina exposed
significant gaps in communications capabilities.
Congress established the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)
in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to coordinate
Federal interoperable communications programs and conduct outreach to
support emergency response providers.
OEC has worked with States on the development of State-wide
Communication Interoperability Plans and in 2008 issued the first
National Emergency Communications Plan, which included goals for
achieving communications capabilities at the State and local levels.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Grant Programs
Directorate reports that States and localities have invested more than
$5 billion in preparedness grant funding to enhance their
communications capabilities. These grants have been used for planning,
training, exercises, equipment, and to fund State-wide Interoperability
Coordinator positions.
Congress finally addressed the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to
allocate the D Block to public safety with the passage of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, establishing the First
Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). This was long overdue, as I
discussed with former 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean at a hearing
the Committee on Homeland Security held earlier this year on the 10-
year anniversary of the release of their report.
These are all important steps. But we know that challenges remain
and more work must be done.
Despite all these programs and investments, interoperable
communications continues to be a challenge during disaster response, as
evidenced during the response to Hurricane Sandy and the Navy Yard
shooting. We must continue to work to ensure first responders have the
tools they need to communicate.
I am pleased that, at the urging of myself and Ranking Member
Payne, last week OEC released an updated National Emergency
Communications Plan that takes into account the changes in technology
since the first plan. I am looking forward to hearing from Admiral
Hewitt about this new plan, the outreach he conducted with stakeholders
during the plan's development, and upcoming efforts to implement the
plan's five goals.
I am also looking forward to hearing more about FirstNet's efforts
to engage with States on the development of the Nation-wide public
safety broadband network. This is a huge undertaking and I am
interested in learning about the progress to date and the plans for the
future.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today as we
collaboratively work together to ensure our Nation's first responders
have the tools they need to communicate both in their daily service and
when disaster strikes.
Mrs. Brooks. With that, I now recognize the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for any opening statements he may have.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, and good morning. I would first like
to thank Chairwoman Brooks for holding today's hearing on
interoperable communications. I believe it will be our last
hearing together, but I want to thank you for your leadership
and your cooperation, working in a bipartisan manner on these
issues.
Representing New Jersey's 10th Congressional District, our
constituents were among the first to respond to the attacks on
the Twin Towers on September 11. On that terrible day, first
responders from multiple jurisdictions across disciplines
heroically put themselves in harm's way to save others.
Responding to a disaster of this scale was hard enough. The
absence of reliable, effective communications during the
response further complicated matters.
In the years since 9/11, the Federal Government, along with
the State and local governments, has made significant
investments toward achieving interoperability. During Hurricane
Sandy, the response we saw was an improvement in cross-
discipline communications. Police officers were able to
communicate with firefighters across New York and with other
officials in New Jersey, closing airports.
However, cross-jurisdiction communications challenges were
evident. Specifically, emergency officials that came to provide
mutual aid could not communicate with local first responders on
their own radios. After the storm, the Department of Homeland
Security, in coordination with the National Council of State-
wide Interoperability Coordinators, ``NCSWIC,'' convened a
panel to identify lessons learned.
Among the recommendations generated were: Increased cross-
border exercises and aligning State-wide interoperability
coordinators with the communications emergency support function
leads.
Although challenges remain, I was pleased to shine a
positive light on the progress made, when in June, at my
invitation, the subcommittee convened a hearing to look at
Super Bowl XLVIII, which was held outside of Newark, New
Jersey. At that hearing, the committee learned about the
significant progress that has been made in addressing the
lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy.
Indeed, interoperability communications was one area that
many Federal officials and local first responders highlighted.
I want to thank the Office of Emergency Communications for its
assistance in helping first responders in New Jersey, and their
partners in New York, plan, coordinate, and execute effective
interoperability plans for that event.
That said, the progress made is in jeopardy. In recent
years, States could rely on Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grant Program to support their State-wide
Interoperability Coordinators, SWIC, and other communication
governance structures. But that program has been eliminated.
Other sources for Federal support are scarce, particularly
since the State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Areas
Security Initiative are not funded at the levels they once
were.
When I joined this panel last year, I was surprised to
learn that my State of New Jersey did not have a SWIC. Now, I
understand that a SWIC has been named, but it is one of many
hats worn by this official.
The challenge of funding SWIC is not unique to New Jersey.
Other States are facing the same funding challenge and, as a
result, there is very real risk that important governance
structures that have taken over a decade to build will be
abandoned.
That is why today I am introducing the State-wide
Interoperable Communications Enhancement Act, or the SWIC
Enhancement Act. This legislation will ensure that States
maintain the progress we have made towards achieving
interoperability by preserving the governing structures
necessary to make the communications technology work. These
structures are key to achieving interoperability using existing
technology and the networks and to realizing the full potential
of the National public safety broadband network.
Before I close, I want to make clear: Interoperability
challenges are not unique to State and local governments.
Federal agencies share the same struggles. In November 2012,
the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General
reported that DHS lacked a cross-component interoperable
communications capability.
I introduced H.R. 4289, the DHS Interoperability
Communications Act--with Chairwoman Brooks--to require the
Department to put in place the policies and governance
structure necessary to achieve interoperability between the
Department's components. H.R. 4289 was passed unanimously by
the House of Representatives earlier this year, and I am
hopeful that the Senate will consider the bill before this
Congress closes.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to your testimony. With that, Madam Chairwoman, I
yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr.
November 18, 2014
I would like to thank Chairwoman Brooks for holding today's hearing
on interoperable communications. Representing New Jersey's 10th
Congressional District, I have constituents who were among first to
respond to the attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11. On that
terrible day, first responders from multiple jurisdictions--across
disciplines--heroically put themselves in harm's way to save others.
Responding to a disaster of this scale was hard enough. The absence
of reliable, effective communications during the response further
complicated matters. In the years since 9/11, the Federal Government--
along with State and local governments--has made significant
investments toward achieving interoperability.
During the Hurricane Sandy response, we saw improvement in cross-
discipline communication.
Police officers were able to communicate with firefighters across
New York and with officials in New Jersey closing airports. However,
cross-jurisdiction communications challenges were evident.
Specifically, emergency officials that came to provide mutual aid
could not communicate with local first responders on their own radios.
After the storm, the Department of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the National Council of State-wide Interoperability
Coordinators (NCSWIC), convened a panel to identify lessons learned.
Among the recommendations generated were: Increased cross-border
exercises and aligning State-wide Interoperability Coordinators with
the Communications Emergency Support Function leads.
Although challenges remained, I was pleased to shine a positive
light on the progress made, when in June, at my invitation, the
subcommittee convened a hearing to look at Super Bowl XLVIII (48),
which was held just outside Newark, New Jersey.
At that hearing, the Committee learned about the significant
progress that has been made in addressing the lessons learned from
Hurricane Sandy. Indeed, interoperable communications was one area that
many Federal officials and local first responders highlighted.
I want to thank the Office of Emergency Communications for its
assistance in helping first responders in New Jersey, and their
partners in New York, plan for, coordinate, and execute effective
interoperability plans for that event. That said, the progress made is
in jeopardy.
In recent years, States could rely on the Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grant Program to support their State-wide
Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC) and other communications
governance structures. But that program has been eliminated.
And other sources for Federal support are scarce particularly since
the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security
Initiative are not funded at the levels they once were.
When I joined this panel last year, I was surprised to learn that
my home State of New Jersey did not have a SWIC. Now, I understand that
a SWIC has been named, but it is one of many hats worn by this
official.
The challenge of funding SWIC is not unique to New Jersey.
Other States are facing the same funding challenge and, as a
result, there is a very real risk that important governance structures
that have taken over a decade to build will be abandoned.
That is why, today, I am introducing the State-wide Interoperable
Communications Enhancement Act, or the SWIC Enhancement Act.
This legislation will ensure that States maintain the progress we
have made toward achieving interoperability by preserving the
governance structures necessary to make the communications technology
work.
These structures are key to achieving interoperability using
existing technology and networks and to realizing the full potential of
the Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network.
Before I close, I want to make clear: Interoperability challenges
are not unique to State and local governments. Federal agencies share
the same struggles.
In November 2012, the Department of Homeland Security Office of
Inspector General reported that DHS lacked a cross-component
interoperable communications capability.
I introduced H.R. 4289, the DHS Interoperable Communications Act--
with Chairwoman Brooks--to require the Department to put into place the
policies and governance structure necessary achieve interoperability
between the Department's components.
H.R. 4289, was passed unanimously by the House earlier this year
and I am hopeful that the Senate will consider the bill before this
Congress closes.
Mrs. Brooks. Other Members of our subcommittee are reminded
that opening statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
As a former volunteer firefighter, I know that operable and
interoperable communications are essential to ensuring that first
responders can do their jobs safely and effectively. After the
September 11 attacks, however, the 9/11 Commission identified
interoperable communications among our Nation's most significant
vulnerabilities in disaster response.
Despite initial Federal investments in the years following the
attacks, interoperable communications challenges plagued the response
to Hurricane Katrina, exacerbating the devastation.
In response to continued interoperability challenges realized
during the storm, Congress created the Office of Emergency
Communications at the Department of Homeland Security to bolster State
and local capabilities to plan, coordinate, train, and evaluate
interoperable communications efforts.
Since its inception, the Office of Emergency Communications has
worked to help State and local governments build the governance
infrastructures necessary to develop robust interoperable
communications capabilities.
An essential component of that governance infrastructure are State-
wide Interoperability Coordinators, or SWICs. SWICs have spearheaded
efforts to develop State Communications Interoperability Plans,
coordinate communications projects, and maintain governance structures.
With guidance from OEC, SWICs--together with State-wide
Interoperable Governing Bodies--have built the communications teams
that facilitated successful results to events from the Boston Marathon
bombings to the tornadoes in Moore, Oklahoma.
Although this progress is encouraging, I was troubled that the 2014
National Preparedness Report indicated that 1 in 7 territories
identified operational communications as an area at greatest risk of
decline.
Since being appointed to serve on the then-Select Committee on
Homeland Security during the 108th Congress, I have made helping the
Nation resolve its interoperability challenges one of my top
priorities.
Over a decade--and billions of dollars of investment--later, we
have not yet made Nation-wide interoperability a reality. But we have
made progress. Losing ground is not an option. In this austere budget
environment, we simply cannot afford to go backward.
That is why I am pleased to support Ranking Member Payne, Jr.'s
State-wide Interoperability Coordinator Enhancement Act. The SWIC
Enhancement Act will ensure that States preserve the planning and
coordination infrastructure that has been developed with previous
Federal grant investments.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Payne, Jr. to make
sure Congress does its part to preserve the progress made toward
achieving interoperability, and to ensure that the progress made is
leveraged as technology evolves.
Along those lines, I am eager to learn about the progress FirstNet
is making in its effort to build out the Nation-wide Public Safety
Broadband Network.
If executed well, the new Network has the potential to resolve
challenges that have undermined previous interoperability efforts--
while being flexible enough to integrate new technologies.
