Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 2015031

i believe i can to the extent it's not privileged. >> i would imagine it shouldn't be privileged but i'd be surprised if a document like that would be privileged. i'm sure we can work out a situation where you can provide that to us. >> okay. but it may well be in terms -- >> we don't need filled out one, just blank one to see what kind of questions you are asking. >> i would ask, have a moment hcr working with ice reviewing the form. i don't know where that process is but i know the form has been subject -- people have had a look at it. i think it's googleable even if the government doesn't release it. >> it is a public form. i can't remember the number. >> i appreciate that. recently received here at the commission a number of complaints, copies of complaints that were submitted involving religious freedom submitted by arab american -- american arab anti-discrimination committee involving religious freedom at the stewart facility. are any of you aware of these complaints? >> it's very possible my organization has gotten them, we have a close relationship with adc. i'm not aware specifically. >> when do you handle -- >> i can submit that within the time that's allowed but i don't know off the top -- >> before you leave i'm going to hand these to you and make sure if you could please commit to take a close look at these. these are significant, serious issues. >> of course. >> finally i want to ask one thing we didn't hear from you all that is important to us in this investigation, the treatment of transgender individuals. it's our understanding the largest agency that has custody of transgender individuals is department of homeland security. any of you talk a little about the treatment of transgender individuals in detention facilities. >> yes. i can start and maybe megan will have something to add. ice has been progressive in this area. i'll try to remember all the different areas they address protection of transgender detainees. first of all, in our detention standards we require individualized assessments for any transgender detainees arriving at a facility, regarding, for example, the idea of housing, classification decisions as to what housing unit to place them in may not be based solely on biological anatomy of the individual but must take into account that individual's gender identity. let me move forward a little earlier in the process, the actual apprehension process. after somebody has been appear helpeded i mentioned they are screened, through the book-in, during book-in, the officer gets information through the risk assessment tool which is part of our book-in mod umm. therefore, preserved electronically. the officer is required to ask initially questions about whether a variety of special vulnerabilities apply. one of those special vulnerabilities is whether that individual might fear for their safety in detention due to their gender identity or sexual orientation. so that's a factor taken in immediately. with respect to treatment in detention, the medical care standard of the detention standard guarantee as right to hormone therapy for individuals who need it for treatment and even in facilitators not covered by that standard, the service corps is vigilant on that issue to ensure individuals receive necessary hormone therapy. in our segregation directive, which we have mentioned, the policy indicates no one may be placed in segregation solely due to being transgender. we can't have a default policy anyone transgender inherently will be vulnerable. there has to be an individualized assessment in all cases. we immediately become aware when somebody transgender is placed in segregation and we look at those cases very carefully. statistics indicate, at any given time on average, one transgender detainee is in segregation in our entire system for more than 14 days at a time. we don't know -- those are the statistics that i can recall most easily. those cases are rare. we have a special housing unit in the los angeles area dedicated to the bisexual and transgender detainees, individuals who prefer a transfer even across the country for that facility, related to safety, rather than being in the housing unit. we have transferred many at their choice to that unit. and we have an ongoing working group in this area, consider additional forums on these issues, including adopting the most progressive policies. there are a couple of jails in the entire country that have essentially transgender committees. i think the acronym is tcc, if i'm not mistaken. i don't recall what that stands for. but a committee of health care providers, security staff and administrators. in this case it might include ice professionals. this is policies that exist at other jails which we're considering, carefully consider treatment options and housing options for transgender individuals. so it's an issue we're very aware of and respond to any concerns or allegations we hear, which we do hear from time to time from ngo or attorneys about individuals. >> thank you, mr. landy. i'm sure my colleagues will have follow-up questions on that. before i turn it over to commissioner yaki, myself and other colleagues on the commission are planning to pay a visit to detention centers. we would hope we could ask for each of your assistance to -- in facilitating our visit. can we count on that? >> yes. >> miss mack is nodding yes. thank you, i appreciate that. i'll ask my assistant to give you these complaints and the documents we asked for, you can send that to our office of civil rights investigation. commissioner yaki. