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

28–819 PDF 2018

ASSESSING FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

Serial No. 115–32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

RON ESTES, Kansas 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

STEVEN S. GIAIER, Deputy Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York, Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

MOIRA BERGIN, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New York, and Chairman, 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 ............................................................................................. 4 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

Rear Admiral Ronald Hewitt (USCG, Ret.), Director, Office of Emergency 

Communications, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

Mr. Edward Parkinson, Director, Government Affairs, First Responder Network Authority: 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Mr. Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

(1) 

ASSESSING FIRST RESPONDER 

COMMUNICATIONS 

Thursday, October 12, 2017 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Donovan, McSally, Payne, and Langevin. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I apologize before we begin that I am losing my 

voice, but I appreciate your participation and your attendance here 

today, and we look forward to hearing from you. 

The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and 

Communications will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting 

today to receive testimony on the state of first responder communications. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome all witnesses here this morning on an issue 

that is vital to our homeland security: The ability of our first responders to communicate. As noted in the 2006 National Interoperable Baseline Survey, there is a, ‘‘direct correlation between effective communications, interoperability, and first responders’ ability 

to save lives.’’ 

In my home town of New York City, we know this all too well. 

Both the Office of Emergency Communications and First Responder 

Network Authority were established in the wake of the communications failures of 9/11 and later in Hurricane Katrina. We have 

made a great deal of progress since those fateful disasters. States 

and localities have invested billions of dollars in their communications networks, including governance, training, and equipment. 

The Office of Emergency Communications has completed two National emergency communications plans and has provided guidance 

and technical assistance to State and local stakeholders. This year, 

we have reached another milestone: FirstNet, in its fifth year since 

its establishment in the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act, awarded a contract to AT&T to build out the Nation-wide public safety broadband network. To date, nearly half of States and 

territories have committed to opt-in to that network. 

We know this work is making a difference. In contrast to 9/11 

and Hurricane Katrina, first responder networks for the most part 

remained operable during the response to Super Storm Sandy, even 

2 

while commercial networks experienced outages. It is my understanding that first responder networks were largely able to withstand the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. I am interested 

in hearing from our witnesses and their assessments of how these 

networks fared during the recent hurricanes. 

But despite these advancements, challenges remain. Earlier this 

year, this subcommittee joined with the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection to hold a roundtable on cyber 

risks to emergency communication networks. We have seen the 

evolution of communications technology, providing enhanced capabilities for first responders, but with these benefits come the risk 

of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, as many of these systems and applications are IP-based and interconnected. 

We must ensure our Nation’s first responders are aware of cybersecurity threats and can work to address them. As we prepare for 

first responders to have access to the Nation-wide public safety 

broadband network, we cannot forget that first responders will continue to depend on land mobile radio for mission-critical voice communications. 

I am concerned about a requirement that first responder radio 

networks operating on the T-Band must migrate off that spectrum 

by 2021. This will have significant impact on a number of major 

metropolitan areas, including New York City. Studies have suggested that there isn’t sufficient alternative spectrum for these jurisdictions to use. In taking steps forward, with the public safety 

broadband networks, we must ensure we are not taking steps back 

for mission-critical voice network on which first responders rely on. 

I am looking forward to our witnesses’ assessment of the current 

state of first responder communications and what more needs to be 

done to ensure first responders have the connectivity and information to continue to serve our communities. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR. 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

I want to welcome our witnesses here this morning on an issue that is vital to 

our homeland security: The ability of our first responders to communicate. 

As noted in the 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey, there is a ‘‘direct 

correlation... between effective communications interoperability and first responders’ ability to save lives.’’ 

In my home town of New York City, we know this all too well. Both the Office 

of Emergency Communications and First Responder Network Authority were established in the wake of the communications failures on 9/11, and later, in Hurricane 

Katrina. 

We have made a great deal of progress since those fateful disasters. States and 

localities have invested billions of dollars in their communications networks, including governance, training, and equipment. 

The Office of Emergency Communications has completed two National Emergency 

Communications Plans and has provided guidance and technical assistance to State 

and local stakeholders. 

And this year we’ve reached another milestone. FirstNet, in its fifth year since 

its establishment in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, awarded a 

contract to AT&T to build out the Nation-wide public safety broadband network. 

And to date, nearly half of States and territories have committed to opt-in to that 

network. 

We know this work is making a difference. In contrast to 9/11 and Hurricane 

Katrina, first responder networks, for the most part, remained operable during the 

response to Superstorm Sandy, even while commercial networks experienced outVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
3 

ages. It is my understanding that first responder networks were largely able to 

withstand the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. I am interested in hearing 

our witnesses’ assessments of how these networks fared during the recent hurricanes. 

But, despite these advancements, challenges remain. Earlier this year, this subcommittee joined with the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection to hold a roundtable on cyber risks to emergency communications networks. 

We’ve seen the evolution of communications technology, providing enhanced capabilities for first responders. But, with those benefits come the risk of cybersecurity 

vulnerabilities, as many of these systems and applications are IP-based and interconnected. 

We must ensure our Nation’s first responders are aware of cybersecurity threats 

and can work to address them. 

And, as we prepare for first responders to have access to the Nation-wide public 

safety broadband network, we cannot forget that first responders will continue to 

depend on land-mobile radio for mission critical voice communications. 

I am concerned about a requirement that first responder radio networks operating 

on the T-Band must migrate off that spectrum by 2021. This will have significant 

impact on a number of major metropolitan areas, including New York City, and 

studies have suggested that there isn’t sufficient alternative spectrum for these jurisdictions to use. 

In taking steps forward with the public safety broadband network, we must ensure we’re not taking steps back for mission-critical voice networks on which our 

first responders rely. 

I’m looking forward to our witnesses’ assessment of the current state of first responder communications and what more needs to be done to ensure first responders 

have the connectivity and information to continue to serve our communities. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

New Jersey, my friend, Mr. Payne, for an opening statement that 

he may have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We will try to accommodate you, since your voice is leaving you. You know, when you 

stay on—— 

Mr. DONOVAN. It has left. 

Mr. PAYNE [continuing]. CNN and MSNBC as much as you have 

been on there the last several days, I would assume that your voice 

would be going. 

But, you know, I want to thank you, first, for holding today’s 

hearing on first responders’ communication. This is the subcommittee’s first hearing on emergency communications since the 113th 

Congress. So I am eager to hear about the progress both the Office 

of Emergency Communications and FirstNet have made in advancing interoperable emergency communication efforts. 

Since I joined this committee in 2013, I have been a strong advocate of policies to improve interoperable emergency communication 

capabilities, from ensuring interoperable communication capability 

among the components of the Department of Homeland Security to 

helping bolster State and regional governance structures that inform emergency communication plans and procedures. 

That said, I have been concerned to learn that the dwindling 

number of dedicated full-time State-wide interoperability coordinators, or SWICs, I am concerned about the reduction in full-time 

SWICs and the disbanding of other governance structures might 

undermine progress made toward improving emergency communication capabilities since 9/11. SWICs and related Government 

structures have been integral in ensuring that emergency communication plans are coordinated, up-to-date, and exercised. 

Every first responder I have ever spoken to has told me that the 

key to interoperability is not technology, it’s governance. So I am 

4 

interested to know why States are no longer funding full-time 

SWICs and what Congress can do to help mitigate the impact of 

less robust governance. 

I am pleased that New Jersey was among the first States to optin to FirstNet. I am encouraged by the potential it holds for first 

responders and look forward to seeing it revolutionize emergency 

communications. The capabilities FirstNet promises will save lives 

if the network is built and managed properly. 

That said, I am concerned about the requirement that first responders in certain major metropolitan areas, like Newark and Jersey City, vacate the T-Band by 2023. Unless Congress acts, first responders in my district will get kicked off of their spectrum and be 

forced to relocate. 

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I would like to send my thoughts 

to those suffering in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, it is clear to me that something in 

our National preparedness doctrine has failed. I look forward to 

having the opportunity for this subcommittee to examine what 

went wrong in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and why, so we 

can make sure people in our country never suffer like this again. 

With that, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

This is the subcommittee’s first hearing on emergency communications since the 

113th Congress. I am eager to hear about the progress both the Office of Emergency 

Communications and FirstNet have made in advancing interoperable emergency 

communications efforts. 

Since I joined this subcommittee in 2013, I have been a strong advocate of policies 

to improve interoperable emergency communications capabilities. 

In fact, I authored a number of measures to help DHS achieve interoperability 

among its components and to help bolster State and regional governance structures 

for emergency communications planning. 

That is why I have been concerned to learn about the dwindling number of dedicated, full-time State-wide Interoperability Coordinators, or SWICs. 

I am concerned about how the reduction in full-time SWICs—and the disbanding 

of other governance structures—might undermine progress made toward improving 

emergency communications capabilities since 9/11. 

SWICs have been integral in ensuring that emergency communications plans are 

coordinated, up-to-date, and exercised. Every first responder I have ever spoken to 

has told me that the key to interoperability is not technology, it’s governance. 

So I am interested to know why States are no longer funding full-time SWICs and 

what Congress can do to prevent weakened governance. 

I am pleased that New Jersey was among the first States to opt in to FirstNet. 

I am encouraged by the potential it holds to revolutionize emergency communications. The capabilities FirstNet promises will save lives if the network is built and 

managed properly. 

That said, I am concerned about the requirement that first responders in certain 

major metropolitan areas—like Newark and Jersey City—vacate the T-band by 

2023. Unless Congress acts, first responders in my district will get knocked off their 

spectrum and be forced to relocate. 

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I would like to send my thoughts to those suffering 

in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As Ranking Member of the Emergency 

Preparedness Subcommittee, it is clear to me that something in our National preparedness doctrine has failed. 

5 

I hope that in the very near future, this subcommittee can take a hard look at 

what went wrong in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands so we can make sure 

people in our country never suffer like this again. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. If any other Members attend, they will be reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

From Texas and Florida to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the 2017 Hurricane Season has been devastating. It has been a true test of emergency response 

capabilities including the resiliency of our emergency communications systems. 

Before discussing emergency communications, I would like to share some observations from my trip to Puerto Rico last weekend. Not since Hurricane Katrina have 

I seen devastation of this magnitude in the United States. People are without food 

and water. Critical infrastructure has been destroyed. The power is still out on most 

of the island and generators are failing at medical centers. 

Lives are at stake. It is critical that President Trump and Republican House 

Leadership stop posturing and give Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands focused, 

swift, and determined attention today and in the difficult days ahead. 

Today, the House will begin consideration of a woefully inadequate disaster supplemental that fails to include funding for electric grid repair and modernization, 

community development block grants, and Social Service Block Grants, among other 

things. We can and must do better for our fellow Americans. 

Turning to the subject of today’s hearing, as I mentioned, this hurricane season 

has tested our emergency communications capabilities. I will be interested in the 

witnesses’ perspectives about how well our emergency communications infrastructure performed, how Federal resources supported emergency communications, and 

whether there are unique communications challenges in non-contiguous territories 

like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

We cannot afford to have our emergency communications systems fail when disasters strike. We must incorporate the lessons learned from these most recent disasters into future emergency communications plans. 

Looking to the future, I am encouraged to hear of the progress FirstNet is making 

as it continues its efforts to build out the public safety broadband network. As a 

former volunteer firefighter in rural area, I hope that access to the network will be 

affordable, secure, and ubiquitous. 

I am hopeful that FirstNet will finally help us succeed in closing our interoperable 

emergency communications gap—but that can only happen if the those who need 

to access the network can afford it and if it is available everywhere, even in rural 

areas. 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are pleased to have a distinguished panel before us today on this important topic. Admiral Ronald Hewitt 

served as the director of the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Office of Emergency Communications, a position which he has held 

since November 2012. Prior to joining OEC, Admiral Hewitt served 

as the United States Coast Guard’s assistant commandant for 

human resources and the assistant commandant for command, control, communications, computers, and information technology, 

which is the Coast Guard’s chief information officer. Having a great 

Coast Guard presence on Staten Island, Admiral, we love our 

Coasties. Thank you. 

Mr. Ed Parkinson serves as the director of government affairs for 

the First Responder Network Authority FirstNet, and is responsible for intergovernmental relations with local, State, and Federal 

organizations. Prior to joining FirstNet, Mr. Parkinson served for 

5 years as a professional staff member for the House Homeland Security Committee, with his primary area of responsibility in the 

field of first responder communications. Ed, welcome back. 

