U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–647 PDF 2015

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 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

CURTIS CLAWSON, Florida 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

VACANCY

VACANCY

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 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Vice Chair 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

KERRY KINIRONS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

DEBORAH JORDAN, Subcommittee Clerk 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 
2 

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 PostKatrina 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 
3 

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 crossborder exercises and aligning State-wide interoperability coordinators with the communications emergency support function leads. 
4 

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:] 
5 

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 govern-
6 

ance 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. 
7 

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 
8 

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 re-
9 

covery 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, 
10 

1The 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. 

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: • 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. 
11 

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 ongoing 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 
12 

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. 
13 

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). 
14 

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; 
15 

• 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 inperson 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. 
16 

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. 
17 

1 3GPP website, ‘‘About 3GPP’’, http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/about-3gpp. 

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. 

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. 
18 

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 Inter-
19 

operability 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 
20 

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 ongoing 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 
21 

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 
22 

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 
23 

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? 
24 

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 
25 

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. 
26 

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 
27 

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? 
28 

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 
29 

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. 
30 

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 
31 

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.] 
32 

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 
33 

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 
34 

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.] 

Æ