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership in holding this briefing. i have a question, i guess, that starts with mr. landy and may filter out to some other folks here and probably elsewhere and other panels. i want to focus a little about the mandate that congress has to maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds at any given appoint in time. i imagine in policy and planning, having to figure out a way to ensure that number affects not just whether or not you can physically do it but from a logistical point of view how is it that you get to that point. in other words, one of the criticisms, for example, is that the actual number of violent offenders -- violent as in real violence are in these facilities somewhere in the very low teens or single digit range and there's a criticism that in order to meet that mandate, the department is reaching down, so to speak, to get people who may have dui or marijuana or some other nonviolent offense. i don't want to put you on the spot but i guess i will, which is -- i know in a former life, the now president of uc, but then homeland secretary janet napolitano went to congress and said we need to deal with this quota situation. i just want to know how -- two parts, how does this quota drive your department's policy and how do you think it would be different, do you believe, if that quota were removed? >> well, with respect to the question as to who is being apprehended and whether it requires us to apprehend individuals who are not priorities, as you probably know in 2011, director john morton issued priorities policy which has very recently been replaced by a department -- dhs executive action which very clearly lays out the enforcement priorities for ice. it's certainly not limited to people who have been convicted of violent crimes. it includes people, for example, who committed aggravated felonies of any type, people who have been convicted of three or more misdemeanors, not traffic offenses. people who have been convicted of at least one significant misdemeanor and also immigration -- certain types of immigration violators. people who received a final order after january 1 of 2014. so not necessarily criminals at all. people who have entered the country after january 1, 2014. the statistics from prior years under morton directive showed ice was able to fill its detention bets with priority people who fell into one of the priority categories. a very large percentage of that category are going to be border crossers, especially during these years a massive influx across rio grande valley of adults, adult individuals. and it was difficult to find detention capacity during the height of those surges, which are seasonal, it was difficult to find sufficient detention capacity. many don't have prior criminal convictions. but our statistics have indicated that 97% roughly at times of the average daily population of our system met one of these priorities or their detention was mandatory by law. other than that with respect to quota driving policies, the administration has not supported 34,000 quota. congress expects -- congress appropriates resources for that detention capacity and expects ice to use those resources for that number of bets. i'm not part of enforcement removal component of ice responsible for apprehensions. it is the case that in recent years has been able to more or less achieve that 30,000 number, notwithstanding fluctuations in the course of a year. by the end of the fiscal year the average typically has been around 34,000, something we're stifg to do -- striving to do in accordance with congress's directive. i can't speak to exactly how they are able to arrive at that target beyond the fact they are working hard to comply with enforcement priorities. >> thank you. thank you very much. this question aimed at mr. jones and miss mack. we heard a lot of criticism about handling of persons coming over the border not just during the surge but in other points as well. the question i have -- there are two questions. one, when you talk about this questionnaire, part of me was, for lack of a better word, laughing a little bit because you're asking questions about people who may be semiliterate, probably not conversant english. my question is how do you assure that they fully understand what these questions mean in terms of what our objective standards are. i understand you say we have a form. the answers determine what we do or not. but facts indicate 83% of these folks, especially during the surge, were being sent home without a hearing without a judge, just based on being turned away. that number seemed very, very high. maybe it's justified or not. but in the absence of knowing that there are culturally competent individuals present to be able to help deal with the translation question and answering system, do you have that in place? how do you assure answers you're getting are real and true answers. i can tell you from my own experience dealing with asylum seekers in other countries, sometimes you need to ask cultural issues, can you really ask about rape, can you ask them about other family members. are they afraid any answer they give to you is going to be communicated back to their home country. so maybe they tend not to be as truthful as they should be. how do your agencies deal with that issue for people who are coming over and getting into that questionnaire phase? >> i think the chairman's question pertained to mexican nationals, so with regard to mexican nationals, all of the border patrol agents speak spanish. and they are trained at the academy and 50% of the border patrol are hispanic descent. they are speaking spanish. and they are first, second generation americans, as well. so while we cannot be certain as to whether or not the person being interviewed is providing a truthful answer, but the agents are trained to process within policy, if you will. and so that's the thing that we focus on as an agency that we're consistent, that we are fair and that we ensure that everyone is properly interviewed. >> but