6 

Mr. Mark Goldstein serves as a director of physical infrastructure issues at the Government Accountability Office, where he is 

responsible for GAO’s work in the areas of Government property 

and telecommunications. Prior to joining GAO, Mr. Goldstein held 

positions with the District of Columbia Financial Control Board, 

the Internal Revenue Service, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Welcome, Mr. Goldstein. 

The witnesses’ full written statements will appear in the record, 

and now the Chair 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, Chairman Donovan, 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 10 years ago and, more specifically, within the last 3 years 

since our previous hearing to improve emergency communications 

interoperability Nation-wide. 

Public safety communications is going through unprecedented 

change with the deployment of FirstNet’s Nation-wide public safety 

broadband network, next generation 9–1–1, cellular alert and 

warning systems. To ensure all these systems work seamlessly together, we promulgated the 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan, which is the roadmap to ensuring interoperability. 

The plan was developed by SAFECOM, a group comprised of 

public safety leaders, representing the Nation’s first responder 

community, and Government leaders who support public safety. To 

implement the goals and objectives of the 2014 plan, we assist 

States and territories with developing and implementing their 

State-wide communications interoperability plans, which are 

aligned to the National plan. It is essential that State and territory 

plans cover all public safety communications systems to ensure information seamlessly flows between them. 

But there have been obstacles in doing so. The majority of the 

State-wide interoperability coordinators, which we refer to as 

SWICs, are responsible for just land mobile radio, and it has been 

difficult for them to develop governance structures that include 

State officials who are responsible for the other public safety communication systems. Additionally, we are seeing many SWICs 

being assigned multiple roles. 

To address these issues, we partnered with the National Governors Association, NGA, to conduct a policy academy last year on 

improving emergency communications’ interoperability in five 

States. Recommendations from the policy academy included: Empower SWIC to ensure close coordination with FirstNet point of 

contact and 9–1–1 administrator; reinvigorate an active governance 

body; revitalize the State-wide communications interoperability 

plan; and engage State legislators to promote understanding and 

support of the plan. 

We will continue to work with NGA to help address the policy 

academy recommendations. We are also working with SAFECOM 

to upgrade the communications unit within the incident command 

7 

system, which is the common way all responders organize and operate during an event or disaster. 

Currently communications unit is responsible for radio interoperability. But we are updating it to include cellular, which will support FirstNet capabilities. To date, we have trained over 7,000 communications leaders across the country. Once we update the program to include broadband systems, we will provide refresher 

training that includes the new material. 

Broadband not only provides new capabilities, such as text, data, 

and pictures, but also new risks, such as cybersecurity. The communications unit of the future will mitigate these risks while 

achieving the benefits of multimedia information to assist public 

safety with saving lives and preserving property. 

Today’s citizens cannot send a picture to their 9–1–1 center of 

their lost child or loved one, nor can it be sent out to public safety 

or citizens to help search for that person, but with OEC’s efforts 

to drive interoperability across to all public safety communication 

systems, which include land mobile radio, next generation 9–1–1, 

FirstNet’s Nation-wide public safety broadband network, and next 

generation alert and warning systems, this capability will be available to citizens across the Nation as these systems are deployed. 

This is just one of many examples that illustrate the value of 

interoperable multimedia communications for public safety and 

citizens. By achieving the goals and objectives of the National 

emergency communications plan, these life-saving benefits will become a reality. 

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 carry out our National effort. Once 

again, thank you, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, 

and distinguished Members of this committee for allowing me to 

testify here today. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Hewitt follows:]– 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RONALD HEWITT, USCG (RET.) 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and esteemed Members 

of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here once again to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts in enhancing the Nation’s interoperable 

emergency communications. Before my last appearance in front of this subcommittee, the Department had just released the 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan, which identified the unprecedented change public safety communications will be going through with the deployment of the First Responder Network 

Authority (FirstNet) Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN), Next 

Generation 9–1–1 (NG9–1–1), and cellular alerts and warnings systems. The Office 

of Emergency Communications (OEC) is working with public safety to implement 

the goals and objectives in the 2014 Plan to ensure these disparate systems work 

together seamlessly. 

Since our formation a decade ago, OEC has partnered with public safety to develop standards and best practices to achieve interoperable communications. In 

2008, Land Mobile Radio (LMR) was the main system used by public safety. But 

soon, just as the average citizen relies on cellular broadband, public safety officials 

will be able to receive multimedia data with FirstNet capabilities. As a result, OEC 

has expanded our programs to achieve interoperability in a Land Mobile Radio and 

cellular broadband environment. OEC continues to strategize how best to ensure 

that plans and investments keep pace with this ever-changing telecommunications 

environment. Recent events have shown that the Nation must continue to improve 

these capabilities, making sure that first responders are ready to get the informaVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
8 

tion that they need to help citizens during a disaster. With citizen-to-citizen communications drastically changing from voice only to texting and other multimedia 

means, these communications capabilities will revolutionize how citizens engage 

with public safety and how first responders communicate with one another. However, as I said when I was last before you, emergency communications is largely a 

people issue. Technology will continue to evolve over time and so our job is to support the effective use of this technology through governance, standard operating procedures, and joint exercises and training. This is the critical work that will ensure 

interoperability when it is needed most—at the next incident or event. 

UPDATE ON THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

OEC was established in 2007 as part of the Congressional response to the communications challenges experienced during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and, before that, 

the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Our mandate directs OEC to carry out 

a range of activities to support policy officials and first responders at all levels of 

government—Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal—as they work to achieve, 

maintain, and enhance operable and interoperable emergency communications capabilities. 

Working at the National Level 

OEC is the primary driver of strategic planning and coordination to improve 

emergency communications interoperability Nation-wide. Through a stakeholderdriven process, OEC authors the National Emergency Communications Plan 

(NECP), which provides strategic guidance for the public safety community and Federal agencies to improve emergency communications capabilities. Since the release 

of the 2014 Plan, OEC has partnered with public safety officials across the Nation, 

and at all levels of government, to increase capabilities and address communications 

interoperability gaps. We put people at the center of all of our work because interoperability can only be achieved when those responsible for emergency and incident 

communications engage in proper planning, governance, training, and usage initiatives. 

OEC is the executive agent of SAFECOM, a public safety advisory board which 

aims to improve multi-jurisdictional and intergovernmental communications interoperability. The group works with DHS and key emergency response stakeholders 

across all levels of government and all public safety disciplines to address the need 

to improve existing communications systems and coordination while developing future tools. SAFECOM is comprised of representatives from associations, such as the 

International Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State 9–1–1 Administrators, the International Association of 

Emergency Managers, the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, 

and the Major County Sheriffs’ Association, to name a few. SAFECOM develops numerous best practices and guidance documents every year to support its members’ 

goals and provides input into OEC’s programs, products, and services. 

OEC also manages the Communications Unit (COMU) program, which outlines 

the functions, positions, training, and certification required to support interoperable 

incident communications. The current COMU program only addresses LMR interoperability. In 2017, and continuing through 2018, SAFECOM, in partnership with 

the National Council of State-wide Interoperability Coordinators, created a working 

group to update the COMU program to include broadband and data into incident 

communications. The working group, comprised of communications experts from 

across the Nation, is identifying the COMU functions required to support data and 

broadband use, developing COMU positions required to address those functions, creating training curriculum for the new positions, and supporting States and territories in establishing COMU certification programs. 

OEC continues to support State and local public safety in their planning efforts, 

working with SAFECOM to develop two documents related to governance planning 

and implementation. The first is the SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants. This annual document provides recommendations to grantees 

seeking funding for interoperable emergency communications projects, including allowable costs, items to consider when funding projects, grants management best 

practices, and information on standards that ensure greater interoperability. 

The second document developed with SAFECOM is the Emergency Communications Governance Guide for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Officials, released 

in 2015. This tool lays out governance challenges, best practices, and recommendations on how to establish and maintain effective State-wide Interoperability Governing Bodies (SIGBs) that represent all emergency communications capabilities. 

This Nationally-developed resource includes a range of broad approaches, allowing 

9 

officials to select and apply recommendations at the State, local, Tribal, or territorial level that are most appropriate for their specific situation or challenge. 

Additionally, OEC is leading the development of the Next Generation Network 

Priority Services, which will enable National Security and Emergency Preparedness 

(NS/EP) users to have priority voice, data, and video communications in commercial 

networks. 

Working at the State and Territorial Level 

Many have heard me talk about the importance of governance, and we continue 

to see this as an area that we all must pay particular attention to as we move into 

the future of emergency communications. Anyone that has worked in public safety 

will tell you that having the greatest technology available cannot, on its own, provide interoperable emergency communications. People and processes must be a 

major consideration to fully achieve interoperability. OEC has recognized a steady 

decrease in full-time State-wide Interoperability Coordinators (SWICs)—from years 

ago, when many States and territories had a full-time SWIC; to now, where there 

are just 12. We have also seen a decline in the activeness of SIGBs, which serve 

as the primary steering groups for State-wide interoperability. Many SIGBs are 

meeting less frequently or, in some cases, have disbanded all together making interoperability more difficult to achieve. We have heard from many of our partners that 

this is due to a lack of funding available to emergency communications. This is 

something that we all must pay more attention to and work together to find ways 

to help States increase their emergency communications governance capabilities. To 

address these gaps, OEC works with all 56 States and territories to establish and 

improve their SIGB, support their SWIC, and update their State-wide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) through direct technical assistance. 

Additionally, in 2016, OEC partnered with the National Governors Association 

(NGA) Center for Best Practices to launch a policy academy to identify challenges 

and potential solutions toward further enhancing governance structures, planning 

for new technologies and securing sustainable funding. Five States participated in 

the policy academy—Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Utah, and West Virginia. Findings 

from the NGA Policy Academy are critical to our efforts to help States look at their 

emergency communications systems together to pass information seamlessly. Right 

now, funding and staffing for a new system is sometimes done without considering 

the systems related to the proposed new tool. States must approach these systems’ 

funding and staffing in an integrated way to better allocate resources. 

One result that has come out of this project is OEC’s development of the Enhanced SCIP Pilot, which launched earlier this year. The new plans that are being 

developed during this project will provide a more intensive review of governance, 

technology, and funding sustainment. OEC is currently working with nine States to 

deliver the Enhanced SCIP Pilot and will evaluate the results to inform strategic 

planning support in fiscal year 2018. 

Working at the Local Level 

In addition to engaging our partners through stakeholder groups, we also work 

directly with public safety officials to further the Nation’s interoperable emergency 

communications. Through technical assistance offerings, provided at no cost, we assist public safety with the planning, governance, operational, and technical aspects 

of developing and implementing interoperable communications initiatives. To date, 

OEC has provided more than 1,500 technical assistance visits. In response to changing technology and stakeholder feedback, OEC has expanded technical assistance offerings to cover broadband and cybersecurity initiatives. 

OEC also works with public safety to identify capability gaps at the local level. 

One such example is the Interoperable Communications Capabilities Analysis Program (ICCAP). ICCAP is designed to help State, local, and Federal agencies enhance 

their overall capacity to communicate with one another, using both voice and data, 

focusing on interoperability across the public safety communications ecosystem and 

preparing for the unexpected emergency or incident during a planned event. OEC 

has conducted 16 ICCAP events over the past year. For each event, OEC has developed After-Action Reports for the organizing agencies to understand strengths and 

areas of improvement. OEC is currently analyzing the capability data across all observations to identify the changes in incident communications which will inform future technical assistance offerings and products. 

Also at the local level, OEC provides priority telecommunications and restoration 

services to ensure that the NS/EP community can communicate under all circumstances. The priority services portfolio includes Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) to connect calls during landline congestion, Wireless Priority Service (WPS) to connect calls during wireless network congestion, and 

10 

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) providing priority treatment for vital 

voice and data circuits or other telecommunications services. 

Working at the Federal Level 

On the Federal side, OEC manages the Emergency Communications Preparedness 

Center (ECPC), a group of 14 Federal agencies with a significant role in emergency 

communications. Its members represent the Federal Government’s broad role in 

emergency communications, including regulation, policy, operations, grants, and 

technical assistance. Together, SAFECOM and the ECPC coordinate activities, such 

as grant funding guidance, 9–1–1 initiatives, and emergency communications strategic planning. The ECPC Grant Focus Group Chair is a FirstNet staff member, ensuring that the annual grant guidance supports efforts to integrate LMR and 

broadband. 