I understand that FirstNet has completed a series of State
consultations, and its recent Request for Information and Public Notice
garnered significant public participation.
I am eager to learn about the State consultation process, and about
the feedback to the RFI and Public Notice. In particular, I am
interested to learn about feedback related to financing the Nation-wide
Public Safety Broadband Network.
With all the time, money, and resources invested into this project
at the Federal, State, and local level, sustainability is key to its
success. Additionally, I am interested in learning how FirstNet is
coordinating with the Office of Emergency Communications to conduct
outreach to State and local stakeholders.
Mrs. Brooks. We are pleased to have a very distinguished
panel before us today on this important topic. Now, to begin
those introductions, Rear Admiral Ronald Hewitt assumed the
duties as director of the Department of Homeland Security's
Office of Emergency Communications on November 13, 2012. TJ
Kennedy is currently serving as acting general manager of the
First Responder Network Authority, assuming the position after
the position of General Manager Bill D'Agostino. He joined
FirstNet as its deputy general manager on July 29, 2013. Mark
Grubb serves as the director of the Delaware Division of
Communications and is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of Delaware's State-wide 700- and 800-megahertz
public safety radio systems. In this capacity, he serves as the
State-wide interoperability coordinator, SWIC. He also serves
as the chair in the National Council of State-wide
Interoperability Coordinators and is testifying on their behalf
today.
Thank you for getting up at 5:30 and coming here to
Washington, DC, today. So we want to welcome you all. The
witnesses' full written statements will appear in the record,
and the Chairwoman now recognizes Admiral Hewitt for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RONALD HEWITT, USCG (RET.), DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Admiral Hewitt. Thank you, Chairwoman Brooks, Ranking
Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. It
is a pleasure for me to be here today to provide you an
overview of what the Office of Emergency Communications has
done since our creation 7 years ago to improve emergency
communications interoperability Nation-wide.
We released the National Emergency Communications Plan in
2008, which was the first strategic plan developed by public
safety and was the roadmap we used for the past 6 years. The
plan stressed the fundamental factors for successful
interoperability, which include governance, planning, standard
operating procedures, training, and exercises.
To implement the goals of the plan, State-wide
interoperability coordinators and State-wide interoperability
governance bodies were established in all 56 States and
territories. These governance bodies were instrumental in
developing State-wide communications interoperability plans
that were aligned to the National plan. We also provided over
1,000 technical assistance visits and trained over 5,000
communications leaders and technical technicians to help
implement the State plans.
These efforts have helped save lives. Just last year, our
Nation faced another tragedy when two improvised explosive
devices detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
Sadly, the bombs killed 3 people and injured nearly 300 more,
but nearly all the after-action reports agreed that greater
number of lives could have been lost if not for the successful
response to the bombings, which included effective emergency
communications.
Our role in preparing for the event began in 2010, when as
part of Goal 1 assessment of the National plan, OEC observed
that communications capabilities during the marathon that year.
Our assessment recommended integrating communications into the
event's overall command-and-control functions. We provided
technical assistance and trained additional communications unit
leaders and technicians. We also facilitated State-wide
planning workshops to ensure the public safety entities
understood the need and the roadmap to achieve
interoperability. This focus on the fundamentals came into play
immediately, as the responders treated the wounded, moved
people to safety, and secured the area using public safety
radio systems that kept up with the demand throughout the
event.
But even with these program successes, we cannot become
complacent, because the emergency communications landscape is
changing. Next-generation 9-1-1 will bring text and information
services to the Nation's public safety answering points or 9-1-
1 centers. FEMA is improving public alerts and warnings to
provide geographic-specific information to citizens. One of the
most exciting changes that will impact the way first responders
communicate is the Nation-wide public safety broadband network.
I am honored to sit next to my fellow panelist, TJ Kennedy,
from FirstNet today.
To account for all these changes, the public safety
community updated the National Emergency Communications Plan,
and I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security signed the plan earlier this
month. The 2014 plan will be the road map to achieve emergency
communications interoperability in this new landscape.
Similarly to the way we executed the 2008 plan, we rely on
my fellow panelist, Mark Grubb, and all his fellow State-wide
interoperability coordinator to update their governance
structures and their State plans to align with the 2014
National plan. Additionally, we will update our technical
assistance, training programs, and Federal grant guidance to
ensure these plans are successfully implemented.
In conclusion, we will continue to concentrate on the
fundamentals of governance, planning, standard operating
procedures, training, and exercises, for effective emergency
communications, even with technology 100 years from now, can
never exist without them. This subcommittee and committee have
been excellent partners in this effort, and I look forward to
continuing the conversation with you about how best to continue
the National effort.
Once again, I thank you, Chairwoman Brooks, Ranking Member
Payne, and Members of this subcommittee for allowing me to
testify today.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Hewitt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald Hewitt
November 18, 2014
Thank you, Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to discuss the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) collaborative efforts to improve
interoperable communications for emergency response providers and
Government officials. Thirteen years after the attacks of September 11,
2001, there still is no shortage of reminders of the need for an
effective and efficient emergency response framework to manage
incidents and restore essential services in the aftermath of a
disaster.
A top priority for DHS continues to be improving the communications
capabilities of those who are the first to arrive at the scene of a
disaster site--the Nation's emergency responders. Public safety
personnel must have access to reliable and instantaneous communications
at all times to effectively coordinate response and recovery
operations. The Department recognizes that establishing emergency
communications is not solely a technology problem that can be solved by
equipment alone. All of the critical factors for a successful
interoperability solution--governance, standard operating procedures,
training and exercises, the integration of systems into daily
operations, in addition to technology--must continue to be addressed
through the collective work of our programs.
Further, DHS believes that effective emergency communications
require continued partnering with the millions of emergency responders
who are the first to arrive on the scene of an incident, as well as the
communications industry, non-governmental organizations, the general
public, and citizens of affected communities. In addition, we continue
to work closely and collaboratively with FirstNet as they pursue their
mission of establishing a Nation-wide interoperable broadband network
dedicated to public safety which will be an integral part of the
continued evolution of effective public safety communications. We look
forward to discussing our respective efforts and key accomplishments to
make the Nation more secure and resilient to the threats and hazards
which pose the greatest risk.
office of emergency communications
The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) was established within
the National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) Office of
Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) as part of the Congressional
response to the communications challenges faced during the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Since its
inception, OEC has been focused on improving the communication
capabilities of the Nation's emergency responders. To that end, OEC
coordinates policy and assists in the development and implementation of
operable and interoperable emergency communications capabilities for
emergency responders at all levels of government, including Federal,
State, local, Tribal, and territorial.
Since 2007, OEC has made progress in several key areas that enable
emergency responders to interoperate in an all-hazards environment. In
2008, OEC led the development of the first National Emergency
Communications Plan (NECP). The Secretary recently signed an updated
NECP that outlines wholesale updates to the initial plan and accounts
for the significant changes that have taken place within the emergency
communications landscape in the past 6 years.
As an integral part of the development of the second NECP, earlier
this year, OEC completed a comprehensive Nation-wide planning effort
with more than 350 stakeholders from the emergency response community,
which included significant feedback and coordination with the SAFECOM
Executive Committee, the SAFECOM Emergency Response Council, and the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council. These stakeholder
groups are comprised of National public safety association members,
State and local emergency responders, and representatives within
Federal agencies, and collectively represent the interests of millions
of emergency responders, as well as the State and local governments
served by public safety communications. Owing to this collaborative
effort between OEC and our partners from the very beginning, the
updated NECP encapsulates broad stakeholder input and is slated to gain
wide acceptance within the public safety community.
oec accomplishments
OEC has addressed National gaps in the emergency communications
mission areas of planning, coordination, and training. OEC pursued a
number of strategies to bring the Nation up to a baseline level of
communications capability, characterized as a State where emergency
response providers and Government officials can effectively communicate
as needed and when authorized. OEC leveraged the Interoperable
Emergency Communications Grant Program to help States and territories
establish critical State-wide Interoperability Coordinators and
governance structures such as the State-wide Interoperability
Governance Board. These personnel and associated governance structures
form the focal point and foundation for emergency communications
efforts at the State and local level. Their on-going efforts remain
vital even as their original grant funding mechanisms have been
reduced.
Once established, State-wide Interoperability Coordinators and
governing bodies were integral to building out the first State-wide
Communications Interoperability Plans, which defined a roadmap for each
jurisdiction to improve interoperability and emergency communications.
In support of these efforts, OEC also provided technical assistance to
every State and territory to assist in the implementation of their
respective State-wide plan. The creation of State-wide Interoperability
Coordinators and governing bodies represent an investment by Congress
to create a State and local infrastructure to address these issues. To
make the most of this investment, these positions and these governing
bodies should lead the way in ensuring that planning, coordination,
training, and exercise at the State and local level, continue to drive
efforts to incorporate new technologies into response-level emergency
communications.
At the Federal level, OEC led the effort to establish the
Congressionally-mandated Emergency Communications Preparedness Center
to coordinate guidance for all agencies funding interoperability and
emergency communications. By leveraging the SAFECOM Executive Committee
and Emergency Response Council, OEC worked to ensure the adoption of
new policies, plans, and standard operating procedures across our
Nation. Moreover, OEC ensured that priority access services such as the
Government Emergency Telecommunications Service and the Wireless
Priority Services program were available for emergency response
providers and Government officials from all levels of government when
those personnel relied on commercial telecommunications services.
As a result of these efforts and OEC's continued focus on the
fundamentals of planning, coordination, and training: interoperable
emergency communications has improved Nation-wide over the last 7
years. To catalogue key successes:
OEC has conducted more than 1,000 technical assistance
workshops since 2007.
OEC has trained over 5,000 emergency response providers and
Government officials in communications positions that support
the National Incident Management System.
There are now more than 430,000 Government Emergency
Telecommunications Service and Wireless Priority Services
users.
As part of implementing the first NECP, OEC evaluated the
response-level communications capabilities of 60 urban areas
and more than 2,800 county-level jurisdictions.\1\ OEC found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NECP defines response-level communications as the capacity
of individuals with primary operational leadership responsibility to
manage resources and make timely decisions during an incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most jurisdictions demonstrated consistent communications
capabilities during events, with 74% of reporting counties
indicating ``established'' or ``advanced'' level
communications during routine incidents and events.
Nation-wide, the percentage of jurisdictions reporting
formal interoperability standard operating procedures--
those that are published and actively used by jurisdictions
during incident responses--increased from 51 percent of
respondents in 2006 to 86 percent in 2011.
We are proud of these accomplishments and the progress that they
represent for our Nation's preparedness in emergency communications. No
list of accomplishments, however, can ever compare to seeing such work
put to use during an actual event like the Boston Marathon bombings.