do you -- i guess what i'm asking is, do you have someone, for example, who understands country conditions in a certain region in mexico. in columbia, venezuela, guatemala, nicaragua. are there people there who could maybe provide a context for the answers to say, for example, this person they say they come from village x. and you would understand if working with a refugee group that village x was a subject of a horrific cartel murder, something like that. how do we, how do you determine that the cultural geographic, and, i guess, human context of what it is that they may be trying to express to an official of a government that they're unfamiliar with and, you know, i think it's great that there are a high number of latino members of your force that you have. but how do you make sure they're really truly grounded and what it is these people may be trying to or want to communicate but maybe afraid to communicate to someone operating under the color of law. >> well, at the executive level, yes, we are familiar with the conditions throughout mexico and in the various communities within mexico. the individual agent level, i cannot speak to that. what i can say is that they are trained to be consistent in terms of how we process people, and to treat people with dignity and respect. and that is a core principle of cbp. as to their understanding of the higher political or socioeconomic situations and as to why people are coming to us, i can't speak to the individual office's assessment, but i can speak to what we ask them to do. >> moving on to the last chair and then we can come back. madame vice chair? >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this question is for mr. jones. and it kind of follows up on the direction in which the commissioner yaki has been headed. but it would appear that the custom and border officers are critical players in this immigration process, and the screening and the selection and the training of those individuals would be equally as important. i'd like for you to talk to us, please, mr. jones, about the selection, the training. of your officers and the supervision that would go along with that. and then, i'd ask you to detail any problems that have arisen. the kinds of disciplinary actions that have been taken or could be taken in connection with problems that arise. and then after you answer that, i might have another follow-up. but go ahead, please. >> thank you, ma'am, thank you, vice chair. the selection process is we advertise for border patrol agents, if you will, probably twice a year. we have a federal floor in terms of the number of border patrol agents that we have to have on duty at any given time. i think the number is 21,364. give or take a few. >> a ratio of some kind? >> no, flat number by congress mandated we have a specific number of agents on board at any -- always. and so, we -- our turnover is between 2.5% to 3% any given year. majority of our turnover would be border patrol agents who are leaving to take other law enforcement positions primarily with i.c.e., if you will. we do a lot of training on behalf of i.c.e. but the selection process is vigorous in terms of there's testing, there is structured interviews. physical examinations for offices before they're hired. and upon hire, all border patrol agents are -- attend our basic training academy. and they have to successfully complete the academy before they are actually considered to be border patrol agents or assigned to the field. once they're assigned to the field, they're putting into a field training program for the next two years and the field training supervisors are assigned to train them for the next two years. and so it takes two years to be considered -- over two years, two and a half years, to be considered fully trained to be a border patrol agent. >> well, how many of your agents are fully trained? >> presently, everyone is fully trained except those who are either in the academy or still in the field training program so that number would be in the low hundreds on any given time because of the attrition rate and then the back fill. that number would be low. it's something we could find, but it's not something that we actively track. and so, the next part of your question dealt with performance or conduct issues. i would say we have probably the same or similar rate of misconduct as you find in the general population, in the general workforce. we have a standard of conduct we apply. we have in -- our office of internal affairs is assigned to, along with the office of the ieg to investigate allegations and misconduct and inappropriate behavior. and in all instances, all allegations are investigated. and if they are proven, then corrective action is taken. >> thank you. >> commissioner kladney? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. landy, what determines detention? >> i think your mic went off. >> thank you. what determines detention? what factors determines detention. >> i mentioned priorities, established department policy. when i.c.e. officers, who are doing the apprehension in the interior of the country, they make initial decisions who to apprehend based on those priorities. most i.c.e. apprehensions through the interior of the country through the program. typically i.c.e. will apprehend people who have either been convicted and serving time in prisons and jails -- >> i think i'm referring mostly to border crossings. >> okay. >> we all know that if somebody has an order to leave and doesn't leave, you arrest them. >> border crossers are typically apprehended, of course, by cbp. usually border patrol. sometimes cbp ports of entry. and cbp puts them into -- or sends them to i.c.e., puts them into, for i.c.e. to take custody of them. by law, that means that detention is mandatory. if they're expedited removal proceedings. if