We are seeing remarkable coordination between Federal and State public safety 

as they begin to allow each other to operate on existing communications systems. 

OEC currently supports efforts to develop Memorandums of Understanding between 

the Federal Government and States to allow non-Federal agencies to access the Federal Enforcement and Incident Response Interoperability Channels. We are also 

supporting similar coordination where Federal agencies are granted access to Statewide systems. This cooperation leads to improved coordination between Federal and 

State officials and an enhanced ability to manage incidents. 

OEC Coordinators 

OEC employs subject-matter experts located across the country to engage State, 

local, Tribal, and territorial officials as they address the complex issues facing the 

emergency communications ecosystem. These OEC Coordinators have extensive experience in public safety, many previously serving as first responders. Leveraging 

their real-world experiences, they are able to build trusted relationships, enhance 

collaboration, stimulate comprehensive planning, and encourage the sharing of best 

practices and information between public safety organizations, appointed and elected officials, critical infrastructure owners and operators, and key non-government 

organizations. Coordinators provide event support and coordination, conduct training and technical assistance, coordinate and participate in capability assessments, 

advise on and support State-wide governance activities, and provide a link to additional Federal resources. 

OEC Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, & Maria 

When I last appeared before this subcommittee, I explained about OEC’s assistance to Boston to assess and improve its emergency communications capabilities 

and how that enabled the city’s response when two improvised explosive devices detonated near the Boston Marathon’s finish line in 2013. Recent events have shown 

the continued importance of emergency communications to support public safety as 

they prepare for and respond to a major event. During Hurricanes Harvey and 

Irma, we saw wireless communications degraded in the affected areas due to damaged infrastructure. While few public safety answering points (PSAP) went down, 

some had to be rerouted for various reasons. OEC supported public safety at all levels as they responded to these storms, providing on-the-ground support, as well as 

assistance from the National Capital Region. During an event, the National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC), part of the National Cybersecurity and 

Communications Integration Center, leads emergency communications response and 

recovery efforts under Emergency Support Function No. 2 of the National Response 

Framework. As part of DHS’s response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, 14 

members of the OEC team supplemented the efforts of the NCC, providing emergency communications assistance, including emergency operations center staffing, 

priority communications support, and regional communications knowledge at the 

Federal, State, and local levels. 

The extensive damage from Hurricane Maria shows the importance of rapid restoration of communications to enable information collection, dissemination, and coordination in response to the incident. The rebuilding of the communications infrastructure is taking a coordinated effort between the Government and commercial 

carriers. 

OEC’s Priority Services programs remained fully functional throughout the storms 

where communications infrastructure was still working. GETS and WPS provide essential personnel priority access and prioritized processing, greatly increasing the 

probability of call completion. GETS focuses on the local and long distance segments 

of the landline networks, while WPS targets all Nation-wide cellular networks. OEC 

also manages TSP, which provides service vendors a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate to prioritize requests by identifying those services critical 

to National security and emergency preparedness. A TSP assignment ensures that 

11 

it will receive priority attention by the service vendor before any non-TSP service. 

These services processed thousands of calls from first responders and Government 

officials as they worked to respond to the aftermath of the recent storms. 

SUPPORTING INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS INTO THE FUTURE

Not long ago, the emergency communications ecosystem consisted of a citizen calling a PSAP for help, a call operator radioing the information to fire or police, and 

public safety officials and responders speaking to each other on LMR. However, new 

technologies are drastically changing the emergency communications ecosystem, not 

only transforming how citizens talk to each other, but also how public safety works 

together and engages with citizens. We cannot ignore the transition to these new 

communications technologies and the advantages they bring. However, we must ensure we continue to support our partners through training, technical assistance, and 

best practices as long as LMR remains a communications tool for public safety. 

Integrating LMR and Broadband Communications 

Although LMR remains essential in emergency communications, the benefits and 

opportunities broadband offers to public safety are undeniable. Citizens will be able 

to send a picture of a suspicious package or videos of an event as it is happening 

to PSAPs that can then share those files with first responders. This capability provides critical information in determining how to respond and what resources will be 

needed. It is hard to speak of these advancements without also mentioning the 

progress toward implementing the newest tool in the emergency communications 

toolbox—the NPSBN. FirstNet, an independent authority within the Department of 

Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, recently 

awarded its contract to build the broadband network and we at the DHS Office of 

Emergency Communications applaud them in doing so. Until broadband can support 

mission-critical voice to public safety, LMR will continue to be the primary method 

of communication for the near future. However, this is clearly a major step toward 

full implementation of a capability that will greatly improve interoperable communications across the country. 

From the early days of envisioning this new network, OEC has supported both 

the FirstNet team and State and local public safety as they prepare for full implementation of the system. OEC provided support in developing the FirstNet Request 

for Proposal, as well as assistance with identity, credentialing, and access management responsibilities. The ECPC was designated by FirstNet to coordinate the needs 

for Federal users of the network, collecting network requirements and security 

standards from all departments and agencies. In response to feedback from our 

State and local partners, we have recently added technical assistance offerings specifically focused on assisting with preparation and planning for deployment of 

broadband, including FirstNet. These offerings focus on broadband education, governance, planning, engineering, and data collection. OEC also worked with FirstNet 

to develop Roadmap to 2020, which outlines key considerations and resources impacting the emergency communications grants community and enables coordination 

across Federal agencies to understand how grant programs can support the deployment of broadband systems. In September, I assumed the DHS FirstNet board 

member duties and look forward to continuing to support the implementation of the 

NPSBN in this new capacity. 

Cybersecurity 

As communications move toward broadband networks like FirstNet, there are new 

issues and risks that must be considered—not least of them, cybersecurity. Many 

of the concerns that the Full Committee has studied in hearings and briefings related to cybersecurity are the same issues that must be considered during this transition. Emergency communications networks are only as secure as its weakest connection; vulnerabilities at any point have the potential to affect the entire network. 

In addition to our technical assistance offerings related to cybersecurity, OEC assists our stakeholders through various programs and activities. Through the Cyber 

and Physical Threat and Risk Analysis to Improve Networks (CAPTAIN) program, 

DHS collaborates with public and private emergency communications stakeholders 

to increase understanding and awareness about critical cyber and physical risks 

that could threaten the mission of first responders and public safety agencies. And 

last year, OEC, in coordination with the Department of Transportation’s 9–1–1 Office, developed the NG9–1–1 Cybersecurity Primer, which helps PSAP operators improve the cybersecurity posture of relevant systems Nation-wide and provides an 

overview of the cyber risks that will be faced by NG9–1–1 systems. The Primer 

serves as an informational tool for system administrators to better understand the 

full scope and range of potential risks, as well as recommend mitigations to these 

12 

risks. Finally, OEC supported the FCC’s Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture, a comprehensive study of the future of PSAPs, the integration of NG9–1–1, the cybersecurity risks and proposed solutions to address the 

risks. 

Grants 

The Department has provided multiple grants to public safety to enhance their 

emergency communications capabilities. Starting in fiscal year 2007, the Department provided two emergency communications-related grants to States and territories, the first of which was the Public Safety Interoperable Communications 

(PSIC) Grant Program. PSIC was a one-time grant program of the Department of 

Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 

which provided a total of $1 billion, with each State and territory receiving funds 

to support the development of State-wide, regional, and local systems. FEMA administered the grant program on behalf of NTIA. About 90 percent of the funds 

were spent on equipment. Also, from fiscal year 2008—fiscal year 2010, FEMA and 

OEC partnered to administer the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 

Program (IECGP). Over these 3 years, IECGP provided more than $145 million to 

public safety to improve their governance, planning, training, exercise, and equipment. This included updating a State’s SCIP and funding their SWIC and SIGB. 

These programs helped States lay a great foundation for their emergency communication capabilities. Emergency communication equipment costs are allowable expenses under FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Program. 

The OEC-administered Border Interoperability Demonstration Project (BIDP) just 

recently released its closeout report. BIDP was a $25.5 million one-time, competitive 

program to provide funding and technical assistance to U.S. communities along the 

Canadian and Mexican borders. OEC recently published its closeout report and is 

in the process of developing tools, templates, and studies based off of the best practices, lessons learned, and processes successfully demonstrated by BIDP award recipients. Additionally, last year, OEC established the Rural Emergency Medical 

Communications Demonstration Project (REMCDP), a one-time $2 million project to 

work with a public and State-controlled institution of higher education to examine 

communications barriers and identify solutions that enhance existing emergency 

communications infrastructure. Through a competitive process, OEC awarded the 

funds to the University of Mississippi Medical Center to support the First Hands 

Project, which will test an innovative approach to communications governance, planning, coordination, training, and exercises. We are in the middle of the period of performance and are already seeing significant accomplishments in meeting the program’s objectives. We look forward to briefing you on what we learn at the end of 

the REMCDP. 

SAFECOM Nation-wide Survey 

The SAFECOM Nation-wide Survey (SNS) will be a Nation-wide data collection 

effort to obtain actionable and critical data that drives our Nation’s emergency communication policies, programs, and funding. OEC and SAFECOM will distribute the 

survey to Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal emergency response provider 

organizations with: (a) A public safety-related mission and (b) Users of public safety 

communications technology. Questions will be organized by the five critical success 

elements of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum—Governance, Standard Operating Procedures, Technology, Training & Exercises, and Usage—with the addition of a security element, which will touch on cybersecurity. Results of the survey 

will help Government officials and emergency responders better understand emergency communications needs so that they can make data-driven funding, policy, and 

programmatic decisions to strengthen capabilities. We look forward to receiving and 

analyzing SNS survey results, which will be published in the upcoming Nation-wide 

Communications Baseline Assessment. 

The Next National Emergency Communication Plan 

OEC is in the early planning phase for the next update of the National Emergency Communications Plan. Later this year, we will begin working with our public 

safety partners to solicit their critical feedback and participation in Plan development. The most important inputs to this document, as was true with the 2014 

NECP, will be from the public safety practitioners in the field who are charged with 

protecting and saving lives. The next NECP will further expand on the communications ecosystem concept developed in 2014 and will be informed by more current efforts including the previously-mentioned NGA Policy Academy, the ICCAP analysis, 

and results from the SNS. 

13 

CONCLUSION

Thank you, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and the Members of this 

subcommittee. Ten years ago, Congress set up the Office of Emergency Communications to support our stakeholders as they coordinate activities and share information 

to improve their interoperable emergency communications capabilities. We have 

seen tremendous changes since then, and, as emergency communications evolves, we 

stand ready to continue our strong coordination efforts with public safety ensuring 

they are well prepared for the future, leveraging the various tools available—NG9– 

1–1, broadband, and LMR. I look forward to our discussion this morning, and I am 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Admiral, and thank you for your service to our Nation. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Parkinson for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD PARKINSON, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY 

Mr. PARKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, Mr. Langevin, it is a 

pleasure to be here, and thank you for inviting me to testify before 

the committee today. My name is Edward Parkinson. I am the director of government affairs for FirstNet. As you referenced, in my 

previous life I was sitting behind the esteemed Members. So it is 

a bit different for me to be sitting on this side of the dais here 

today, but I am looking forward to the hearing. 

FirstNet last testified before this subcommittee in November 

2014, and we have made an enormous amount of progress since 

then. Over the past 3 years, FirstNet has developed a clear path 

forward to the successful deployment of the National Public Safety 

Broadband Network: Having consulted with all 56 States and territories and the District of Columbia, met with many Tribal nations, 

successfully completed an open, transparent, and competitive procurement, selected a public-private partner in the shape of AT&T, 

delivered State plans, and began the opt-in process. 

While an enormous amount of work has gone into the past few 

years, we have much to yet accomplish. So the men and women at 

FirstNet remain dedicated to delivering the network for our Nation’s first responders as quickly as possible. 

As the recent storms have brought devastation to Texas, Florida, 

and Puerto Rico, and the inconceivable tragedy that took place in 

Las Vegas, all show us communication is now considered by all of 

us, and not just public safety, as much as a necessity as power or 

other utilities. What was known prior to 9/11 and what is abundantly clear today is that we need to get the best possible tools into 

the hands of the men and women who protect us and keep us safe. 

The FirstNet network must be able to withstand natural and 

man-made disasters, so that when a law enforcement officer is running into harm’s way or when a firefighter is running into a fire, 

they can trust the technology that we have put in their hands. 

One of the reasons why our procurement process was so thorough 

was that because we were not only looking for the best deal from 

a fiscal point of view, but we were looking for that partner who understood the extremely high bar that we were setting and who was 

willing to step up for public safety. AT&T was that partner. 