Emergency Communications During the Response to the Boston Marathon
Bombings
The tragic events of the 2013 Boston Marathon killed 3 people and
injured nearly 300 more. However, nearly all of the after-action
reports agree that a greater number of lives could have been lost if
not for the successfully coordinated and executed emergency response,
enabled by functional and interoperable communications. In the
immediate aftermath of the bombings, brave emergency responders and
Government officials relied on their training to quickly organize a
chaotic situation, medical personnel triaged on the scene and later in
hospitals, while ordinary citizens performed heroic feats for their
fellow citizens. Emergency communications worked during the marathon
bombings, due to the diligent efforts of Federal, State, and local
emergency response providers and Government officials. OEC's role was
to assist our partners in planning, coordinating, training, and
exercising emergency response protocols before the Boston Marathon
occurred.
In 2010, as a part of the NECP implementation, which focused on
assessing emergency communications capabilities at the Nation's major
urban areas, OEC assessed the Boston area's communications capabilities
during that year's Boston Marathon. OEC's assessment recommended
further integrating communications into the event's overall command-
and-control functions. OEC provided technical assistance to the region
to train additional communications unit leaders and provided DHS grant
funding to train more communications unit technicians. The region also
participated in several OEC-facilitated State-wide planning workshops,
helping to ensure that public safety entities understood how to
leverage existing resources and capabilities.
Prior to the 2013 Boston Marathon and based on a recommendation
from the 2010 OEC assessment, the region also created a comprehensive
event communications plan. The new communications unit itself added a
medical command-and-control radio network.
This focus on the fundamentals of successful emergency
communications--planning, coordination, training, and exercise--
ultimately paid dividends as responders from all levels of government
and across responder jurisdictions communicated seamlessly during the
bombing incident response.
the future of emergency communications
Importantly, the response to the Boston Marathon bombings
illustrated a rapidly changing landscape for emergency communications,
one that involves not just traditional land mobile radio use by first
responders, but also citizen communications and increased use of
broadband or internet technologies. For example:
The Boston Police Department was able to use alerts and
warnings in conjunction with social media like Twitter to
communicate with the public.
Tools, like Google's People Finder, allowed the exchange of
information from citizen to citizen.
The FBI received information through video streams,
pictures, and general tips.
Public Safety Answering Points were able to utilize
``Reverse 9-1-1'' with the general public.
First Responder Network Authority
One of the most exciting of these new entrants into our Nation's
emergency communications landscape is the Nation-wide public safety
broadband network being developed by the First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet), and I am honored today to sit next to my fellow
panelist, TJ Kennedy, acting general manager of FirstNet. OEC supports
the DHS role as a board member of FirstNet, an independent authority
within the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration responsible for the development, deployment,
and maintenance of a Nation-wide broadband network for public safety
use. Since the establishment of FirstNet in February 2012, OEC has
supported FirstNet planning, analysis, and outreach activities
including:
The Public Safety Advisory Committee, originally composed
from a subgroup of the SAFECOM program, in its advisory
capacity for public safety, State, local, Tribal, and
territorial needs;
The Cyber Infrastructure Risk Assessment, which will guide
cybersecurity and resiliency planning for the Nation-wide
public safety broadband network;
Nation-wide technical assistance and planning support for
States, territories, and localities to assist them with
preparing for FirstNet consultation in their jurisdictions; and
The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, which
established a FirstNet Consultation Group to coordinate Federal
activities, such as the collection of data related to the needs
of Federal users and Federal assets that may be leveraged to
deploy the network
The success of FirstNet's mission is critical for the advancement
of emergency communications for first responders, and promises to
elevate public safety entities' ability to execute their duties with
cutting-edge broadband applications, services, and devices. We are
pleased with FirstNet's progress, and look forward to our on-going
collaboration in the advancement of wireless broadband communications
capabilities.
Updated National Emergency Communications Plan
Within the ever-changing emergency communications landscape,
including FirstNet and some of the technologies seen during the Boston
Marathon bombings, the recently-released 2014 National Emergency
Communications Plan updates the previous National strategy for
successful emergency communications. While designing the updated NECP,
OEC conducted more than 30 stakeholder meetings including
representatives from the Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial
levels; industry; and representatives from other parts of DHS. To
reflect changes in technology and our changing definition of emergency
communications, OEC expanded the scope of its outreach by eliciting
feedback from public safety answering point personnel, emergency
management agencies, and other public safety organizations that had not
been included in the initial outreach to inform the 2008 NECP. The
updated plan addresses new players who contribute to emergency
communications while continuing to drive the Nation toward the
essential planning, coordination, training, and exercise elements.
OEC's outreach plan for updating the NECP was ambitious. OEC's
implementation plan for the updated NECP will mirror that ambition. The
implementation roadmap for the revised NECP includes updating State-
wide planning workshops; providing technical assistance; revising
Federal Government emergency communications grants guidance; updating
the existing State governance structures to bring in necessary players;
and transitioning priority services such as Government Emergency
Telecommunications Service and Wireless Priority Services to work
within a digital or Internet Protocol infrastructure.
Finally, OEC is also focused on ensuring the core, existing
communications infrastructure retains its capabilities. Land mobile
radio continues to be the most prevalent method for emergency
communications throughout much of our Nation. For example, even when
FirstNet initially becomes operational for data, land mobile radio will
still be needed to provide mission-critical voice until FirstNet can
provide this capability.
conclusion
Thank you, Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and the Members
of this committee. At OEC, we will continue to stress the fundamentals
of planning, coordination, training, and exercise, through our revised
National Emergency Communications Plan and associated activities. This
committee has been an excellent partner in this effort and I look
forward to continuing that dialogue. I am pleased to answer any
questions that you may have about OEC and our leadership in emergency
communications.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Admiral Hewitt. Congratulations
again on the release of the plan.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TJ KENNEDY, ACTING GENERAL MANAGER, FIRST
RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY
Mr. Kennedy. Chairwoman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, thank
you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the First
Responder Network Authority. I am very honored to have the
opportunity to brief you on FirstNet's progress and the
development of an interoperable Nation-wide public safety
broadband network.
It is also a pleasure to be here today with key players who
have been supporting FirstNet as we move forward, director of
the Office of Emergency Communications Ron Hewitt, as well as
Mark Grubb representing not just the State-wide
interoperability coordinators, but he is also one of the single
points of contact for FirstNet, as each State has identified
just as the Act has laid out. Mark has been integral in what is
happening with our consultation efforts and has been a leading
member of what is going on with FirstNet in the States and we
look forward to his testimony here today.
As you are aware, FirstNet was borne out of the 9/11
Commission report. The goal was to solve communications
problems that public safety faced that day. FirstNet's mission
is to bring that priority wireless broadband communications to
millions of first responders at the local, State, Tribal, and
Federal levels. The goal of this important endeavor is to
facilitate seamless communications between police, fire, and
emergency medical service agencies at every level of
government.
Over the past 13 years, we have proven that we can't fix
this problem with old technology alone and that, instead, we
need to leverage modern broadband technology and the advances
that the technology sector can bring to voice, video, and data
for every police officer, firefighter, and paramedic in the
country.
Using a dedicated Nation-wide public safety wireless
network, FirstNet will provide a ubiquitous solution to a
decades-long communication challenge and help keep our
communications and first responders safer with advanced
broadband services, devices, and leveraging applications.
FirstNet's goal of building a network to meet the needs of
first responders is a matter of critical importance for all
citizens of the United States. While the task ahead will not be
easy, no project of National importance to public safety ever
is.
FirstNet has been developing the leadership, staff, and
team dedicated to this critical mission, and we have also been
gaining insight and support from States, from public safety,
and from other key stakeholders required to make this network a
reality. This is public safety's network for the future that
will allow police officers, firefighters, and EMTs to leverage
the innovation taking place in the world today in wireless and
mobile technology.
Over the past 12 months, we have seen dramatic progress at
FirstNet. We have created a strategic program roadmap, and we
are making progress against that plan each day. As we grow, it
is important to remember that we develop a robust culture of
public safety service, dedication to this important mission,
and adaptability. All of these are central to our success that
deal with innovation as it moves forward. Every person who
joins the FirstNet team must be able to adopt these principles
and work hard to meet this important public safety mission.
Our senior team has grown and is focused on the technical,
business, and legal requirements to establish this important
network. In September, we released a major request for
information with our draft statement of objectives and a public
notice and comment. We received impressive feedback from the
public, from States, from vendors, from public safety agencies
on both of these important and strategic steps for FirstNet,
and we are working steadily towards the development of a
comprehensive network solutions RFP.
Consultation is well underway, and we are covering a
variety of areas, leveraging our key contacts with local,
State, Tribal, and Federal partners.
In summary, we have accomplished a lot, yet much more
remains to be completed. I believe that we are on the right
path and that with a dedicated team working hard on the
mission, we will make great strides in the year ahead. We are
gaining momentum each day, and we are building a record of
doing what we say we are going to do.
Our FirstNet team is passionate about this incredible
mission to bring modern communication tools to law enforcement,
fire, and emergency medical service personnel who respond to
life-threatening emergencies across America and keep us safe
and help us in our moments of greatest need. Thank you for
allowing me to be here today, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of TJ Kennedy
November 18, 2014
i. introduction
Chairwoman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). I am honored by the
opportunity to brief you on FirstNet's progress in the development of
an interoperable Nation-wide public safety broadband network (NPSBN).
It is also a pleasure to appear here today with the director of the
Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Mr. Ron Hewitt. He and his office have been
tremendously helpful and supportive to FirstNet in sharing their
expertise and experience.
Also with us today is Mr. Mark Grubb, representing the National
Council of State-wide Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC). Mr. Grubb
appears in his capacity as the State of Delaware's Governor-appointed
FirstNet Single Point of Contact (SPOC). In this role, he is
responsible for the coordination of outreach and education efforts
within the State. Mr. Grubb has led a vigorous outreach effort within
Delaware, and we are excited by his and his State's efforts.
ii. background
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L.
112-96) (Act) established FirstNet as an independent authority within
the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). Under the Act, FirstNet is tasked
with building and operating a self-funding, sustainable, interoperable
broadband network for public safety entities across the country and
within U.S. Territories. The NPSBN will fulfill a fundamental need of
the public safety community as reflected in the recommendations of the
9/11 Commission: FirstNet will finally bring 21st Century priority
wireless broadband communications to millions of first responders at
the local, State, Tribal, and Federal levels. Using a dedicated Nation-
wide wireless network, FirstNet will help provide a ubiquitous solution
to decades-long interoperability and communications challenges and help
keep our communities and first responders safer with advanced broadband
services, devices, and applications.
FirstNet's goal of building the Nation-wide public safety broadband
network to meet the needs of first responders is a matter of critical
importance for public safety. While the task ahead will not be easy,
FirstNet is developing the leadership, staff, and support from States,
public safety, and other key stakeholders required to make this network
a reality for first responders and the public who call on them for help
in their time of need.
In August 2012 the Secretary of Commerce fulfilled the statutory
requirement of naming the FirstNet Board. As required by law, the
members have specialized knowledge, experience, and expertise needed to
develop the network. Our first board chair Mr. Sam Ginn led the
organization until last summer when our new chair, Ms. Sue Swenson, was
appointed to the position. We are grateful for Mr. Ginn's leadership
and are excited by the continued energy and focus Ms. Swenson brings.