they request asylum, then they are certainly granted the legal protections and are able to adjudicate their claims, including an initial screening by asylum officer with uscis. and typically, there are always exceptions for humanitarian reasons, typically, an adult apprehended at the border is placed in detention under expedited removal proceedings. >> of those amnesty type of claims, the people who are released from detention pending a hearing, how many appear for the hearing? >> i don't -- i don't have those numbers. >> does anybody have those numbers? would you have those numbers? would your office or your agency have those? >> i.c.e. might have the numbers. >> can you secure those and send them to us in the 30 days? >> sure. so you're referring to to people released after apprehension at the border? >> yeah. pending a hearing on your status. >> typically if an adult were released after having been apprehended at the border, it would only be because they've been determined to have a credible fear of persecution. the detention is no longer mandatory. >> i understand all that. i wanted to know the number. >> okay. mr. franklin, mr. jones. zero tolerance sexual assault policy have the same force of law? that priya has? >> in terms of administrative policy, yes. it is a re-stating, if you will, of the priya standard in the commissioner's policy. so reenforcing the priya standard. >> but your private contractors haven't adopted pria willingly? you have to negotiate that into a contract? >> when you say private contractors for cbp. >> for detention. >> we don't do detention, if you will. we only hold individuals for their amount of time necessary to process them and transport them to i.c.e. in extenuating circumstances -- >> does anyone on the panel have an answer to that? >> i could take it. i gather, if you're referring to immigration detention facilities, that's right. the department, i'm sorry, the dhs pria regulations require that pria apply when a detention facility contract is either signed, renewed or substantively modified. that was modeled after d.o.j., prea regulations, although it's more aggressive and the regulations do not have the clause about requiring to be adopted modification. >> so your contractors won't just comply with that until they're required to under contract? >> well, a number of contractors have already been adopting prior to the contract negotiation. but technically standards are not legally binding on those facilities until they're incorporated. >> do you know which ones have not volunteered to take those? >> well -- i mentioned that 95% of our non-doj facility population is covered by 2011 protections. so right off the bat. and the sexual assault safeguards of 2011 are very comprehensive and comparable to what's in dhs prea. >> my question is do you know which contractors are not adopting those voluntarily. >> facilities are not typically, if to the extent they're trying to com buy with dhs prea standards in the absence of a contract modification, it's not something we're aware of. i would say that, you know, that would be more likely to be the case with some of our larger -- >> so you don't know who does and who doesn't? >> i'm personally not citing that as an assertion that particular -- i don't want to give you the impression that i think that's happening in a particular number of cases. i don't know. i can tell you precisely how many facilities have contractually adopted prea. i can tell you precise lew how many facilities have adopted our different detention standards including pbds. with respect to county jails that are used by i.c.e., they are also governed by prea regulations. i don't know how many of those county jails have chosen to comply with that. >> does a detainee who suffered an assault or sexual assault in a facility have a right to sue a private contractor? >> i couldn't speak to what legal rights they would have in that situation. >> does anyone know? >> may i still continue, mr. chairman? >> another question. i've got a couple along this line and i'm going to give it to the commissioner after that. >> thank you. during the influx this summer of all the minors, it's my understanding that the government called cities and counties and asked them to take as many of these children as they could. in the company of minors. are you aware of that? no. >> i don't think i understand the question. we notified cities and counties when we were opening or expanding facilities. >> i was going to ask about when you take, get the children and place them in foster care and things like that. >> the -- >> how does that function? >> the foster care for the unaccompanied children is actually funded by orr. it's not state or county foster care. folks are often confused with that. it's o.r. funded, so they are still in o.r. custody and still in the o.r. care provider network. >> do you run your own program? or is it run through localities? >> they're run through nongovernmental organizations or private organizations, not through the state or county foster care system. >> if i can ask someone. if a mother shows up with three or four children, and, say they have a relative in america and you are detaining the mother and the three or four children, are the -- if the mother wants, can the children be placed with the relative pending her determination on detention? >> i have to defer to the dhs folks. because we don't see the families. >> my understanding is typically that does not happen. the children would stay with the parent or parents with whom they cross the border. >> could it happen? is there any -- >> i'm not aware of it happening. it's possible i'm mistaken. >> i have more questions, but i'll yield. >> we'll come back. mr. landy, along the lines of commissioner and the initial questioning involving contract facilities and specifically