We are very encouraged by the early work that we have achieved 

in these first stages of the partnership with AT&T, and given the 

14 

length of the contract and the commitment that they are making 

toward serving public safety, I can confidently say that this is a 

partnership with an aligned goal—providing the best service possible to public safety. 

I would also like to acknowledge our partners in the States. Both 

our past consultation and our on-going outreach efforts that we are 

planning in the future are indications of our commitment to deepening our partnership so that we can continue to interact with local 

public safety users who will ultimately be the end-users of the network. 

FirstNet will allow for public safety to take advantage of the 

evolving nature of communications. First responder communication 

needs are more technical and critical day-by-day as we move further into our highly connected internet-of-things world. 

That is why FirstNet and AT&T will continue to evolve the network hand-in-hand with public safety and with our partners in the 

States to ensure that it meets their needs today, tomorrow, and for 

the next 25 years. 

While there has been much success, we still have work to do. As 

Mr. Goldstein will reference in his testimony, there are areas 

where FirstNet has already improved, but areas where we still 

have to strive for more, to do a better job. So FirstNet is dedicated 

to continuing to reach the highest levels of excellence in every area. 

Tribal consultation is also a key part of our planning. As part of 

FirstNet’s commitment to engaging with the 567 Federally-recognized Tribes, FirstNet has adopted a Tribal consultation policy to 

ensure that Tribal emergency responders are able to access the 

benefits of this Nation-wide system once we have opt-in from the 

Governors. 

Ultimately, the most important action that FirstNet must take is 

to continue to work every day with the first responders and always 

listen to public safety. After all, this is their network. 

We are dedicated to delivering what Congress has challenged us 

to achieve, the delivery of a Nation-wide public safety broadband 

network, something that has never been done before, specific to 

public safety. It is fair to say that the hard things are hard, but 

we are up for the challenge, and so that I ask all you here today 

that going forward to judge us by our record. 

So far, I can speak for all of us at FirstNet when I say we are 

proud of what we have achieved, but we also know that we have 

much to go. Thank you again for your support, and I look forward 

to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parkinson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD PARKINSON

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and all Members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to 

provide an update on the progress we are making at FirstNet toward the deployment of an interoperable, Nation-wide public safety broadband network (NPSBN or 

Network). 

15 

1 We were able to move forward with an award to AT&T after a March 17, 2017, decision 

by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to deny a protest filed by one of the unsuccessful bidders. 

PROGRESS TOWARD A NETWORK

FirstNet intends to provide a cutting-edge wireless broadband communications 

system, with priority and pre-emption, to millions of first responders at the local, 

State, Tribal, and Federal levels across all States, territories, and the District of Columbia, consistent with the vision laid out in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–96) (Act). By enabling the Network’s deployment, 

FirstNet will provide a dedicated, ubiquitous solution that helps solve public safety’s 

decades-long interoperability and communications challenges, which includes advanced communications services, devices, and applications to help first responders 

and other public safety personnel make communities safer. 

FirstNet’s goal of deploying the network, and thereby meeting the needs of first 

responders, is a matter of critical importance for public safety, and today we are 

closer than ever before to accomplishing this goal. Since its inception, FirstNet has 

taken the necessary steps to build an organization, execute a vigorous consultation 

and outreach strategy, develop and release a comprehensive request for proposals 

(RFP), select an experienced and proven wireless industry leader for a first-of-itskind public-private partnership, and lay the groundwork for a successful deployment 

of the NPSBN. Much has been accomplished. 

However, as it is with any unprecedented undertaking, every step forward presents new challenges and requires identification of innovative solutions. The past 

3 years have involved hundreds of thousands of working hours to solve the various 

challenges FirstNet has faced. I am proud to say that today we have an organization 

of people who have approached these challenges head on and advanced the mission 

with a clear and unwavering dedication to public safety. The organization is dedicated to fulfilling FirstNet’s responsibilities to the public safety community; creating 

a culture of hard work, openness, and transparency; developing a successful publicprivate partnership; and continuing to educate, inform, and obtain input from 

FirstNet’s partners in the States and public safety stakeholders. 

THE SELECTION OF AT&T

At a signing ceremony on March 30, 2017, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross 

announced FirstNet’s award of the Nation-wide NPSBN contract to AT&T. The 

attendees included AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai, Members of Congress and staff, FirstNet Board 

members, FirstNet leadership, and, most importantly, public safety representatives. 

Prior to the ceremony, the FirstNet Board voted unanimously to authorize the 

award. With the Board’s authorization, FirstNet and the Department of the Interior, 

which assisted FirstNet with the Network procurement, made the 25-year award to 

AT&T based on the determination that AT&T’s proposal presented the overall best 

value solution for FirstNet and public safety.1

THE BENEFITS OF A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

Before listing the details of the solution FirstNet and AT&T are delivering to public safety, it is important to understand the benefits of the public-private partnership. By leveraging private-sector resources, infrastructure, and cost-saving 

synergies to deploy, operate, and maintain the Network, as directed by the Act, the 

NPSBN can be deployed quickly, efficiently, and far more cost-effectively than any 

other model. 

Congress foresaw the benefits such a partnership could offer and gave FirstNet 

the tools necessary to engage the private sector, thereby allowing the private sector 

to do what it does best—i.e., leverage the market to determine the best deal at the 

best price, while ensuring that a dedicated, interoperable Network is built to public 

safety’s requirements. The fact remains that neither party—FirstNet nor AT&T— 

on its own could build a network like the FirstNet Network. It would be too expensive and too burdensome. A public-private partnership ultimately will provide a Network that benefits public safety in a manner that would have been impracticable 

to achieve if left solely to the private sector or Federal Government. 

FirstNet is confident that the Network will also provide many specialized features. In addition to priority, preemption, and robust rural coverage, public safety 

will have access to FirstNet-dedicated deployable equipment for use during disasters 

and pre-planned events, as well as in-building solutions—because FirstNet recognizes that first responders’ communications do not stop at the curb. 

16 

2 The initial State plans for three territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) were delayed. These plans have now been uploaded to their respective portals, and 

FirstNet will be scheduling webinars shortly with these territories to introduce stakeholders to 

the content. 

The solution also includes a customer service center dedicated specifically to public safety—available 24/7, 365 days a year; a dedicated FirstNet core with built-in 

redundancy to provide end-to-end cybersecurity; and an entire eco-system of devices, 

apps, and tools for public safety, including a FirstNet app store. Each of these features will be a first for public safety as they are not currently available on any network today. 

HOW THE NETWORK WILL HELP PUBLIC SAFETY

The ability to communicate seamlessly across jurisdictions is critical for law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services (EMS) when securing large events 

or responding to emergencies and disasters. In those instances, networks can become overloaded and inaccessible, limiting responders’ use of vital communication 

technologies, such as smartphones and applications dedicated to public safety services. 

By providing unfettered, uninterrupted access to wireless spectrum, the NPSBN 

will help improve response times and situational awareness for public safety from 

coast-to-coast, every State, territory, and across Tribal and Federal land, in both 

rural and urban areas, leading to safer and more secure communities, and first responder safety. 

The market certainty the Network will provide through a long-term commitment, 

scale, and capacity will enable private-sector investment and innovation for advanced life-saving technologies, tools, and services, such as: • Applications that allow first responders to reliably share videos, text messages, 

photos, and other information during incidents in near-real time; • Advanced capabilities, like camera-equipped connected drones and robots, to deliver images of wildfires, floods, or other events; • Improved location services to help with mapping capabilities during rescue and 

recovery operations; and 

• Wearables that could relay biometric data of a patient to the hospital or alert 

when a fire fighter is in distress. 

Network technology will also be tested and validated through the FirstNet Innovation and Test Lab, located in Boulder, Colorado, to ensure first responders have 

the public safety grade, proven tools they need and can trust during disasters and 

emergencies. 

STATE PLANS

On June 19, FirstNet and AT&T delivered initial State Plans to the States and 

territories for review and comment 3 months ahead of schedule.2 This marked a 

major milestone in the deployment of FirstNet. 

Since 2013, FirstNet has worked hand-in-hand with the States, territories, localities, Federal authorities, Tribes, and the public safety community to make sure the 

Network is specifically built for their needs. FirstNet’s consultation efforts included 

more than 140,000 engagements with public safety stakeholders Nation-wide, and 

the collection of data from States and territories that accounted for more than 

12,000 public safety agencies representing more than 2 million public safety personnel. 

Developed with this input, the customized State Plans outline the coverage, features, and mission-critical capabilities FirstNet and AT&T will bring to first responders and other public safety personnel. States have had the opportunity to identify priorities and concerns related to Network coverage (including in rural areas) 

and services. Consistent with the Act, FirstNet has also encouraged State-designated single points of contact (SPOCs) to include Tribal stakeholders in FirstNet 

engagements and solicit feedback and collect data from the Tribes in their States 

to ensure those priorities and concerns were incorporated in the State Plans. Based 

on this feedback, FirstNet and AT&T determined how to evolve the solution, where 

possible, to address these requirements. 

FirstNet and AT&T also have created a public website: FirstNet.com. This website 

provides information about the FirstNet solution, the unique value of the FirstNet 

Network to public safety, and how public safety entities may subscribe to FirstNet 

once a State or territory opts in. The site will host information on quality of service, 

priority and preemption; local control features; the applications store; devices and 

accessories for FirstNet; and coverage and rate plans. 

17 

3 As noted above, FirstNet is still working with Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa on delivering their State plans, and thus, did not provide official notice to the Governors of these territories on September 29, 2017. The 90-day decision period has not yet begun 

for these territories. With respect to Puerto Rico, due to the unique circumstances related to 

Hurricane Maria and the difficulty related to basic services operating in the wake of the storm, 

FirstNet has been unable to confirm the receipt by the Governor of the official notice, and therefore, the 90-day decision period for Puerto Rico has also not yet begun. 

OFFICIAL NOTICE

We are now in a critical decision making time for the FirstNet project. FirstNet 

released updated State Plans on September 19, 2017, based on the feedback received from States, territories, and public safety stakeholders. On September 29, 

2017, FirstNet provided official notice to Governors, as required by the Act, which 

included notification of the completion of the request for proposal (RFP) process for 

the State, the delivery of the State Plan, and the funding level for the State as determined by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA). The official notice initiated the 90-day clock that the Act provides for each 

State or territory Governor to make an ‘‘opt in/opt out’’ decision on its State Plan.3

The deadline for Governors to make this decision is December 28, 2017. 

FirstNet and AT&T will continue to actively engage with the States and territories to support their review of their respective State Plans and answer questions. 

THE GOVERNORS’ DECISION

The decision that a Governor faces is one that will have profound consequences 

on the ability of public safety in his or her State or territory to gain access to mission-critical broadband. 

OPT IN

A Governor’s decision to opt in will enable FirstNet and AT&T to begin the process of delivering services to that State or territory’s public safety community. It is 

a decision that will also drive infrastructure investments and job creation. 

If a State affirmatively opts in or takes no action on the State Plan within 90 

days of receiving notice, which under the Act is also a decision to opt in, FirstNet 

will be able to start the process of deploying the RAN portion of the FirstNet Network in the State at no cost to the State. States do not have to wait the full 90 

days to make an opt-in decision, and several States have already provided notice 

of their intention to opt in. The opt-in path is a low-risk option that will support 

faster delivery of services to the State’s public safety community and help create an 

interoperable, highly secure, sustainable Network for public safety. 

We anticipate a significant number of opt-in announcements over the weeks and 

months ahead now that the 90-day clock has started. 

OPT OUT

If the State elects not to participate in the FirstNet RAN deployment, pursuant 

to the Act, it must provide notice to FirstNet, the FCC, and NTIA within 90 days 

after receiving official notice from FirstNet, and within 180 days of such notice to 

FirstNet, the State must develop and complete an RFP for the State RAN. Subsequently, it must submit an alternative plan to the FCC for the construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the RAN in the State within 60 days of RFP 

completion. The State RAN must be interoperable with the Network and comply 

with FirstNet’s requirements and standards for the Network. Before the State’s 

RAN deployment can begin, the FCC must approve the alternative plan, and, if approved, the State must then apply to the NTIA for the right to enter into a spectrum 

capacity lease with FirstNet, and ultimately agree to the terms of such a lease with 

FirstNet. As noted above, the State may also apply to NTIA for a State RAN construction grant under the State Alternative Plan Program. 