Over the past 12 months, we have seen dramatic progress at
FirstNet. We have grown from 4 to 83 full-time employees, and we have
established our headquarters in Reston, VA. The leadership team
includes myself as acting general manager, a chief financial officer,
chief technology officer, chief information officer, chief
administrative officer, chief counsel, and other executives focused on
the technical, business, and legal requirements essential to making the
Nation-wide public safety broadband network a reality.
We have also opened a technical office in Boulder, Colorado, where
much of our technical work is currently underway. At this facility, and
through a coordinated relationship with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) and NTIA, we, among other things, are
preparing to test various technologies to better understand how to
ensure that the network is built efficiently and meets all of the goals
of the act.
III. FirstNet's Roadmap to a Sustainable NPSBN
With these foundational efforts underway, we have narrowed our
focus on what it will take from outreach, technical, and financial
perspectives to build and maintain a public safety broadband network
long-term. Much of our planning is embodied in our ``FirstNet Strategic
Program Roadmap,'' which was adopted by the FirstNet Board in March
2014. In that roadmap, FirstNet outlined the milestones it planned to
accomplish over the next year, which include:
beginning formal in-person State consultations;
releasing a draft request for comprehensive network
proposals for comment;
releasing draft requests for certain network and equipment
services proposals for comment; and
initiating a public notice and comment process on certain
program procedures, policies, and statutory interpretations.
FirstNet has made significant progress on these milestones:
We distributed 56 State consultation packages on April 30,
2014. As of November 6, 2014, we have received 29 completed
State checklists;
We have launched formal State consultations, meeting with 7
States since July, with an eighth State scheduled in December;
We released and received approximately 122 responses to a
Request for Information (RFI) with a draft Statement of
Objectives (SOO) for our comprehensive Request for Proposals
(RFP); and
We released and received approximately 64 responses to a
public notice for publication seeking comment on several key
program policies and statutory interpretations.
I would like to briefly describe the progress we have made to date
and highlight where these efforts are heading.
A. State Consultations
Our efforts to interact with the States, Tribes, local
jurisdictions, and Federal departments and agencies are a centerpiece
of the FirstNet mission and are an essential requirement of the Act.
Our State and local planning consultation process, coordinated through
the Governor-designated State single points of contact, ensures that
FirstNet obtains key information from the public safety community of
all 56 States and territories and understands their unique public
safety operations. Our goal from this process is to develop a detailed
State plan for each State's review. This plan will inform a State's
opt-in or opt-out decision, as provided for in the Act, how the State
radio access network (RAN) portion of the Nation-wide network will be
developed.
In order to execute on this statutory requirement, FirstNet has
built a consultation strategy that focuses on several key objectives,
ensuring that the consultation process is:
Iterative, giving States and other stakeholders
opportunities to provide feedback and input throughout the
process;
Collaborative, so that we are working together with the
States to collect information and data that will be useful for
the deployment of the network;
Focused on critical elements, ensuring that we maximize the
States and taxpayers' investments in FirstNet; and
Informing inputs to RFPs, the delivery of the State plans,
and the design, construction, and operation of the network.
Through the State consultation process, FirstNet anticipates
holding numerous in-person meetings with each of the 56 States and
territories over the next year and beyond. We formally launched our
State and local planning consultation process on April 30, 2014, when
we sent each State an Initial Consultation Package (ICP). The ICP
provided key information to State leaders on the consultation process
and topics that would be discussed during the initial consultation
meetings.
FirstNet also included a readiness checklist to help each State
provide FirstNet information about its governance structure, on-going
outreach to key public safety stakeholders, and other details the State
believes are important as FirstNet and the State collaboratively plan
the NPSBN.
In conjunction with the delivery of the ICP, FirstNet extended
invitations to conduct pre-consultation teleconferences with each State
and territory to provide clarity on the initial consultation topics,
answer any questions the State may have about the process, and to begin
the dialog between the States and FirstNet on the critical issues
associated with the NPSBN. As of today 44 States and territories have
held teleconferences with FirstNet for this purpose.
With this preparation effort under way, FirstNet held the first
formal consultation pilot meeting in July 2014 with leaders from the
State of Maryland, including members from the Governor's office and
executive agencies, the Maryland State Police, staff from the Maryland
legislature, and other public safety leaders throughout the State. We
learned valuable lessons about the State's emergency broadband
communications needs, the State's perspective on the planning and
deployment of the NPSBN, and how we can build a strong partnership with
Maryland going forward. As of today's hearing, we have completed an
additional eight initial consultation meetings in Minnesota, Oregon,
Washington, Montana, Utah, Puerto Rico, and Iowa. We have one
additional meeting scheduled for this year in Florida. We have planned
an aggressive State consultation meeting schedule in 2015 and look
forward to updating this committee on our progress.
Additionally, over the past year, FirstNet has conducted focused
outreach with individual Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Federal
Tribal Government liaisons and is working with the Public Safety
Advisory Committee to establish a Tribal Working Group. The intent and
tone of these discussions has uniformly been positive. FirstNet will
formulate a tribal outreach campaign in late 2014 that involves Indian
Country through combined State and Federal level engagement.
While we are pleased with our progress, we know much more needs to
be done to continue to cultivate our relationships with each State,
territory, and Tribal nation, and we are working feverishly to meet our
statutory obligation and roadmap goals. To that end, FirstNet is hiring
10 regional teams to ensure sufficient resources in support of our
outreach and State consultation efforts. These FirstNet regions cover
the same States, territories, and Tribal nations as the 10 Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. Our teams will span the
Nation to participate in consultation meetings, join various regional
and State governing body meetings and association conferences, and meet
one-on-one with the State single points of contact and public safety
agencies representing potential FirstNet network users. FirstNet
expects to hire these 10 regional leads in late 2014 and early 2015,
and bring on additional regional staff throughout 2015 as appropriate
to meet our goals.
Complementing this effort is FirstNet's robust outreach and
education strategy, committed to reaching the public safety community
across all levels of government and through National and State
associations. In the past year we have addressed over 24,000
stakeholders at various conferences, meetings, and speaking events, and
we plan to dramatically exceed that number in 2015.
We are also working closely with Federal agencies to drive
collaboration and potential use of the NPSBN. Recently, FirstNet
formalized a relationship with the Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center (ECPC) to increase outreach with Federal
stakeholders. The ECPC is the Federal interagency group focused on
interoperable and operable emergency communications, and is
administered by the DHS OEC. FirstNet has participated in many ECPC
meetings over the past year to keep members informed of FirstNet
activities and to discuss how best to collaborate to ensure Federal
input is incorporated into the State plans. A Federal outreach team
will be staffed in late 2014 to continue working with the ECPC and to
expand efforts to engage one-on-one with the departments and agencies
on a regular basis to better understand the unique needs of agencies
and expand awareness of FirstNet.
Additionally, FirstNet's Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC),
chaired by Mr. Harlin McEwen, and composed of key public safety
stakeholders, will continue to be a key resource as we pursue our
mission. Public safety's input via the PSAC is vital at all stages of
the network's development so that it will be tailored to the needs of
the end-users--America's first responders and other public safety
entities. Although there is plenty of work to do, we are excited about
our mission, and confident that we are on the right path.
B. Request for Information/Statement of Objectives
As we engage States and public safety, FirstNet also is actively
conducting extensive market research to gain as much insight as
possible into the capabilities, opportunities, risks, and innovative
business partnerships in the market today to support the construction
of a Nation-wide public safety broadband network for public safety
entities. FirstNet is seeking further input from the public this fall
that will help shape the direction of our future procurements,
including the planned comprehensive network RFP and the equipment and
network services RFP.
On September 17, the FirstNet Board released an RFI that included a
full draft Statement of Objectives (SOO). The RFI sought input from
industry on some of the key approaches FirstNet is considering before
finalizing the draft comprehensive network RFP. The RFI included
questions on network build-out, deployment, operations, and
maintenance; cost considerations and financial sustainability; speed to
market; system hardening and resiliency; user priority and preemption;
customer care and marketing; and general compliance with the Act. The
draft SOO will help industry better understand FirstNet's key program
objectives in the creation, operation, and maintenance of the NPSBN.
FirstNet is taking an objectives-based approach to our procurement,
rather than a requirements-driven approach, in order to promote
flexibility in achieving FirstNet's goals while helping FirstNet reduce
the complexity we face in managing and integrating the diverse set of
components needed to meet our mission. FirstNet will benefit from the
creativity and expertise of respondents in identifying multiple ways to
achieve a stated objective. FirstNet will use the comments it receives
on the RFI and draft SOO to refine the acquisition approach and draft
the comprehensive network RFP.
We have received more than 120 responses to the RFI and are very
encouraged with the interest it has generated. All responses are being
kept confidential, to provide the necessary assurances to the RFI
responders to allow them to provide comprehensive and forthright
solutions, facilitating FirstNet's ability to thoroughly develop the
next step in the procurement phase, the draft RFP.
As this committee knows well, FirstNet is statutorily required to
engage in an open, transparent, and competitive RFP process, and the
release of this latest RFI is an important step in meeting this
obligation. This RFI/draft SOO continues FirstNet's market research
efforts and acts as a precursor to the issuance of a draft RFP
estimated in early 2015.
C. Public Notice and Comment
FirstNet's Board coupled its September 2014 release of the RFI and
draft SOO with a public notice. As a newly-created entity under a
unique statutory construction, FirstNet is confronted with many complex
legal issues and terms that will have a material impact on our RFPs and
our operations going forward. This public notice sought comment on
certain key interpretations of the Act to help inform our approach to
our various RFPs and on-going operations. Specifically, the public
notice sought comments on issues that include the definition of core
and RAN; the definition of public safety entities--the ultimate primary
users of the network; secondary users; rural area; user and other fees;
and minimum technical requirements.
We were pleased to have received and are currently in the process
of reviewing the more than 60 responses to the public notice. We
received responses from a broad group of stakeholders including,
commercial carriers and vendors, State, local, and Tribal governments,
and various associations that represent public safety interests. The
feedback on these topics will provide important inputs into the draft
comprehensive network RFP and on FirstNet operations. Many of these
issues could have significant impact on the economics of the NPSBN and
the various solutions proposed by vendors. FirstNet needs to clearly
define these terms prior to releasing the draft comprehensive network
RFP so potential offerors have a common framework to submit responsive
and competitive proposals. These responses are all public and can be
viewed at www.regulations.gov.
D. Technical Development
Other that looking at the development of our RFI and the technical
components of a future RFP, the FirstNet technical team has been
focusing on a number of core areas:
standards development;
testing and evaluation;
modeling and simulation.
As mentioned before we have been working very closely with the team
at PSCR to ensure the sharing of ideas and open data and to eliminate
information silos.