Opt-out States will assume all technical, operational, and financial risks and responsibilities related to building, operating, maintaining, and improving their own 

RAN for the next 25 years. Given the statutorily-mandated processes, it is possible 

a State pursuing opt-out will be at least 2 years behind States that opt in. 

It is important to note that if a State or territory wishes to opt out, FirstNet will 

do everything we can to make that opt-out process a success. Public safety cannot 

afford to have areas of no service throughout the country. We are encouraging 

States and territories to look at all the information in the State Plans to ensure that 

they fully understand the risks and requirements associated with opting out. We are 

confident that each State Plan will deliver the coverage, services, value, and experiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
18 

4 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Public Safety Broadband Network: FirstNet Has 

Made Progress Establishing the Network, but Should Address Stakeholder Concerns and Workforce Planning (2017). 

ence States and territories expect for their first responders, bringing us closer to 

making the cutting-edge Network and technologies that public safety has been asking for a reality. 

CONCLUSION

For more than 3 years, FirstNet has worked hand-in-hand with our partners in 

the States and territories to develop a Network that meets the needs and objectives 

of our Nation’s first responders and other public safety personnel. After thousands 

of meetings and countless discussions with public safety, we feel confident about the 

overall Network solution and individual plans that we have proposed for each State 

and territory because they have been driven by and reflect public safety’s input 

throughout the Nation. 

FirstNet has made a lot of progress over the past year. We successfully completed 

a comprehensive Nation-wide RFP process, which included prevailing in a protest 

action; awarded a 25-year contract to AT&T—an innovative private-sector technology partner who has nearly 140 years of experience serving the public safety 

community; and worked effectively and efficiently with AT&T to deliver State Plans 

3 months ahead of schedule and update those plans based on stakeholder input. We 

are now focused on preparing for the deployment of the Network in opt-in States 

and territories and the next crucial phase of the project—public safety user adoption. 

While there has been much success, we still have work to do. As the GAO highlighted, there are areas for improvement, and FirstNet is dedicated to continuing 

to strive for excellence in every area.4

Through cooperation with the Department of Commerce, NTIA, the FCC, and 

other Federal partners, FirstNet has been able to achieve a great deal over the past 

year. Moving forward, we plan to continue to leverage these partnerships. Ultimately, the most important action that FirstNet must take is to continue to listen 

to public safety. We at FirstNet have been entrusted by public safety to deliver what 

they need in order to keep us safe. It is this belief that drives us at FirstNet and 

will ensure that we accomplish what public safety deserves—excellence in service, 

reliability, and performance. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Parkinson. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Goldstein for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss our June 2017 report on FirstNet. 

We have previously reported and testified on FirstNet, most recently testifying in July 2017 on our latest report during the hearing held by the Senate Commerce Committee. My remarks today 

are based on our June 2017 report which examine FirstNet’s effort 

to establish and finance the network, describe stakeholder views on 

network reliability, security, and interoperability challenges, and 

assess FirstNet’s plan to oversee the deployment of the network by 

its network contractor. 

In our report, we recommended the FirstNet fully explore Tribal 

stakeholder concerns and assess its long-term staffing needs. 

FirstNet agreed with these recommendations and in September 

2017 reported to us on actions it has taken to implement them, 

which we are now in the process of reviewing. 

Among our findings in the report are the following: First, that 

FirstNet has conducted key efforts to establish the network, namely releasing the request for proposal for the network and awarding 

19 

the network contract to AT&T. As a contractor, AT&T will be responsible for the overall design, development production, operation 

and evolution of the network. 

Additionally, FirstNet consulted with State and local Federal and 

Tribal stakeholders. State officials GAO contacted were generally 

satisfied with FirstNet’s effort to engage them. However, Tribal 

stakeholders GAO contacted expressed concern that FirstNet has 

not fully engaged in effective communication with Tribes, noting 

that individuals with first-hand knowledge of Tribes’ experiences 

are not able to represent Tribal views directly. As a result of our 

report, FirstNet now intends to fully explore Tribal stakeholders’ 

concerns, for example, by adopting an organization-wide Tribal consultation policy, as Mr. Parkinson referenced. 

Second, according to stakeholders GAO contacted, FirstNet faces 

various challenges to ensure the network’s reliability, its security, 

and interoperability. For example, stakeholders raised concerns related to providing coverage to rural areas in buildings or underground, ensuring the network’s overall resiliency and cybersecurity, 

and managing frameworks for user identity, credentialing of users, 

and access management and prioritization of users on the network. 

FirstNet has taken actions to address these challenges, such as 

by opening a test lab to test public safety devices and applications 

before deploying them on the network. The majority of stakeholders 

GAO contacted were satisfied with FirstNet’s efforts, but many 

noted that much uncertainty remains about how the network will 

be implemented and about its overall viability. 

For example, substantial unknowns remain regarding how many 

public safety users will adopt the network, the extent to which 

AT&T will be successful in monetizing the spectrum to retain revenue from the network’s commercial users, and the extent to which 

this revenue will be sufficient or appropriate in relation to the capital needed to build, operate, and maintain the network. 

Third, FirstNet established offices to oversee AT&T, develop policies and procedures to guide contract administration, including 

management and oversight, and is receiving assistance from another Federal agency with contract administration experience, although FirstNet plans to assume full responsibility in the future. 

For example, FirstNet established the Network Program Office to 

oversee AT&T’s performance and facilitate quality assurance of 

contract deliverables. Although this office will perform essential 

contract administration functions, we found FirstNet lacked reasonable assurance that it will have sufficient resources to handle 

increases in its responsibilities over time. 

Planning for and assigning adequate resources, including people, 

and assessing resource needs is a key practice for planning and 

executing effective contract oversight. As a result of a report, 

FirstNet intends to perform a long-term staffing assessment for the 

Network Program Office so that it can be in a better position to respond to staffing changes and risks as it assumes full responsibility 

of contract administration. However, FirstNet’s continued oversight 

of AT&T’s performance will be important given the scope of the 

network and the 25-year duration of the contract. 

20 

1GAO, Public-Safety Broadband Network: FirstNet Has Made Progress Establishing the Network, but Should Address Stakeholder Concerns and Workforce Planning, GAO–17–569 (Washington, DC: June 20, 2017). 2GAO, FirstNet: Efforts to Establish the Public-Safety Broadband Network, GAO–17–702T 

(Washington, DC: Jul. 20, 2017). See also GAO, Public Safety Communications: Preliminary Information on FirstNet’s Efforts to Establish a Nation-wide Broadband Network, GAO–15–380T 

(Washington, DC: Mar. 11, 2015); GAO, Public-Safety Broadband Network: FirstNet Should 

Strengthen Internal Controls and Evaluate Lessons Learned, GAO–15–407 (Washington, DC: 

Apr. 28, 2015). 3Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Pub. L. No. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 

(2012). FirstNet is an independent authority within the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 4Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6206(c)(2)(A), 126 Stat. at 213. 5The PSCR is a joint program between Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology and NTIA. 6 U.S. Departments of the Interior, the Army, and Justice, Improving Tribal Consultation and 

Tribal Involvement in Federal Infrastructure Decisions (January 2017). 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I would be 

happy to address any questions that your Members of the subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our June 2017 report on the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet).1 We have previously reported and testified 

on FirstNet, including most recently in a July 2017 hearing held by the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet.2 Whether conducting daily operations, overseeing planned events, or responding to emergencies, public safety officials—especially first responders such as police officers and firefighters—rely on 

communications systems to gather and share information and coordinate their efforts. However, first responders often have difficulty communicating with their counterparts in other agencies and jurisdictions because existing systems lack interoperability. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the 2012 Act) created 

FirstNet and required it to establish a Nation-wide, interoperable public-safety 

broadband network (hereafter, the network)—setting aside spectrum for the network to operate on and providing FirstNet with $7 billion to fund the network’s initial build-out.3 FirstNet must be self-funding beyond this initial $7 billion. Key to 

the network’s success, given its purpose, is its reliability, security, and interoperability. To inform its work, FirstNet must consult with State and local, Federal, and 

Tribal stakeholders.4 Since 2012, FirstNet has completed a number of tasks to plan 

for the build-out of the network, the most significant of which was the issuance of 

a Request For Proposal to solicit proposals from private companies to build, operate, 

and maintain the network. From these proposals, FirstNet selected AT&T as its network contractor and awarded it a multi-billion dollar, 25-year contract. Due to the 

size of the project and duration of the contract, the oversight mechanisms that 

FirstNet plans to use to monitor AT&T’s progress and performance in building, operating, and maintaining the network are important. 

My remarks today are based on our June 2017 report and like the report, addresses: (1) FirstNet’s efforts to establish and finance the network; (2) stakeholder views 

on network reliability, security, and interoperability challenges FirstNet faces and 

its research and other efforts to address them; and (3) FirstNet’s plans to oversee 

the deployment of the network by its network contractor. In our report, we recommended that FirstNet fully explore Tribal stakeholders’ concerns and assess its 

long-term staffing needs. FirstNet agreed with these recommendations and, in September 2017, reported to us on the actions it has taken to implement them. 

For our report, we reviewed the 2012 Act, FirstNet documentation, and documentation from other Federal entities involved in FirstNet’s efforts, such as 

FirstNet’s key research partner, the Public Safety Communications Research 

(PSCR) program.5 We compared FirstNet’s efforts to respond to Tribal stakeholders’ 

concerns with the applicable key principle of effective Tribal communication on Federal infrastructure decisions developed by several Federal agencies.6 We assessed 

the PSCR’s and FirstNet’s research activities against our previously-identified criVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
21 

7GAO, Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed to Improve Transparency and Accountability of Its Research Programs, GAO–11–285 (Washington, DC: Mar. 15, 

2011). 8 Commerce, Selecting Contract Types, Commerce Acquisition Manual, 1316.1, 6.3 (March 

2016); GAO, Joint Information Environment: DOD Needs to Strengthen Governance and Management, GAO–16–593 (Washington, DC: July 14, 2016); GAO, National Science Foundation: 

Steps Taken to Improve Contracting Practices, but Opportunities Exist to Do More, GAO–13–292 

(Washington, DC: Mar. 28, 2013); GAO, Information Technology Investment Management, A 

Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, GAO–04–394G (Washington, DC: 

Mar. 1, 2004); Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon, Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI®) for Acquisition, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI–2010–TR–032 (Pittsburgh, PA: November 2010); Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management— 

Third Edition (Newtown Square, PA: 2013); Project Management Institute, Inc., A Guide to the 

Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Fifth Edition (Newtown Square, PA: 

2013). PMBOK is a trademark of Project Management Institute, Inc. 

teria on key phases of sound research programs.7 We assessed FirstNet’s contract 

oversight plans against key acquisition and contract oversight practices and actions 

established in Federal acquisition regulations, the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) acquisition manual, prior GAO reports, and other academic and industry 

sources.8 We also interviewed FirstNet and Commerce officials. To obtain stakeholder views on all our objectives—particularly the challenges FirstNet faces—we 

selected and contacted 33 stakeholders, including public safety, State and local government, and Tribal associations and organizations; the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Federal Communications Commission, and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; and State government and public safety officials. We selected these stakeholders to obtain a variety of viewpoints from a cross-section of 

interests and geographic locations; their views are not generalizable. Further details 

on our scope and methodology are included in our report. The work on which this 

statement is based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. 

FIRSTNET’S PROGRESS ESTABLISHING AND FINANCING THE NETWORK AND CONSULTING

STAKEHOLDERS

In our June 2017 report, we found that FirstNet has conducted key efforts to establish the network, namely releasing the request for proposal for the network in 

January 2016 and awarding the network contract to AT&T in March 2017. As the 

contractor, AT&T will be responsible for the overall design, development, production, operation, and evolution of the network, as well as the marketing, product 

management, sales, distribution, and customer care. Further, we found that 

FirstNet has established a framework to meet the financial requirements established in the 2012 Act, as depicted in figure 1. This framework focuses on leveraging 

FirstNet’s spectrum through the use of payments and fees with the aim of ensuring 

that the network is financially sustainable over the life of the contract and that 

FirstNet sustains self-funding operations. 

22 

9 U.S. Departments of the Interior, the Army, and Justice, Improving Tribal Consultation and 

Tribal Involvement in Federal Infrastructure Decisions (January 2017). 