FirstNet utilizing PSCR for standards development
Working directly with PSCR has allowed FirstNet to make significant
progress on the world-wide standards body for LTE. The standards body
through which we are working is 3GPP. According to the 3GPP website,
``The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) unites [Six]
telecommunications standard development organizations (ARIB, ATIS,
CCSA, ETSI, TTA, TTC), known as `organizational partner' and provides
their members with a stable environment to produce the Reports and
Specifications that define 3GPP technologies.''\1\ As a result of this
collaboration, FirstNet has helped to develop broad coalitions who have
pushed for the prioritization of public safety standards development in
LTE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 3GPP website, ``About 3GPP'', http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/
about-3gpp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing, evaluation, modeling, and simulation
Through this effort we have validated certain key elements and
features for priority and preemption within the LTE environment.
Further refinement is required to fine-tune these elements and this is
underway. In addition the Technical team has assisted in validating
certain of the key assumptions within the FirstNet program roadmap
released back in March, including relating to the modelling of cell
site location Nation-wide and the amount of excess capacity of our
spectrum that might available for secondary use.
Next steps
FirstNet will continue to work with PSCR throughout the development
of the network. We have already seen tremendous benefit of our
cooperative relationship and we are excited to achieve additional
success. We will also be working very closely with the PSAC in order to
help define the framework for priority and preemption on the network.
Leveraging our public safety experts for this important task is crucial
if we are to successfully reach a solution to this challenging topic.
iv. conclusion
I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to update you on
FirstNet's progress. As you can see, FirstNet has dramatically advanced
its efforts in the past 12 months to meet our statutory obligations,
reach those who will use and benefit from our network, and develop a
business plan that will provide a self-funding, innovative broadband
service to first responders long-term.
We still have much to do to achieve our mission, and are moving
forward with a continued focus on our primary long-term objectives:
Deliver advanced, resilient public safety wireless broadband
services;
Minimize public safety user fees;
Minimize the amount of capital and operating expenses
incurred by FirstNet;
Leverage synergies with existing infrastructure where
economically desirable to FirstNet; and
Maximize the value of our excess network capacity to keep
costs low for public safety.
FirstNet has a difficult task ahead, but with the support of
Congress, public safety, State and local jurisdictions, and the private
sector, we will succeed in accomplishing our mission. This is a network
that is urgently needed to increase the safety and capabilities of all
public safety personnel and protect the American people, and we are
committed to delivering it.
Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you may have.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Grubb for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. GRUBB, DIRECTOR, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF
SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY, DIVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Grubb. Good morning. Chairwoman Brooks, Ranking Member
Payne, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide
testimony today, and I would like to also thank the
distinguished committee, and it is an honor to appear here with
Mr. Kennedy and Admiral Hewitt.
As the emergency response community and State executives
prepare to work with FirstNet on the build-out of the National
Public Safety Broadband Network, we are also simultaneously
coordinating the transition from 9-1-1 to next-gen 9-1-1. One
of my additional duties in the State of Delaware is I am a
Governor-appointed member of the Enhanced 9-1-1 Services Board,
so I do have a wide look at all of the emergency response in
the State of Delaware.
So these efforts will all enhance emergency communications
for public safety, Government officials, and public, but they
have also created a fast-evolving and more complex emergency
communications landscape. With this evolution taking place,
States and territories have a great opportunity to leverage
their State-wide interoperability coordinator to ensure these
capabilities are built out to the most efficient and effective
manner possible.
Since September 11 and the implementation of the SWIC
program, there are numerous examples of increased coordination
intra- and inter-State. There have been significant
improvements in State-wide communication systems, training, and
education of first responders and communications staff and,
most importantly, on-going coordination by the SWICs at every
level, but our work is certainly not finished.
I think this point is certainly driven home by a recent
quote from Oklahoma SWIC Nikki Cassingham after the tragedy of
the Oklahoma tornadoes. I quote: ``In conjunction with the
State-wide Interoperability governing body, the SWIC built the
State-wide communications, or CONU, including the
communications leader, or COML, and communications technician,
or COMT, credentialing program from the ground up and has made
significant efforts to expand and improve the program since its
inception. The success of the Oklahoma's COML/COMT program was
demonstrated most notably in the aftermath of the EF5 tornado
that tore through the city of Moore, Oklahoma, on May 20, 2013.
Two State-certified COMTs were among the first to arrive on the
scene to assess infrastructure damage, while the lead COML
issued cache radios, requested additional resources, and
drafted the ICS-205 Communications Plan. The knowledge and
experience of Oklahoma's certified COMLs and COMTs played an
enormous role in the success of the communications response to
this event.''
This is just one real-life example of improvements since 9/
11 and is a direct result of the investments made by this
committee. However, interoperability requires much more than
just equipment; it is really about people in disparate agencies
and jurisdictions including each other in their planning
processes. In other words, it is about relationships and lines
of communications.
As administrations change and people switch jobs, those
relationships must be rebuilt, which require education and
training. It is an on-going process, it is a very human process
that must be maintained, year in and year out. It requires
attention and dedication and, yes, it requires funding. If we
don't have all of those things, we will not be able to
maintain, much less improve upon, the interoperability progress
we have made since 9/11.
With the current absence of SWIC funding, we are losing
ground. The SWIC position was created with the support of the
Department of Homeland Security's Office of Emergency
Communications, and States used funding from the Interoperable
Emergency Communications Grant Program to keep SWIC on staff.
With IECGP funding now expired, many States are struggling to
continue to fund the SWIC position and even keep the
interoperability body operating.
Reinstating grant funding similar to IECGP is vital to the
continued success of SWICs and interoperability. SWICs play an
important role, but we could not do it without the support of
the Office of Emergency Communications. South Dakota's SWIC,
Jeff Pierce, said it best, when he said: ``I have been involved
in providing communications for the State of South Dakota for
almost 35 years. In that time, the SWIC program and those
initiatives implemented by OEC to promote interoperability have
advanced public safety communications far beyond what technical
developments have.''
In conclusion, robust communications are a must for first
responders in every State. A strong SWIC and appropriate levels
of funding can help make that a reality by bringing people
together, continuing a strategic vision for interoperability,
and working toward the best solution for a State's citizens.
Let us not forget the painful lessons learned from a lack of
interoperable communications during 9/11. It is in every
State's best interest to make effective use of this crucial
position.
As you know, nothing in Government gets done unless there
is a champion, especially with communications interoperability,
a problem that prior to the advent of SWICs often seemed to
have no owner. The SWIC is the communications interoperability
champion for the State and the Nation. Thank you again for
allowing me time to provide this testimony. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grubb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark A. Grubb
November 18, 2014
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of
the committee, I would like to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic. My name is
Mark Grubb, I serve as the director of the Delaware Division of
Communications in the Department of Safety and Homeland Security, and I
am also the State-wide Interoperability Coordinator or SWIC for
Delaware. In addition, I am honored to serve as the chairman of the
National Council of State-wide Interoperability Coordinators. I am also
Delaware's First Net State Point of Contact and I am an appointed
member of Delaware's Enhanced 9-1-1 Services Board.
As the emergency response community and State executives prepare to
work with the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) on the
build-out of the National Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN), we
are also simultaneously coordinating the transition from 9-1-1 to Next
Generation 9-1-1, as well as maintaining existing Land Mobile Radio
systems that provide mission-critical voice. These efforts will all
enhance emergency communications for public safety, Government
officials, and the public, but they have also created a fast-evolving
and more complex emergency communications landscape. With this
evolution taking place, States and Territories have a great opportunity
to leverage their State-wide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) to
ensure these capabilities are built out in the most efficient and
effective manner. Since 9/11 and the implementation of the SWIC
Program, there are numerous examples of increased coordination intra-
and inter-State. There have been significant improvements in State-wide
communication systems, training and education of first responders and
communications staff, and most importantly on-going coordination by the
SWICS at every level, but our work is certainly not finished. I think
this point is certainly driven home by a recent quote from the
Massachusetts SWIC Steve Staffier:
``As I witnessed during the Boston Marathon bombings, even though we
have all made significant investments in equipment and systems around
the country, we still need help in education/training/outreach to the
end-users and key decision makers . . . and this requires a SWIC and
funding.
``These radios and systems don't talk on their own and the coordination
doesn't happen without the SWIC and a COMU (Communications Unit) Team
of COML's (Certified Communication Leaders) and COMT's (Certified
Communication Technicians).''
Or the statement from Oklahoma SWIC Nikki Cassingham after the
tragedy of the Oklahoma tornados:
``In conjunction with the State-wide Interoperability Governing Body
(SIGB), the SWIC built the State-wide COML & COMT Credentialing program
from the ground up and has made significant efforts to expand and
improve the program since its inception. The success of Oklahoma's
COML/COMT program was demonstrated most notably in the aftermath of the
EF5 tornado that tore through the city of Moore, Oklahoma on May 2,
2013. Two State-certified COMT's were among the first to arrive on the
scene to assess infrastructure damage, while the lead COML issued cache
radios, requested additional resources, and drafted the ICS-205
Communications Plan. The knowledge and experience of Oklahoma's
certified COML's and COMT's played an enormous role in the success of
the communications response to this event.''
These are real-life examples of improvements since 9/11 and are
direct results of the investments made by this committee. However,
interoperability requires much more than just equipment--it's really
about people in disparate agencies and jurisdictions including each
other in their planning processes. In other words, it's about
relationships, lines of communications. As administrations change and
people switch jobs, those relationships must be re-built, which
requires education and training. It's an on-going process, a very human
process that must be maintained, year in and year out. It requires
attention and dedication and, yes, funding. If we don't have all those
things, we will not be able to maintain, much less improve upon, the
interoperability progress we have made since 9/11. With the current
absence of SWIC funding, we are losing ground.
SWICs play a central role in a State's emergency communications and
interoperability efforts by working with first responders across all
levels of government, acting as a central coordination and outreach
point, and guiding efforts around the creation and implementation of
State-wide Communications Interoperability Plans (SCIP). Because of
their wide-angle view of communications across a State, SWICs can bring
a vital perspective and strategic vision to a State's efforts, as well
as guide thoughtful spending decisions, plan needed training and
workshops, and improve preparedness State-wide. The Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Emergency Communications has supported
the development of SWICs, assisted with the creation and updates of
State-wide plans, and helped States and territories form State-wide
Interoperability Governance Body or State-wide Interoperability
Executive Council to coordinate emergency communications. These
existing structures and plans can and should be leveraged as States
prepare for broadband and Next Generation 9-1-1.
Recently, States have been asked by FirstNet to appoint a State
Point of Contact (SPOC) to assist with the planning and implementation
phases of the NPSBN. In 18 States and the District of Columbia, the
SWIC is also acting as the SPOC. In 12 States, the SWIC and SPOC both
work within the same department, but in another 25 States the two roles
are housed within separate departments. In addition, most States have a
separate person responsible for 9-1-1 activities and the transition
from 9-1-1 to Next Generation 9-1-1. With this structure, it is easy to
see how the LMR, broadband, and 9-1-1 communication efforts can become
separate programs with little coordination.