FIGURE 1.—FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY’S (FIRSTNET) FINANCIAL

FRAMEWORK

Note.—AT&T’s expected investment in the network includes its annual minimum 

payments to FirstNet. 

By establishing a single, dedicated network for public safety use, FirstNet’s network is expected to foster greater interoperability and meet public safety officials’ 

reliability and other needs. However, the actual use (or ‘‘adoption’’) of the network 

by public safety users will be voluntary. Thus, even with the establishment of this 

framework, substantial unknowns remain regarding how many public safety users 

will adopt the network, the extent to which AT&T will be successful in monetizing 

the spectrum to retain revenue from commercial users, and the extent to which this 

revenue will be sufficient or appropriate in relation to the capital needed to build, 

operate, and maintain the network. Therefore, we noted that, at the time of our report, we could not assess the viability of this framework and whether FirstNet’s 

structures for overseeing the contractor’s use of the spectrum for commercial users 

will be appropriate. 

We also found that FirstNet has made progress consulting with State and local, 

Federal, and Tribal stakeholders through a variety of mechanisms. State officials we 

contacted were generally satisfied with FirstNet’s efforts to engage them. However, 

Tribal stakeholders we contacted expressed concern with FirstNet’s efforts to consult with Tribes per the 2012 Act’s requirements. In particular, four of the five Tribal organizations we contacted said that FirstNet has not fully engaged in effective 

communication or has relied on State points of contact too much as opposed to engaging directly with Tribes; the other Tribal organization was not aware of FirstNet 

or its mission at all. Further, Tribes noted that individuals with first-hand knowledge of Tribes’ experiences are not able to represent Tribal views directly among 

FirstNet’s key decision makers. FirstNet has stated that, indeed, the 2012 Act requires that it consult with Tribes through State points of contact. Nevertheless, several Federal agencies have identified seeking a full understanding of Tribal concerns—and reaching consensus where possible—as a key principle of effective Tribal 

communication, noting that agencies should adapt to changing circumstances, contemplate creative problem solving, identify options for addressing concerns, and exhaust alternatives to achieve mutually agreeable solutions.9

We concluded that, by fully exploring and proposing actions to address Tribal 

stakeholders’ concerns, FirstNet could help improve its relations with Tribes and 


h:\seals\115321.eps
23 

10GAO–11–285. 11For additional discussion of factors that may affect user adoption, see GAO–15–407. 

better meet stakeholders’ needs. As such, we recommended in our report that 

FirstNet fully explore Tribal concerns and propose actions, as needed, to address 

those concerns. FirstNet agreed with this recommendation and, in September 2017, 

described to us the actions it has taken to implement it. For example, according to 

FirstNet, in September 2017 it began a process to formally explore the Tribal outreach concerns raised in our report and expects to propose improvements by the end 

of this year. FirstNet has also said that it adopted an organization-wide Tribal consultation policy which it expects to take effect toward the end of this year. If implemented as planned, these actions should address the intent of the recommendation. 

FIRSTNET’S NETWORK RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND INTEROPERABILITY CHALLENGES

AND EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THEM

In our report, we found that—according to stakeholders we contacted—FirstNet 

faces various challenges to ensure the network’s reliability, security, and interoperability. For example, stakeholders raised concerns related to: 

• providing network coverage to rural areas, in buildings, or underground; 

• ensuring the network’s overall resiliency and cybersecurity; and 

• managing frameworks for user identity, credentialing of users, access management, and prioritization of users on the network. 

However, we also found that both FirstNet and the PSCR have begun research 

and other efforts to help ensure the reliability, security, and interoperability of the 

network and address the challenges raised by stakeholders. For example, in November 2016, FirstNet opened an Innovation and Test Lab at its technical headquarters 

in Boulder, Colorado. According to FirstNet documentation, FirstNet plans to use— 

and allow AT&T to use—the lab to test public safety devices and applications before 

deploying them on the network. Additionally, the PSCR has conducted research on 

behalf of FirstNet and, using $300 million in funds provided to NIST by the 2012 

Act, is also planning for and implementing other research activities to support 

FirstNet. For instance, in January 2016, PSCR launched its Public Safety Innovation Accelerator Program to support these research activities, and in December 

2016, NIST issued a funding announcement to fund research in several areas. 

At the time of our report, we found that PSCR’s research process generally 

aligned with key phases of sound research programs identified by leading National 

organizations, including the American Evaluation Association and the National 

Academy of Sciences.10 For example, PSCR has established a structured process for 

developing research priorities that includes both internal and external stakeholders, 

and has identified criteria it uses to help it select the research areas to fund and 

procedures to help it guide and monitor its research. Similarly, FirstNet has determined its research priorities to date based on its network-planning needs and in 

consultation with internal and external stakeholders, and worked with the PSCR to 

define criteria to help it select research areas. 

Further, we found that the majority of stakeholders we contacted were satisfied 

with the planning efforts to ensure the reliability, security, and interoperability of 

the network. However, many stakeholders also said that there is much remaining 

uncertainty about how this will be implemented in practice. Additionally, one public 

safety official we contacted told us that FirstNet and its contractor will have to balance the costs associated with implementing features that make the network reliable and secure with the need to establish compelling and competitively-priced service packages and fees that will encourage user adoption of the network.11 Indeed, 

numerous stakeholders we contacted cited the cost of subscribing to the network as 

a key factor affecting user adoption, noting that the pricing must be comparable to 

what they pay for commercial service now, that budgets are constrained in the public safety community, or that local governments do not want costs to increase. Further, commercial carriers could choose to compete with FirstNet. FirstNet has stated 

that it expects AT&T to provide services at a competitive price and deliver affordable, high-quality services that will encourage public safety users to adopt the network. Ultimately—because the network must be self-funding and FirstNet has stated that revenue from network users will be critical to this funding—the success of 

the network depends on whether FirstNet and AT&T generate enough revenue to 

operate it over the long term and whether public safety users adopt it, no matter 

how reliable and secure it is. 

24 

12Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6206(b)(1)(D) 126 Stat. at 212. 13GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO–14–704G (Washington, DC: September 2014). 

FIRSTNET’S CONTRACT OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS

FirstNet must manage and oversee the implementation of the network contract 

to build, operate, and maintain the network.12 Federal internal-control standards 

also state that an entity’s management retains responsibility for the performance 

of processes assigned to service organizations (such as contractors) and that management should hold these organizations accountable for their performance.13

In our report, we found that FirstNet has taken a number of steps to establish 

contract oversight mechanisms, but has not fully assessed the staffing needs of its 

oversight workforce. FirstNet’s oversight mechanisms include developing policies 

and procedures to guide contract administration and establishing offices to oversee 

its network contractor. In particular, FirstNet established the Network Program Office to oversee the contractor’s performance and facilitate quality assurance of contract deliverables, among other things. FirstNet is also receiving assistance from the 

Department of the Interior, which has experience with contract administration, although FirstNet plans to assume full responsibility for contract administration in 

the future. We also found that FirstNet’s efforts to develop contract oversight mechanisms aligned with several key actions that we identified as contributing to effective contract oversight. However, although FirstNet’s Network Program Office will 

perform essential contract administration functions, FirstNet had not conducted 

long-term projections of staffing needs for the office as of April 2017. Planning for 

and assigning adequate resources, including people, and performing an assessment 

of the resources needed to oversee projects is one of the key actions we identified 

for planning and executing effective contract oversight. 

We concluded that FirstNet lacks reasonable assurance that it will have sufficient 

resources to handle increases in its responsibilities over time and that, by performing a long-term staffing assessment for the Network Program Office, FirstNet 

would be in a better position to fully understand its staffing needs and respond to 

staffing changes and risks as it assumes full responsibility of contract administration in the future. As such, we recommended in our report that FirstNet assess the 

long-term staffing needs in the Network Program Office prior to assuming full responsibility for administering the network contract. FirstNet agreed with this recommendation and, in September 2017, described the actions it has taken to implement it. According to FirstNet, in August 2017 the Network Program Office adopted 

a strategic workforce plan for fiscal years 2018 to 2022, which it expects to update 

annually. According to FirstNet, this plan provides a comprehensive view of current 

and future human capital needs required to support the implementation of the network and identifies strategies the office will employ to fill gaps between current and 

future needs, among other things. If implemented as planned, this action should address the intent of the recommendation. 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee, 

this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. I now recognize myself 

for 5 minutes for questions to the panel. 

Admiral, Mr. Parkinson, the legislation that established FirstNet 

requires that auctioning the T-Band spectrum and requires first responders use the network—to be clear of that network by 2021. 

Eleven major metropolitan areas, including New York City, rely 

heavily on the T-Band for their radio networks. A 2013 report by 

the National Public Safety Communications Council found that 

there is insufficient alternative spectrum for these jurisdictions to 

move onto. 

Do you share my concern about the T-Band giveback requirement and the impact it could have on major responding operators 

in major cities like New York? 

Admiral HEWITT. Thank you, Chairman Donovan. The T-Band 

auctioning has been a major concern for the SAFECOM group that 

I have mentioned earlier, which is a group of associations of all 

25 

public safety. In particular, as you alluded to, Boston, Chicago, Los 

Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia, it doesn’t look like there is 

spectrum to move to based on that NPSTC report. 

So with that, we’d enjoy working with you and your staff if you 

would like to look at options. We are reviewing it. We are working 

with FCC, who is required to do that, and to find out what flexibility that they have to work. But we would love to work with you 

in looking at solutions for that. 

Mr. PARKINSON. Congressman, yes, as the admiral mentioned, 

this is the jurisdiction of the FCC. They have the responsibility to 

find the solution on this. Our focus is 100 percent on the deployment of the Nation-wide public safety broadband network, and so 

that is our primary focus. We look forward to seeing resolution on 

this. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Has the FCC been in touch with you? Have they 

been cooperative? Have they addressed your concerns? 

Mr. PARKINSON. I would direct you, really, to the FCC on that 

one, given that it is their sole focus, and ours is somewhat separate, given the deployment of the NPSBN. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Are you aware of how much spectrum might be 

necessary that—when we talk about insufficient, is it 10 percent 

insufficient? Is it 50 percent insufficient? Do we have an idea of 

what—how much spectrum we are lacking now? 

Admiral HEWITT. From the study, the T-Band was for 470 to 512 

megahertz, and there is not spectrum in those five major urban 

areas to move that to. The majority of the traffic, especially in New 

York, in your district, is all on the T-Band. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. We have seen many—I guess this is 

to the admiral—we have seen many technological developments in 

the area of emergency communications that make it easier and 

more efficient for first responders to communicate. However, with 

these advancements come cybersecurity risks, something that this 

subcommittee has discussed in a roundtable, as I mentioned in 

opening remarks. How is OEC working with the stakeholders to 

raise awareness about and how to address cyber risks for our first 

responder communication networks? 

Admiral HEWITT. Thank you, Chairman Donovan. We have been 

working for the last 4 years with public safety through SAFECOM 

to educate them on the cyber risks that are out there. 

We have a program called CAPTAIN, which is our cybersecurity 

and physical risk assessment of IP networks, and also we have developed a bunch of best practices for mobile application development to help address those issues. Because as they move into IP, 

it comes with a lot more capability, but cybersecurity is going to 

be a huge risk. So just educating them now, getting them ready so 

as FirstNet deploys they will be able to make sure they keep a secure network. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Admiral, is there a system in which if they see 

either intrusions or attempts, that they could share that information to their colleagues in other cities so they could be made aware 

of—if an attempt is made in New York that we can inform our colleagues in San Francisco to be aware of this? 

Admiral HEWITT. Yes, sir. As part of the Cybersecurity Act that 

the NCCIC was involved, the National Cybersecurity and CommuVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
26 

nications Integration Center, is the reporting place for—all SWICs 

can report any cyber incidents to them and that then gets disseminated out through that means. 

Mr. DONOVAN. My time has expired. Chair recognizes my colleague from New Jersey, the Ranking Member, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s see. Admiral Hewitt, in your testimony, you talked about the declining numbers of 

dedicated full-time SWICs and less active State interoperability 

governing bands. As I observed in my opening statement, governance is critical to interoperability. Why has there been such a decline in dedicated SWICs and government structures? What effect 

will it have on interoperability? 

Admiral HEWITT. Thank you, Ranking Member Payne. With the 

number of SWICs, full-time SWICs, as you alluded to in your opening statement, it’s down to 12 now. We were at a high of 44. Even 

though under the Homeland Security Grant Program it is an allowable cost, what we are seeing, since we don’t have that dedicated 

grant—we used to have an interoperable emergency communications grant program, and when—that was from 2008 to 2010—we 

went from a handful of SWICs to 44. 