We have a tremendous opportunity for States to increase
coordination across these various efforts to improve communications for
public safety. The SWICs who are not the primary point of contact for
broadband should include the SPOC and 9-1-1 Coordinators in the State-
wide planning process while also expanding the existing State-wide
governance structures to include the SPOCs, Chief Information Officers,
and State 9-1-1 Coordinators. This would allow collaboration across all
these various communication projects and ensure the SCIP is truly a
comprehensive State-wide plan that addresses all elements of emergency
communications.
For example, in Delaware, I have been asked to fill both the SWIC
and SPOC roles and have also been asked by the Secretary and Governor
to serve on the E-9-1-1 board. This will enable me to look at the three
elements in the most comprehensive, strategic, and public-safety
focused way. It also allows Delaware to use the governance structure of
its existing State-wide Interoperability Executive Council to address
the design and use of a broadband system in the State.
In addition to keeping the SWIC involved in a State's work with
FirstNet, States should consider the following to make the best use of
this valuable position.
continue to provide full funding and support to your swic
The SWIC position was created with support from the Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) and many
States used funding from the Interoperable Emergency Communications
Grant Program (IECGP) to keep a SWIC on staff. With IECGP funding now
expired, many States are struggling to continue to fund the SWIC
position and even keep the interoperability body operating. OEC has
been working to ensure applicable grant programs recognize SWIC support
as an allowable cost to help States keep this vital position funded.
I would also urge States to find the funds to continue to support
this position that both creates value and ensures efficiency. Among
their vital roles, SWICs can be cost savers by ensuring a State spends
its emergency communications grant funding and budgets effectively.
Because the SWIC is able to take a comprehensive view of a State's
communications systems, it's easier to ensure an agency doesn't go out
and spend money on a system that is redundant with a solution available
in the State or invest in something that is incompatible with other
current or emerging technologies.
In addition, SWICs are able to help jurisdictions respond better to
natural disasters, emergency incidents, and large-scale planned events
by focusing on State-wide planning and supporting broader training and
coordination. A strong SWIC knows where each Communications Unit Leader
is in the State, has them trained and ready, and can quickly deploy
them to an incident commander for any type of response.
Mrs. Chairman, as you know, nothing in Government gets done unless
there is a champion, especially with communications interoperability, a
problem that often seems to have no owner. The SWIC is the
communications interoperability champion for the State and the Nation.
elevate the swic in a state's structure
For the SWIC to be most effective, the position must be placed high
enough within the State structure. We have some SWICs who are really
strong and knowledgeable, but they are not placed in a position to
effectively coordinate efforts, prepare for emerging technologies, and
help ensure wise purchasing policy.
As Delaware's SWIC, I report directly the Secretary of the
Department of Safety and Homeland Security who chairs the State-wide
Interoperability Executive Council and reports directly to the
Governor. The Secretary chairs the council's monthly meetings and votes
as one of the 15 council members. The other members represent State and
county governments and first responder groups.
I'm an active part of the council, but, by design, I am not a
voting member. That neutrality gives me the opportunity to study and
present facts, and then step back from any politics and allows the
board to make its decision.
access the ncswic network and oec's support
SWICs play an important role, but we could not do it without the
support of OEC. The office really helps us do our jobs--especially in
environments where funding has been cut--by setting priorities,
bringing together the National Council of State-wide Interoperability
Coordinators (NCSWIC), and providing guidance and training.
Before NCSWIC was created in 2010, SWICs didn't have nearly the
bandwidth we have now because we couldn't reach across the country for
ideas and support. We now have that deep bench and can get in direct
contact with other SWICs who have faced similar challenges and
scenarios. We can reach out and get really good answers and samples
from other States' experiences and best practices. For example, Oregon
worked with FirstNet to put together an incredible website on broadband
for public safety. We got permission to utilize a lot of the framework
from that website, and now Delaware has launched its State FirstNet
site. The benefits of the NCSWIC came about because OEC helped set up
the program and continues to support us in our joint efforts. In
addition, by allowing each SWIC to request up to five technical
assistance offerings each year, OEC empowers SWICs to bring additional
training, education, and governance support to a State. South Dakota's
SWIC, Jeff Pierce said it best:
``I've been involved in providing communications for the State of South
Dakota for almost 35 years, in that time the SWIC program and those
initiatives implemented by OEC to promote interoperability have
advanced public safety communications far beyond what technical
developments have.''
conclusion
Robust communications are a must for first responders in every
State. A strong SWIC and appropriate levels of funding can help make
that a reality by bringing people together, developing a strategic
vision for interoperability, and working toward the best solutions for
a State's citizens. Let us not forget the painful lessons learned from
a lack of interoperable communications during 9/11. It is in every
State's best interest to make effective use of this crucial position.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Grubb. I will now begin my line
of questioning for 5 minutes.
I would like to ask Admiral Hewitt and--in your testimony,
you noted that the first responder jurisdictions communicated
seamlessly during the bombing incident and that that--in
Boston. I understand that the radio networks worked extremely
well and that had been--there had been training, extensive
training that had taken place. But I have to share that I spoke
with former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis and, in fact,
he testified before the Homeland Security Committee--and I have
seen him once since--and he indicated that the response was not
without its challenges.
So while I am so pleased that the radio response went very
well, first responders are also so accustomed to using their
cell phones and that the lack of cell service did impact the
leadership's ability to communicate.
Can you talk about how OEC is working with Boston and--to
address the lessons learned and where OEC is seeing these
issues with respect to first responders also relying on their
cell phones beyond the radio? What is OEC's, you know, thoughts
and work on that particular issue? Because Commissioner Davis,
you know, shared that they were unable to communicate on their
cell phones. Any thoughts on that?
Admiral Hewitt. Thank you, Chairwoman Brooks. You are
correct. In fact, there were news releases right after the
bombing went off that the Federal Government shut down the
commercial cellular network because--and it didn't. What
occurs--the commercial networks are designed for a certain
capacity, and that way exceeded that capacity, so only about 2
percent or 3 percent of the calls were actually going through,
so it looked like it was shut down.
Office of Emergency Communications also has a National
continuity program that has wireless priority services, WPS.
That capability is available to public safety. In fact, in
Boston, we had to--but unfortunately, they have to pay a
service charge to do that, and because they are strapped with
funds, they don't have that capability to do so.
For the Boston bombings, we ended up turning on about 150
phones, cellular commercial phones in that area, but you need
it right away. So the other aspect we are doing now is
increasing our training programs and education on WPS and to
make sure they are aware of those so they can.
But at the same time, we have FirstNet, you know, working
with TJ and the FirstNet staff, having that 20 megahertz of
spectrum set aside for public safety and the cellular band, it
is going to be tremendously helpful on the day-to-day basis. So
between the two, having FirstNet coming on-line to give us
excess capacity and educating in that--those that do have to
have cellular commercial phones, that they have WPS. So it is
really a training and exercise perspective.
Just like we have been focused on land mobile radio, we now
have to educate people on how to use broadband and the
capabilities that are there, ma'am.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay, thank you. I assume WPS is similar to
the GETS card? When I was U.S. attorney, I had a GETS card that
would give me priority. Although you have to: (A) Remember that
you have the card and the phone number that is in your wallet,
or in your--you know, and, (B) just remember to use it, right?
Admiral Hewitt. Yes, ma'am. In fact, the GETS card, there
is a long identification number, and it is very difficult to
use. With WPS, you just dial star, 272, and then the phone
number, and then it goes through, so it is a lot easier to use.
But many folks in the public safety world--because, again, it
grew out of a National continuity program--aren't educated on
it and how to use it. We are doing our best to get that word
out to everyone.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay, thank you. Mr. Kennedy, today you have
completed 7 or 8 State consultations--I think I have read 7 and
the eighth is in December. Is that correct?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. We actually just added 1 last week, so 8
are now done and 1 more to go.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay. Okay, thank you. Can you please share
with me in my brief time left, how are these meetings going?
What kind of changes have maybe you made to the consultation
process since you started the process? What is your projected
time frame for completion of State consultation, which I think
will be critical in the success of FirstNet?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. There are a number of phases to State
consultation. The first meetings that we are talking about is
kind of the Phase 1 set of meetings. Just like you have
mentioned, we have gone through these 8 meetings. We actually
have Iowa today. We have Florida coming up in the very near
future. So we are continuing to plug through this first set of
meetings while looking forward to right after the first of the
year conducting the rest of them.
We have 32 States that are now ready to conduct
consultations, so 8 of those are already--have occurred, but we
are continuing to go through State by State and meet with a
number of key stakeholders. Some of these meetings have had
over 170 participants representing city, county, State, and
different agencies, Tribal involvement from public safety, lots
of key State officials, if it refers to transportation and
different communication elements to the State CIO.
So a lot of cross-functionality in the room to be able to
discuss how FirstNet will make a difference. Just like the
example you went through, it is the example of having that
priority built into the system from Day 1 and having the
devices in the hands of people who need it.
So it has worked very, very well to start and continue to
push that conversation on consultation forward. We are looking
for a number of phases to consultation. Right now, we believe
there will be probably 4 over the next year. We want to finish
this Phase 1 and get into Phase 2, so that is our current plan
for fiscal year 2015. To move that----
Mrs. Brooks. I am sorry, just to clarify, is Phase 2 just
the next round of consultations? Or is Phase 2 an add-on to
what you did with the States in Phase 1?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, so Phase 2 will build on what was done in
Phase 1, so Phase 1 is a full-day interaction with each of the
States with a number of different asks from us to the State on
where are their public safety users, how do they plan to
leverage the network, a number of key issues and priorities for
the State that we will be going back-and-forth with them on.
That second phase would build upon that Phase 1.
As we move forward, this will help inform our RFP process,
as well as inform the State plan. The goal of this consultation
is to result in a State plan for each Governor to be able to
make a decision on opting in or opting out of the State radio
access network portion of the FirstNet build-out.
Mrs. Brooks. Again, what is your projected time frame as to
when you think the State consultations might be completed?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. So the only one I can really comment on
right now is Phase 1. I believe that in this fiscal year we
will complete the first Phase 1 for each of the States. Because
each State is moving at a different time frame, as far as
checklists and ability to get in, a lot of it is also at the
mercy of when States are ready to have those conversations.
Mrs. Brooks. How many States have submitted their
checklists?
Mr. Kennedy. Thirty-two.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay. Okay. Thank you. With that, the
Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Payne, for questions.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Grubb, in your testimony, you note that it is critical
that the existing communications governance structures such as
State-wide interoperability governance bodies be leveraged as
States prepare for broadband and NG 9-1-1. From your
perspective, as the chair of the National Council of State-wide
Interoperability Coordinators, to what degree are States
leveraging resources of these existing governing bodies as
emergency communications technology evolves?
Mr. Grubb. Thank you, Mr. Payne. I can speak especially for
Delaware, where the--we leverage our State governing body quite
heavily, and in most States--not most States--in some States,
they do, as well. That coordination helps significantly,
because in that governing body, it is chaired by the secretary
of safety and homeland security, and he reports to the
Governor, so he is a voting member. There are 14 other voting
members from agencies throughout the State of Delaware.