Similarly, Department of Commerce in 2013, with the advent of 

FirstNet, NTIA did a State and local interoperability grant program, and the number of spots went from zero to 56. So when you 

do have dedicated grants, that has definitely been a benefit. So we 

are working with FEMA grants programs, Tom Donato, the director over there, to look at what are the possibilities that we can do 

to help change that around. 

Mr. PAYNE. So those grants aren’t available to States anymore? 

Admiral HEWITT. Well, the ICGP went away in 2010, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. In 2010? OK. 

Admiral HEWITT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. So how can we be of help to mitigate—Congress mitigate these impacts? 

Admiral HEWITT. Well, your support, sir, has been tremendous, 

with the SWIC bill and raising the awareness so people understand 

that interoperability is more than just technology. The key piece is 

governance. So we really appreciate all the support you have been 

giving us. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Let’s see. OK. Let’s see. Also, from the issue 

around these hurricanes, Harvey and Maria, what is your assessment of how our emergency communications have performed? What 

are some of the lessons learned from this hurricane season with respect to emergency communications? 

Admiral HEWITT. Well, with Harvey, that was primarily a rain 

event in Houston. We were able to pre-position with the Federal 

Government responses controlled through FEMA and the National 

Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center is what 

they call emergency support function No. 2 communications. They 

were able to pre-position a lot of communications capabilities to go 

in behind and resurrect it. 

Plus they coordinate—FCC gets reports through the disaster information system on carrier issues. They coordinate the restoration 

from that. It actually went very well for Harvey. When Irma came 

through Florida, the same thing, we were able to pre-position. 

27 

Maria and the islands, it was impossible to pre-position, because 

every island got wiped out. 

So, with that, too, the winds were much higher and above the 

towered conditions. Most towers can take up to a level three hurricane, and with level five, just about every tower, if it wasn’t 

knocked down, the microwave links that are the back holes were 

misaligned, and so we’re totally having to rebuild Puerto Rico. 

But the transportation of getting equipment, AT&T, you know, 

all the carriers trying to get equipment in there has been very difficult. Just getting in flights, trying to get the logistics of the ships 

in. Coast Guard has been bringing in ships and trying to get the 

logistics. Then once you get it there, the roads were totally wiped 

out. So trying to get up into the mountains has been very difficult 

on rebuilding that whole infrastructure. 

But even with all that, they still have about 6 out of 10 citizens 

there do have cellular today because they have been just working 

around the clock to get capabilities in there. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Mr. Parkinson, FirstNet is supposed to be financially self-sustainable. Will it be? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Yes, Congressman. One of the key factors of 

when we were developing the procurement was to develop a recapitalization model so that the system—we would never have to come 

back to Congress and ask for more funds, so that the revenue that 

was generated by the network, as required by statute, was reinvested back into the network. We believe that the model that we 

have been able to develop through the procurement will sustain the 

network in perpetuity. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. But if I am not mistaken, during the GAO, your 

comments, you had a question about whether they were going to 

be sustainable. Is that correct? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, Mr. Payne. I think it remains unclear at 

this point in time as to how viable the network will be. It depends 

on how it is built out. It depends on who actually subscribes. It depends on competitors. Verizon has decided that it is likely to compete. 

So I think it remains unknown. That is not to say that FirstNet 

isn’t doing sort of everything it can I think at this point, but this 

is—there are a great number of unknowns and challenges going 

forward about how the network will develop and whether it will be 

actually sustainable over time. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Parkinson, how do you respond to that? 

Mr. PARKINSON. I understand that there are concerns and I understand that there are—with any project, with any business, there 

is risk. That being said, we have been able to shift, as there is the 

model of the RFP that we were able to put forward, shifted the risk 

away from the Federal Government and onto AT&T. By signing up 

for the commitment for the next 25 years, we have been able to 

push that over. 

Of course, there will be—there are challenges in terms of user 

adoption, but we have plans for that. We certainly are intending 

to hit the numbers that we—and AT&T is trying to hit the numbers that they have been mandated to go out there and get. 

28 

But as I said before in my opening testimony, judge us on what 

we do and judge us on our results, and I think we will be able to 

find a good story at the end of it. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going 

over. I yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome our witnesses here today. Thank you for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Parkinson, if I can start with you, somewhat in relation to 

the Ranking Member’s question, our emergency communications 

system obviously is critical to our ability to respond to natural disasters and to terrorist attacks. However, during these events, and 

certainly as the admiral has identified, critical infrastructure that 

our communications rely on, such as our electrical grid, are often— 

are often degraded. Again, we saw that in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and Maria. It can be days or even weeks 

before power was—is actually restored. 

So how is FirstNet ensuring that the emergency communications 

networks will be resilient, again, going forward when supporting 

critical infrastructure is unavailable? 

Mr. PARKINSON. It is a terrific question, Congressman. One of the 

things that we have really looked at is the hardening of the network. Our public safety advisory committee, as well as NPSTC, 

which the admiral referenced earlier on, have released reports on 

the standards of hardening that they expect the network to be built 

to. We have taken these. We have looked at them. We certainly are 

going to be looking to require that the network is built to a sufficient level of hardening so the robustness of the network is continue and can continue where National disasters, man-made 

events, et cetera, like that do continue. 

I think you also have to look at the various technologies that will 

be deployed through the system in areas where there may not be 

a traditional network with towers and so on, we are going to be 

leveraging deployables. We are going to be looking to pre-position 

assets, as Mr. Hewitt described with the storms recently in Texas 

and Florida, we will be able to provide similar assets specific to 

public safety broadband in areas where we can anticipate natural 

disasters, such as hurricanes, occurring. 

All of this is being coordinated at the State level, and we have 

been working very closely with the single points of contact and 

with the respective Governor’s office throughout the Nation. We 

certainly anticipate things like that occurring in the future. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. Identity management and authentication is a core functionality in every network. For FirstNet, I think 

it is even more crucial that identity management is properly implemented due to the large concentration of very sensitive public safety information traveling through a single network. So what is 

FirstNet’s approach to ensuring that only first responders have access to the emergency communications network? What are the potential harms if an unauthorized user could gain access? 

Mr. PARKINSON. It is a terrific question, Congressman. So ICAM 

is fundamental to any aspect. What we can’t have is a State troopVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
29 

er, for example, driving at 160 miles an hour down a highway expected to punch in a 16-digit code to gain access to the portal. So, 

again, our public safety advisory committee has looked at this. It 

is a 43-member organization that advises FirstNet on a variety of 

aspects. As I mentioned, hardening is one topic. ICAM is another. 

So we are really trying to get that local feel, and, really, the local 

requirements from those individuals who represented on the PSAC. 

That is information that they gather and the recommendations 

that they do send forward to FirstNet are taken by our team, so 

that they will be able to be ultimately implemented based on the 

needs of public safety on the local ground. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK, thank you. I may have a follow-up on that, 

if time permits, but I do want to get to Mr. Goldstein. Mobile communication has moved to a new technology generation, roughly 

every 10 years. We understand how quickly, obviously, technology 

changed. Moore’s Law, case in point, where it squares every 18 

months. 

But starting—going back on the technology and the communication, verbal communication side, starting with the first-hand networks in 1981 to the fourth generation comms that power our 

smartphones today, over the course of this contract, it can be reasonably assumed that cellular technology will advance significantly 

in capability. What is FirstNet’s plan for sustainment over the next 

25 years to ensure that our first responders are utilizing the best 

commercial technology available throughout the contract? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. You are right, Congressman. It is a very slippery 

slope in terms of changes in technology. One of the things that 

FirstNet is going to have to do is ensure that AT&T has the capacity and the resources to refresh technology as time goes on, as will 

any other competitor to this program. So we don’t know. 

But their contracting operations and their network program office is going to have to be able to take responsibility to ensure that 

AT&T is providing the best possible services and technology. Because at the end of the date, if they don’t, subscribers can walk. 

They can go elsewhere. The network won’t be successful if other 

competitors are able to offer better services, so it is in their best 

interest, as well, to try and do that. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. Mr. Parkinson, do you care to comment? 

Could you provide some insight of what the plan is over the next 

25 years? 

Mr. PARKINSON. I think that is really one of the beauties of the 

contract itself, that the longevity that AT&T and FirstNet have entered into for the next 25 years provides an opportunity, frankly, 

for public safety to take advantage of how you and I or anyone in 

this room has been able to leverage, you know, this sort of a device 

since the first iPhone came along, say, 10 years ago. 

I think of this—I always use this analogy. Think of how you used 

your cell phone even 5 years ago versus how you use it today and 

what it can do possibly in 5 years’ time. Think of how you used the 

internet 5 years ago and how you use it today. 

I think that is where public safety is going to be able to now finally be at the forefront in terms of how we are able to provide 

services similar to commercial services, but dedicated to public 

safety. That is the first time that public safety will be in that posiVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:38 Mar 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP1012\17EP1012.TXT HEATH
30 

tion. Frankly, I think it is one of the most exciting aspects of the 

project and one of the reasons it was attractive to me in the first 

place. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK, very good. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona, Ms. McSally. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your testimony today, gentlemen. 

I recently was visiting Tombstone, Arizona. Everybody should 

know where Tombstone is. A very small community. As I was visiting with the marshal there, one of the challenges that they have 

as a very small law enforcement agency on the border is interoperability with the other agencies around them, the sheriffs, the Border Patrol. 

I know there was—OEC had a border interoperability dem- onstration project, $25 million, to specifically address some interoperable communications related to the border. I am wondering, 

Admiral Hewitt, if you can give me some insights as to, you know, 

anything that is come from that and how we can help rural communities along the border, like Tombstone, like Douglas, Bisbee, 

others in my district, very small, very limited budget. 

But they are often dealing with Federal law enforcement issues, 

and they can’t talk to Border Patrol and they can’t afford to buy 

the systems that Border Patrol has, and so they are literally in the 

dark and sometimes doing the job of, ultimately, what is Federal 

responsibilities, but they are right there in the middle of it. 

So what can I say back to the mayor and the marshal of Tomb- stone about how perhaps—what we have learned from this $25 million or how FirstNet or—what is going to help them and when is 

that going to be helping them? 

Admiral HEWITT. Well, thank you, ma’am. With the border interoperability demonstration project, BIDP, as you alluded to, that 

was a $25 million grant program that expired a few years ago, but 

Yuma was a great recipient of that. With the $4 million that they did receive, they were able to take 

their regional communications system from about four agencies to 

over 45—that included five tribes—and with that, not only build 

out the system, but more importantly, get the governance in place 

that created the standard operating procedures on how they are 

going to use it, and then they bought the applications to support 

those standard operating procedures from that. 

So they are getting great benefit from that. It does show that 

when you do have Federal funding that you are able to support 

them. They get a great—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes, so how do we extend that to Cochise County? 

Because they are really struggling. Again, Tombstone is just an example. What kind of funding is available? Or just what is the way 

ahead for these communities that right now can’t talk to the agencies around them while they are in the middle of trying to deal 

with the border security issue? 

Admiral HEWITT. We can work with them. We also support 

through the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, 

which is 14 Federal agencies. Of those, several of them do provide 

31 

grants. We can find out if any of them are available to support 

that. 

Ms. MCSALLY. OK, great. But is the vision that they will be able 

to afford subscribing to FirstNet and that FirstNet is going to be 

their solution? Is that really going to be affordable to little towns 

with very limited resources like this? 

Mr. PARKINSON. One of the biggest problems we have, Congresswoman, is exactly that, budgetary issues. If you think of this, volunteer firefighters make up 70 percent of the firefighters in this 

country. They often hold cake sales just to fund their things. 

So one of the programs that we have developed at FirstNet is 

BYOD, bring your own device, so that with regards to the Congressman Langevin’s question regarding ICAM, make sure that 

those individuals who are public safety individuals can be 

credentialed with their own personal device and then can gain access to the public safety aspects of FirstNet. So I think that provides, frankly, a really strong opportunity. 

One other part of that, I think, too, is the coverage aspects that 

rural communities face when it comes to broadband, and obviously 

not just to public safety broadband. There are requirements in our 

statute and requirements in the contract with AT&T that there are 

rural milestones—and this is in the law, too—that have to be built 

out. 