We have leveraged that for our broadband working group for
FirstNet. So it has helped--it has helped quite a bit. There
are a lot of States that have started to look at that structure
as they move into FirstNet.
Mr. Payne. Okay. You know, Federal support for emergency
communications governance infrastructure, from the
interoperable emergency communications program to UASI and the
State homeland security grant program, has diminished in recent
years. Today, I am introducing, as I stated, the SWIC
Enhancement Act, which aims to preserve advances in emergency
communications, governance achieved over the past decade.
Can you talk about the degree to which the success of the
current efforts at enhancing interoperability are dependent on
these governance structures being in place, particularly with
the evolving broadband capabilities needing to be integrated
into the existing land mobile radio capabilities?
Mr. Grubb. Yes, sir. First of all, I would like to take
this time to thank you for introducing that bill, that SWIC
bill. It is of significant help to the SWIC community and
something we talk about quite a bit. Next, in a couple of
weeks, the SWICs and SAFECOM will get together in Norman,
Oklahoma, and I can tell you that they will be thrilled with
hearing that news, so thank you very much.
From a coordination standpoint, you know, SWICs now focus
more on FirstNet. They need to maintain that interoperability.
One thing I have to say that is extremely important from a
communications standpoint and interoperability is that land
mobile radio, the networks that our first responders use for
mission-critical voice, they are critical to be maintained for
the foreseeable future.
That is one thing that I say in almost every meeting that I
am a part of in the State of Delaware and elsewhere, is that
although broadband will--FirstNet will bring data--and it is
needed--mission-critical voice is the first thing that our
first responders go to when they are an emergency situation. We
had an officer in Delaware who was unfortunately killed in the
line of duty years ago. He was stabbed by an assailant in the
neck. Before he passed on the street, the first thing he
reached for was his radio.
We need to maintain those radio systems and move into
broadband so it provides additional data and additional
resources for our first responders.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy, the State of New Jersey was awarded a
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, or BTOP, grant in
2010, and the FirstNet license--the frequency spectrum to the
State to build the network in December of last year. Can you
talk about the status of this project and how will FirstNet use
the lessons learned from New Jersey's BTOP grant project to
inform and develop a Nation-wide network?
Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely, Ranking Member Payne. The
deployable networks that the State of New Jersey are deployment
as part of this key project are what we refer to as cells on
wheels, often called COWs, and systems on wheels. These key
systems really help out emergency providers both with big
events, like the Super Bowl or events like that, that might
occur, as well as large events that are unplanned for but also
recur on a regular basis, like hurricanes, like you experienced
with Hurricane Sandy.
The goal of the proof of concept network is really focused
on three regions in New Jersey, the route 21 corridor, as well
as in southern New Jersey in Camden and Atlantic City on the
shore. All three of those will be key locations for us as we
move forward to really see the different experiences we can get
from those three geographic locations, and then that unique
capability to be able to deploy to emergencies and respond to
things like hurricanes, with additional broadband capability.
To the point mentioned a little bit earlier from Admiral
Hewitt is having an ability with that dedicated spectrum that
can make a difference during some of these very large events.
So we prime to really leverage those key learning conditions.
New Jersey is on track to complete that project on time, which
is September 2015.
Mr. Payne. From what I understand in discussions with
Homeland in the State of New Jersey, we are very proud of the
work and accomplishments and the programs that we have made
there and are really looking forward to implementing, want to
be the first, so we continue to work hard on that.
Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back at this time.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. At this time, we will start a
second round of questioning. Mr. Grubb, you have the benefit of
being both the SWIC, as well as what is called the SPOC. Any
other acronym names you might have? But the SPOC is the
FirstNet single point of contact for Delaware, as I understand,
besides being the SWIC.
Can you--and I don't know whether or not many SWICs are
SPOCs, as well, in other States--I am curious about that--but
can you please share with us, what is your assessment of
FirstNet's and OEC's outreach with the SWIC and SPOC
communities? You know, what is going well and what can be
improved? Since you are getting ready to go to a National
conference, I am sure that is a huge part of the discussion. So
can you share with us what you and your colleagues are
experiencing with respect to outreach?
Mr. Grubb. Yes, ma'am, thank you. So the first part of your
question, in 18 States and the District of Columbia, the SWIC
is also acting as the SPOC. In 12 States, the SWIC and SPOC
both work within the same department; in 25 States, the two
roles are completely separate. So that gives you a little bit
of a picture there.
I think, from my vantage point being the SWIC and the SPOC,
and being on the 9-1-1 board, is significantly useful, because
I get an overview of that entire landscape, and that is helpful
in guiding resources and getting, you know, the little bit of
funding that we do have where it needs to go. So that is
significantly helpful.
Working with--let me start with OEC--working with the
Office of Emergency Communications, Admiral Hewitt and his
staff, is absolutely unparalleled. It is incredible. They are
customer-driven and customer-focused. I could line up every
SWIC in the United States and they would say exactly the same
thing.
So I would like to congratulate the admiral and his team on
the efforts that they have put through since 9-1-1. That is why
the SWIC community is where it is today, and the outreach that
we have been able to do is largely a part of their strong
efforts over the past several years.
With FirstNet, the effort is also tremendous. TJ and his
staff, they work tirelessly to bring broadband for public
safety to--you know, to reality, and that I commend them on. I
think that--as an independent authority, one of the things that
holds them back is Federal regulations and hiring regulations.
If they could get past that a little bit, I think that has held
them back in hiring good candidates to help bring FirstNet even
faster forward.
Mrs. Brooks. Can you--or maybe Mr. Kennedy should delve
into that a little bit further. What regulations are you
referring to? Or Mr. Kennedy? That might be hindering faster
implementation.
Mr. Grubb. I know it is--but I know Mr. Kennedy can answer
that a little better.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. To Mark's comment, I think one of the things
that we have realized as an independent authority inside the
Federal Government is the Federal hiring process sometimes
takes a little longer than we would like to see. One of the
things that we have tried to do is make sure we get a lot of
key technical talent and public safety talent into these key
positions.
So as we look to staff our regions across the country, it
has taken longer to get some of the key personnel into those
positions and the key talent that we need on-board. We are
continuing to move forward with requests for direct hiring
authority from the Office of Personnel Management and really
trying to make sure that we move forward with swiftness to be
able to get the right staff onboard that will help States like
Mark and the State of Delaware and others work through
consultation.
Mrs. Brooks. So when you request direct hiring authority
from OPM, what is the manner of authority that you have now?
Mr. Kennedy. We currently do not have any direct hiring
authorities at this point. We are currently working in the
typical OPM hiring system for Federal employees.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay. Is there anything further beyond hiring,
Mr. Grubb, that you would like to share with respect to
outreach efforts from FirstNet?
Mr. Grubb. Only to reiterate that their office is excellent
at outreach, helping us outreach to our folks. We have been on
the message of FirstNet for a couple of years now, and with the
change in leadership and with some--I think it has been a
little bit slow, to be honest, but it is understandable due to
the size of the project that they are undertaking. It is
astronomical.
But I think our folks in the State are getting just a
little bit leery of the message that FirstNet is coming. It
needs--you know, we need to get it here.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay. Thank you. In light of the accolades you
have given OEC in particular with respect to their work with
you, I have to share that there is a rumor surfacing that the
Department of Homeland is considering moving OEC from the
National Protection and Programs Directorate into FEMA. It is
my understanding that members of the public safety community
are quite concerned about this.
Admiral Hewitt, do you know--does the Department have plans
to move--restructure and move OEC?
Admiral Hewitt. Thank you, Chairwoman Brooks. As you may
know, the Department of Homeland Security is undergoing a Unity
of Effort analysis to improve mission delivery through
cooperation and collaboration across the components. In their
effort, though, there has been no decisions on any change
within the National Protection and Programs Directorate, which
I am a part of, or the Office of Emergency Communications.
If any--you know, before any decisions would be made, we
would be up here first and consulting with you, just because of
the legislation. It says we work for the Office of
Cybersecurity and Communications. We would be happy to meet
with you at any time to get your recommendations on how to do
improvements.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Right answer on consultation. Just
wanted to make sure that Department of Homeland Security
remembered how the office was set up. Since it is working so
well, we look forward to having that discussion prior to any
reorganization.
With that, my time is up, and I turn it over 5 minutes'
more questioning to Congressman Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Admiral Hewitt, in your testimony, you talked about the
importance--the contributions the SWICs have made in advancing
our interoperability goals. As you know, I am introducing
legislation today that I hope will help States preserve and
build on that progress. Have you reviewed this legislation? You
know, I would look forward to counting on you to work with me
to make sure that the progress that, you know, has been
achieved with respect to interoperability is not lost as grant
funds become more scarce.
Admiral Hewitt. Thank you, Ranking Member Payne. As I
mentioned, the Secretary of Homeland Security just signed the
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan, and for us to
successfully implement it, it is going to require every--all 56
States and territories to update their governance structures,
to update their plans, and then to execute those plans, so your
support and understanding how important a role a SWIC is--just
like at the National level OEC is kind of that coordinating
body. Every State needs to have that coordinating body.
Just to give you an example, FCC manages over 126,000
public safety land mobile radio licenses. Every organization
owns their own land mobile radio. That is why we have this
interoperability problem. When they are working and they are
doing their training and exercises, generally organization-
centric, and having someone overriding that and say, hey, make
sure you look out for when that incident occurs that is multi-
discipline, multi-jurisdictional, to be focused on that and
making sure that your systems interoperate is critical. So
thank you for your leadership in moving this forward.
Mr. Payne. So what happens? What do you do where there
isn't a SWIC in place?
Admiral Hewitt. There is--in 2010, we had 44 full-time
SWICs. Just March of this year, it is down to 26. But there are
part-time SWICs in all States, so we do have someone part time.
It is just--and Mr. Grubb could probably answer that better,
but I definitely think there is a difference being able to
dedicate your time and then--and having a bunch of things on
your plate.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Mr. Grubb.
Mr. Grubb. I will go to Arizona as an example. Prior to the
IECGP being lost, Arizona had a significant SWIC office. They
honestly led the country in the way they were able to bring
through COML training programs, COMT programs, coordination,
oversight of technology. It was impressive. Now that really has
gone away. That office has closed down. Their monthly
governance structure meetings have gone to 1 per year, if that.
At this time, the SWIC duties are maybe a quarter duty for the
person who doesn't--has a full-time job and that happens in a
significant number of States now.
It is--that split focus, it does not help, you know,
interoperability moving forward. It really doesn't. Those are
the things that we saw prior to 9/11 is there was no
coordinator. Again, to my testimony, there was no champion of
coordination for the States, and we are heading back in that
direction unfortunately.
Mr. Payne. So do you feel that the SWIC should be a full-
time position?
Mr. Grubb. The SWIC should definitely be a full-time
position. Not only should it be a full-time position, I think
key is that the SWIC must be high enough level in State
government to have effect on the outcome of this situation.
What we have seen across the country is where SWICs have a
director level or above position. They are much more effective
in coordinating efforts of communications and interoperability
across State government and county and so on and so forth.
Where we see a lower-level SWIC is where, you know, they
are brushed under the table for the most part, and they are
just not nearly effective, so that is a--you know, two-part
answer, really. Yes, full-time SWICs and they have to have a
high-enough position in State government.
Mr. Payne. Well, in your position, you wear more than one
hat. You are the SWIC, correct?
Mr. Grubb. I am. I am the SWIC for Delaware. I am also the
director of the division of communications, so we oversee the
800-megahertz radio systems for the State of Delaware. However,
most of my focus on a daily basis is SWIC-related, so I have a
team of people who focus on the operation of our mission-
critical voice system, so there is a structure, but I count
myself as a full-time SWIC.
Mr. Payne. Okay. I have another question, but I will yield
back in the interest of time.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I think we are going to go to just
one more round of questions. In the 008, Admiral Hewitt,
National Emergency Communications Plan, OEC set three time-
specific goals, and Goal 3 was that by the end of 2013, 75
percent of all jurisdictions would demonstrate response-level
emergency communications within 3 hours in the event of a
significant incident.
Was this one of the 90 percent of the goals in the new NECP
reported as achieved? Isn't 3 hours a seemingly long time to
set up a response? Can you comment on that? Are you still using
the 3-hour window in the new plan?
Admiral Hewitt. I thank you, Chairwoman Brooks. Actually,
the new plan--the goals that we have in there are higher-level.
They are more strategic, because the landscape of emergency
communications is much broader now. The first plan was geared
towards land mobile radio, and it was geared government to
government, or really response coordination between public
safety officials.
But with the Boston bombings and other recent events, the
landscape of emergency communications is expanded, next-
generation 9-1-1. The biggest thing that I am most concerned
with, lose sleep on, is the fact that there is a bomber that
gets on a metro that someone is able to take a picture of, and
that picture isn't able to go through NG91 to FirstNet and then
out to alerts and warnings. We have to now open the aperture
and make sure we have that interoperability of information and
information services with that.
Mrs. Brooks. How did you engage the private sector as you
worked to update the NECP?
Admiral Hewitt. Thank you again for that question. We
have--as the communications sector-specific agent for critical
infrastructure in the comm sector, we briefed them on--we had
over 80 private and commercial carriers involved in the plan.
We have briefed them on and get their inputs. So we could bring
them in, because they are going to be--as I mentioned, the
ecosystem for emergency communications is expanding. Really, we
have got to even ensure citizens have the ability to
communicate.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay, thank you. Mr. Kennedy, we hear a lot
about spectrum monetization and the need for FirstNet to
ultimately be self-funded. Who do you see as consumers of
excess capacity on the FirstNet network? How do you plan to
ensure that public safety has adequate priority usage of the
network, if and when we go to spectrum monetization?
Mr. Kennedy. So kind-of two key elements to that question.
I think, first off, on the--guaranteeing public safety
prioritization, it is a key part of what we are doing in
consultation. In consultation, we are covering really seven key
elements--construction of the core and the radio access network
build-out, placement of towers, coverage areas, adequacy of
hardening security and reliability, assignment of priority. So
key to that element is being able to have that priority
capability and then really assigning priority and selecting
users in training.
Those elements, though, of having that priority network is
being built in from the ground up. So we have currently worked
with our public safety communications research lab in Boulder,
as well as our technical team, to test the priority functions
that are needed on the network. The testing has been extremely
positive. We have seen very good results from that. We will be
building that into our RFP, so that the network will be built
with that key priority in mind.
As far as the monetization of the network, the goal for
sustainability is to have the ability for covered leasing
agreements and having the ability to leverage parts of the
network that are not being fully utilized on a day-to-day
basis. We are building that into both our strategic plan and
into our RFP process. We are very pleased with the current
other spectrum auctions that are separate from our monetization
that would occur as part of the secondary capacity on the
network, and we have seen very good results from them. Because
of that, we are encouraged that we will have additional funding
to help support the network going forward.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Mr. Grubb, what challenges has
Delaware faced, as was mentioned by Admiral Hewitt, while
transitioning from 9-1-1 to next-gen 9-1-1?
Mr. Grubb. We are right in the middle of that transition.
So we are finished with our RFP. Moving forward, here in a
couple of weeks, the board will vote on a solution, it appears.
I think really the challenge is to make sure that everybody
understands this is an evolutionary process. It will take some
time to work.
I mean, this year, the wireless carriers were mandated to
be able to serve and text to 9-1-1 centers. To my knowledge,
from speaking to my colleagues across this country, where the
few places that text to 9-1-1 is available, they only get very
few texts, a couple. So it is--you know, that was interesting
to me, I thought.
But it does, you know, lead you to understand that it is an
evolutionary process. Even though we think that, you know,
everybody wants to text to 9-1-1, they still prefer to call to
9-1-1. So we will get to text to 9-1-1. Then we will be texting
pictures to 9-1-1. Then we will be texting eventually with
broadband full video.
My concern--once we get to that point--is that the
education for the call-takers, that is a whole different level
of education that we have to contemplate now, because it is one
thing to hear an emergency call, but it is completely another
thing for them to view a crime taking place. So that is going
to be part of that evolutionary process, so that--those are the
challenges with the migration.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you very much. I need to suspend for 2
minutes to run down and place a vote, and I will return. The
subcommittee will recess, subject to the call of the
Chairwoman. Be right back.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Brooks. The subcommittee will reconvene. Thank you for
that. Let me catch a breath.
Congressman Payne, 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Payne. Okay, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Kennedy,
first responders and public safety officials will be FirstNet's
primary customers. How is FirstNet utilizing the Public Safety
Advisory Committee? What tasks have been assigned or undertaken
by the Public Safety Advisory Committee?
Mr. Kennedy. The Public Safety Advisory Committee really
leverages the great work that has been done in SAFECOM by a
number of the same members that we have mirrored with our
public safety advisory committee. They have looked at a number
of key factors and are taking on some of the most important
elements that are operational to the future of FirstNet.
A good example of one of the roles they played is they
created use cases for how public safety will utilize the first
responder network and how that will be--in an operational
sense--marrying technology with public safety operations. Those
use cases have become a basis for our technical team to build
requirements and objectives around--that become part of our RFP
process.
A really critical point, is when you look at how a police
officer, a firefighter, a paramedic will operationalize the use
of this new technology. So those use cases by the public safety
advisory committee have been extremely beneficial to that work.
They have also looked at important issues like hardening
and looking at resiliency and what we need to do to be
resilient in building this network. They have also looked at
key issues when it comes to defining a public safety user.
One of the things we did was work with the PSAC on some of
our initial understandings to create our public notice and
comment on public safety users to make sure that we are being
very transparent and working with both the public safety
advisory committee and the public in general on who will
utilize the network and how will they utilize the network.
So I think we have done a great job of engaging with the
public safety advisory committee. Our next meeting is coming up
in just a few weeks in Norman, Oklahoma. We actually often put
these meetings right next door to the SWIC meetings that are
happening, as well, with SAFECOM, so that we have the key
players around the country from the 56 different States and
territories that are a part of that key discussion along with
the public safety advisory committee meeting in the same
locations at the same time during that same week. They have
really been a terrific help.
Chief Harlin McEwen has led that public safety advisory
committee for FirstNet and the passion that we see from the
vast representation across public safety that are part of the
advisory committee has been a great help to FirstNet.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. You know, I understand that the RFI
issue in September sought feedback on how to harden the public
safety broadband network against cyber attack. Can you talk
about the efforts being considered to harden the network
against cyber attacks?
Mr. Kennedy. Cybersecurity, as you know, is a critical
priority for all of us in public safety and in the Federal
Government. We have been working very closely with a lot of the
cybersecurity best practices from the Department of Homeland
Security, working with Admiral Hewitt's team and others to make
sure that we are leveraging those centers of excellence. We
have also brought onboard full-time staff that are focused on
cybersecurity.
For us, we are leveraging, how will this work in the new
mobile environment going forward? Working with many different
levels of agencies. So looking at city agencies, county
agencies, and State agencies, and how do they get access to key
law enforcement information, as well as deal with, you know,
key information that needs to be kept safe, such as, you know,
emergency medical service records and other things that would
go across the network? So for us, cybersecurity has been at the
foremost of our requirements as we build our key RFP objectives
going forward for FirstNet.
Mr. Payne. Okay, thank you. I think I had one more. Mr.
Kennedy, we are sticking with you.
Mr. Kennedy. It is okay.
Mr. Payne. You know, as Mr. Grubb observed, you know, SWIC
may not always be the FirstNet single point of contact. What is
FirstNet doing to encourage coordination particularly in those
States where those positions are in separate agencies?
Mr. Kennedy. We are doing a number of things. Just like the
example with trying to have meetings that are co-located, where
a lot of the State-wide interoperability coordinators will be
to make sure there is good open communication. We also work
with all of the single point of contacts regardless of their
background to work on who should be invited to key meetings.
They obviously have their own discretion, but we certainly ask
them to engage the SWICs, and we want them to engage heavily on
those key conversations.
Also, with the different SPOC backgrounds that are out
there, most of them are very much engaged in public safety
across the States. Sometimes it is a key State public safety
official, such as from the State police. Sometimes it is the
homeland security adviser. Sometimes it is the State CIO. But
they are often very well connected with key communications
officials, both in public safety and in State and local
government.
So we found a lot of good coordination in reaching out to
the SWICs and others to make sure that there is open
communication going on at all times on what is happening with
FirstNet.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Well, I would like to thank all the
witnesses for their testimony today. I will yield back.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I, too, would like to thank all of
the witnesses for their testimony. Sorry, this has been a bit
of a choppy hearing, and I know we had a bit of a delay in
beginning. Again, this was rescheduled. But really want to
thank all of you for your work. I can think of--for all of our
first responders, nothing is more important--truly, they can
have all the equipment in the world, incredible equipment, but
unless they can arrive on the scene or if they are on the scene
when an emergency occurs, if they can't communicate, they won't
be successful.
We have come a long way since 9/11. But we obviously--as
you all have indicated--have a long way to go, and we must stay
at it. I just want to also thank Congressman Payne for his work
on this critically important issue. This has been a top issue
for him from the beginning. I want to thank you for your work.
It has been an enjoyable 113th Congress, working together on a
lot of important bipartisan legislation. We still need to get
some through the Senate, I might add. Hope that we can do that.
But I also--while I don't have the slick, pretty copy, you
know, getting the National Emergency Communications Plan done
for 2014 is, I think, also a great accomplishment for the
subcommittee and working with Homeland Security. But just
always reminding the Federal agencies that it is our local
partners on the ground that we need to, as well as the private
sector with all of their innovation, that we need to make sure
we are always listening to them as to what they need and what
they can provide and certainly what our first responders need.
So I want to thank you all very much.
The Members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing, if you should receive any. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 7(e), the hearing record will be open for 10
days. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]