So we have been working with the Governor’s office in Arizona, 

we have been working with the single point of contact in the 

SAIC—that is the governance body within Arizona—to ensure that 

the needs of local public safety are addressed within the State plan. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great, thanks. Admiral Hewitt, I know we are 

talking a lot about what FirstNet can bring and across jurisdictions 

for emergency communications, but there was a report out last 

year—I apologize, I don’t know if it was GAO or OIG—that talked 

about some of the challenges within the Department of Homeland 

Security of CBP, different—Border Patrol not being able to talk to 

OFO and how that really was potentially endangering lives, and 

they are having to embed people in the other organizations in order 

to make up for it. 

So how are you dealing with some of the interdepartmental lack 

of interoperability and communications, as well? 

Admiral HEWITT. Yes, ma’am. Within that, the Department has 

a joint wireless program management office that brings all the 

agencies together. OEC provides communications unit training, 

which is the incident command system and it is the methodology 

that we used to support interoperable communications. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So you are saying the things that were brought 

up—are you familiar with the report I am mentioning? 

Admiral HEWITT. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Have they been fixed? 

Admiral HEWITT. They are being worked on now. 

Ms. MCSALLY. They are being worked on. 

Admiral HEWITT. Several of them have been fixed. 

Ms. MCSALLY. OK, great, I am out of time. I do have some more 

questions, but if you are doing another round, I will come back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are going to allow another round. Gentlemen, 

if you don’t mind, since there are only four Members here, many 

32 

of us have maybe one or two more questions. Your information is 

invaluable to us, so we appreciate an opportunity to ask another 

question. 

So, Admiral, I will take the first question. You spoke about the 

devastation of Puerto Rico and what the communications systems 

are like right now. In Irma, Harvey, Maria, what were the communications like during the storms? Were first responders able to 

communicate with each other during those storms, whether it was 

in a rescue effort, an evacuation effort, whatever it may have been? 

Were the capabilities there doing this that we were lacking during 

9/11 or lacking during super storms before this? 

Admiral HEWITT. Thank you, Chairman. We haven’t received the 

full after-action reports from those. I can get that to you. But the 

anecdotal information we heard is, like, Key West, they evacuated, 

so they had told their citizens we aren’t going to be able to respond 

to 9–1–1. That area took over 80 percent of their communications 

was out. But they had gotten the word out to the citizens, and 

hopefully most of them evacuated up north. 

But there was only—in Texas, there were three counties that lost 

over 80 percent. As I mentioned, we were able to pre-position most 

of the time public safety because of the life-threatening winds and 

everything—they were not able to respond, but it wasn’t because 

of lack of communications. It was just for safety of life. So after the 

storm, there were outages. We did pre-position equipment, and we 

did try to get things back up as quickly as possible. 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are still waiting for an assessment of whether 

first responders were able to communicate with one another during 

the actual storms? We are still waiting for that? 

Admiral HEWITT. Yes, sir. With land mobile radio, you can actually do direct mode. So you can—even if the tower is down, you can 

actually communicate with each other. There was a lot of that 

going on. With cellular, you have to have the tower up, but then 

with—immediately after, they—as Mr. Parkinson said, there are 

deployables. All the carriers put in deployables to get that system 

up as quickly as possible. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I would appreciate it, Admiral, if when that report 

does come out, if there is an aftermath assessment of our abilities 

to communicate during tragedies, if you could share that with the 

committee, that would be wonderful. 

Admiral HEWITT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The other thing I would like to just ask, Mr. Parkinson, there are about 27—am I correct there are 27 States now 

that are involved in FirstNet? Is there a reluctance on the other 

23 States? Is it just timing, trying to get them on? At some point, 

do you anticipate all 50 States being on? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Don’t forget the territories and the District of 

Columbia, too, sir. So we are in a stage now where the Governors 

have a 90-date mandated period in which they can make their decision. So those Governors are reviewing the information that we 

have put forward to them, and we fully anticipate others signing 

up and opting in. 

Just yesterday, as you reference in your opening testimony, Governor Holcomb of Indiana opted into the network. So we expect 

more to come hopefully in the next few days, in the next weeks, 

33 

but that 90-day time period that Governors have expires on December 28. So that is the time period in which Governors have to make 

the decision. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Wonderful, thank you. The Chair now recognizes 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To Admiral Hewitt and Mr. Parkinson, the mission of both of 

your organizations is to improve interoperable communications for 

first responders. We have a goal that we are trying to meet. Can 

you talk about how, if at all, are we seeing FirstNet work together 

to advance first responder communications? I think that will be 

very crucial in the future to see that. 

Admiral HEWITT. Thanks, Ranking Member Payne. From the beginning of FirstNet, in 2012, when they originally stood up, they 

actually had the board members, which—with the 15 members, 

there are three, actually, permanent members, DHS, Department 

of Justice, and OMB. We have been working very closely with 

them. 

In fact, SAFECOM was being used, and actually the genesis for 

the public safety advisory council that Mr. Parkinson alluded to, 

which is their advisory board, so we helped them set that up. In 

terms of getting Federal members on board, we use the emergency 

communications preparedness center, which is 14 Federal agencies 

that have emergency communications responsibilities. 

So we have been working closely—and just last month, I was 

designated the DHS rep to the FirstNet board. We have been working very closely. One of the things we did right away with all the 

States, they wanted to have a better understanding of what kind 

of coverage their existing land mobile radio so they know how to 

compare it with the FirstNet plan. 

So working with FirstNet, we did a technical assistance with all 

the States to roll that out. Then now we are doing a cybersecurity 

awareness so they will be better prepared when they get FirstNet 

capabilities to ensure that it is a secure network. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK, that is it. 

Mr. PARKINSON. That is pretty spot-on, really. Just one other 

thing, too. We also are lucky enough to have a lot of DHS OEC 

alum who now work at FirstNet, and so the relationships that that 

allows to consistently flow, information, meetings, and having those 

histories together can only be a positive. 

Mr. PAYNE. Excellent. Well, that is very good to hear. With that, 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. PAYNE. He has gone. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Oh, he has gone. All right. He disappeared on me. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona, who is 

still here, Ms. McSally. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I share your excitement, Mr. Parkinson, about being able to move 

to the next generation of technology and collaboration for emergency communications. Again, thinking about how we now use our 

own phones—or when I was in the military, I was a part of some 

of the efforts when we were moving away from everything being on 

34 

voice to moving to more collaborative systems that allow instant 

sharing of information to everybody who needed to know it and collaboration at a very high level. 

Some of the challenges I saw, though, implementing some of this 

in the military, No. 1, is culture. I have done a lot of ride-alongs 

with our first responders, and they are very wedded to voice communications. So switching to something that is going to increase 

their situation awareness, you are going to have to deal with some 

culture changes across the board. 

A lot of these will be at the local level of leadership, building the 

case as to why this is going to actually help them, so that you get 

the buy-in for the culture change and how it is going to help them 

do their job. There also is data management and information management on useful—you know, what is useful, what is not, and 

then really analyzing the information. 

There is going to be a lot of spoofing or misinformation that is 

shared via—you know, again, images, texts, other types of things. 

So there is a whole other even manpower requirement of those who 

are going to filter through the new information. Then there is 

training, there are processes. There are a whole lot of things that 

go along with this. So it is not just the technology. It is all of these 

other things. 

It could really be a game-changer for a lot of these first responders. But it has to be used with all these other elements in order 

to make it successful. So just wondering if you have any perspective on that. Again, I have gone through this myself in the military. 

It is a heavy lift to be able to shift to this, but it could be really 

game-changing for the mission. 

Mr. PARKINSON. You are absolutely right, Congresswoman. Then 

think, too, about just the amount of information that is going to be 

out there. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

Mr. PARKINSON. How do you really separate what is real versus 

what isn’t? 

Ms. MCSALLY. Exactly. 

Mr. PARKINSON. What is important for situational awareness, 

what isn’t? 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

Mr. PARKINSON. I think, too, the beauty about where we stand 

right now is public safety wanted this. It was really the first time 

we saw law enforcement, fire, and EMTs come together back in 

2010, 2011 to lead the lobbying effort for the creation of FirstNet. 

So today when we travel around to States, localities, Tribal nations, the territories, we hear the universal message, like when is 

this coming? When can we get this? I think that in itself is our 

largest asset. It is the men and women on the ground. 

I think, too, another point is you are going to see a generational 

shift where you have men and women coming in who don’t know 

what a land mobile radio is. They only know what this is. That is 

not a hit on LMR. 

I mean, LMR is going to be here for many, many, many years 

to come. But they only understand—I mean, you only have to look 

around outside here in Emancipation Hall, you know, the kids who 

are just, you know, typing away. 

35 

Who knows what the capabilities are going to be of FirstNet and 

commercial networks in 10 years’ time? So I think it is going to be 

crucial that we get not only the buy-in, but really it is that fundamental local level of understanding what are the needs of public 

safety and how can we tailor the network specific to those needs? 

That is going to be the differentiator. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes, and sorting out, again, as you said, what is 

useful, what is not, what is spoofing, because there are elements 

of that, as well. Is there an element where the public can also 

share information? I will just—you know, this morning, I actually 

was dealing with calling in something that didn’t seem right that 

I saw. I won’t go through all the details, but I had a picture that 

I took of what didn’t look quite right. By the time I got to the right 

jurisdiction, I said I have a picture to send you, where do I send 

it to? They literally said they didn’t have the capacity to get that 

from me. 

I was just—like, I couldn’t believe it, in 2017, why we don’t have 

the ability for someone to share something quickly. So is there an 

ability for the public to participate? Then obviously you have got 

to filter that out, because you will have all sorts of even bad actors, 

but misinformation that would be—— 

Mr. PARKINSON. You know, in February next year, it is going to 

be 50 years since the first 9–1–1 call from Alabama. It is pretty interesting that here we are still today and really the way we all use 

9–1–1 is picking up the phone and dialing. 

NG9–1–1, next-generation 9–1–1 is coming. While FirstNet’s 

focus is the deployment of the NPSBN, we are certainly talking to 

those associations, those groups out there, NENA, APCO and others, who are—whose roles and responsibilities are going to be for 

the deployment of NG9–1–1. I know this is something that OEC is 

looking very closely at. I am sure Mr. Goldstein and GAO are going 

to be intimately involved in this. But NG9–1–1 is really the answer 

you are looking for. 

Ms. MCSALLY. That would be the tool, is through the 9–1–1, 

next-generation? 

Mr. PARKINSON. As that comes, yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Got it. OK, thanks. One last quick question. If a 

State opts out—sorry if somebody asked this already—if a State 

opts out and they are developing their own system, how is that 

going to work if there is some sort of cross-State crisis? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Sure. So, really important part of the goals of 

the network is, it is for the Nation. It is not—we can’t have islands 

of no service, States of no service. So the law is quite clear that 

there is a process that any opt-out State, if they so wish to go down 

that path, and it is their right to do that, if they do so want to, 

that they have to fulfill certain obligations, they have to enter into 

a procurement process, select a vendor, go to the NTIA, go to the 

FCC, and negotiate what is called a spectrum lease agreement with 

FirstNet. 

So that information has been well-known to the States. They 

have a lot of information how to do it. That process could take up 

to, we believe, 2 years. So it is quite a cumbersome process. It certainly lays a large financial obligation onto a State. But again, if 

a State wants to go down that path, we will do everything we can 

36 

at FirstNet to ensure that that opt-out State is successful and that 

they seamlessly integrate into the NPSBN. 

Ms. MCSALLY. OK, great, thanks. I am over my time. Thanks, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Gentlemen, just in the last minute that we have 

left, is there anything that we haven’t hit on that wasn’t in your 

opening statements, that maybe some of our questions stimulated, 

that you would like? Or have we covered everything with our intelligent questions that we have asked you? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Opening myself up here, but I think the main 

thing, Congressman, going forward is FirstNet is the art of the possible right now. As you heard, December 28 is when the Governor’s 

deadline wraps up, and then deployment will follow, and user adoption will follow that. 

We couldn’t be more excited. You know, we have done a lot of 

work. It has taken a long time. I mean, 2012 was when the law 

was passed, and here we sit now in 2017. As I said in my opening 

statements, the hard things are hard, but with your continued support and with the support of your staff, we certainly anticipate 

making FirstNet a success. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I thank all of our witnesses for your valuable testimony today and for my colleagues for their questions. The Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for our 

witnesses, and we will ask that you respond to those in writing. 

Pursuant to the committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will remain open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