for profit companies according to the 2014 appropriations language, president obama ask that dhs not continue to contract with deficient contract facilities. reports that we've seen show that there are abuses as of 2014 at a number of cca facilities, for example, and those facilities are still under contract with dhs. other reports show that dhs is not terminating contracts with deficient facilities. what does it take to get dhs to terminate a contract with an agency that is deficient in these areas of protection of rights? >> i believe the provision you're referring to, it's been in appropriations law for many years is that if a detention facility fails an inspection, an i.c.e. inspection for two consecutive years, i.c.e. may no longer use that facility and i.c.e. scrupulously follows that policy. in fact, we have several layers of oversight in addition to the annual inspections. i.c.e. has withdrawn from detention facilities where it was troubled. whether -- regardless of whether or not it failed one or more sppgss, i.c. -- inspectioning, i.c.e. has withdrawn if it was either individual -- sorry, either a single serious incident that occurred or series of violations or just poor conditions in general. that has happened, certainly. >> are there reports generated of the inspections? >> of the inspections? >> that resulted in determination of whether or not to keep a facility? >> with respect to terminations, i don't know if any publicly available reports of when i.c.e. has withdrawn from facilities. but that's not necessarily because they failed two consecutive inspections. in fact, frank, from my knowledge of those incidences where it has occurred, more often than not, it's not because they have failed consecutive inspections, it's because of concerns that i.c.e. had and they acted proactively. >> if someone like us wanted to see the results of these inspections, where would we get that information? >> well, the -- there's different types of inspections that i said. the inspections conducted by the office of detention oversight, which is in the i.c.e. office of professional of responsibility, publicly available on our website. the annual inspections conducted by ero as far as i know are not all publicly available. some of them have been, and if they are, ver available on our website. and they, more of them can be foyaed. foia is the process you suggest to get those? >> where you suggest, the process we use to get those? >> you know, i don't know whether -- oh, i'm not -- to the extent which are publicly available now, that's my understanding. if the commission made a request for additional inspection reports, you know, it's quite possible that i.c.e. would provide those. i don't know. >> i think we're going to request those. i think they contain a lot of information relevant to this investigation. just a point of clarification. i'm going to give you these documents about the complaints from the community. your office did initially make a response indicating that you're not going to take any further action at the time. so my hope is that you will take a closer look at these and do take some action on the subject that is raised here. is that a yes? the record reflecting she's nodding yes. yes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i'd like to more clearly understand the nature of the treatment of the minors. both when brought into custody, during custody, and after release. and in particular, could you explain how it is assessments are made about what kinds of educational needs and/or special education needs, for example, that these children may have and how those needs are being fulfilled, both while they're in custody and after custody release. and how you know. whether these things are taking place. >> we do our facilities are run by social workers. clinicians, trained staff, we have a number of assessments that the children go through. we can share with you the various forms that we used in conducting the assessments. >> yeah, i think we'd like that. then we do have a number of various issues such as trafficking or disabilities. for children with certain issues like disabilities, or they have been subject to trafficking or sexual abuse or a crime, we do do home studies before we release them and require post release services after their release so that the care for them continues afterwards. so i think to get a -- to get a good picture, we're very shortly, hopefully today, possibly monday, going to be posting a new policy guide that talks about the care and the services of the children receive in the facilities. and then we'll be able to provide all of the forms that go with that. what else can i tell you? what else can i tell you? you want to know about post release services. which is something we're very interested in. obviously the number of kids has gone up greatly. and we're thinking about ways to improve and increase the post release that the children received. >> and so, if a child, for example, were not to be receiving the kind of services that he or she was deemed entitled to which they were entitled. is there the alternate that someone might have to complain about that? what's the procedure that one would pursue if one were not receiving the services to which he or she was entitled? >> yes. we have a number of levels. where we're able to go in and check on what's happening in the facilities. so we have o.r. federal field specialists who go into the facilities regularly. actually o.r.r. federal staff visiting facilities weekly. and we also have contracted care staff that check on the facilities as well as the facility staff and then at headquarters. desk monitoring and also site visits and monitoring to follow up what's happening in facilities. there are a number of levels to the review we're able to do. and if something is found that's incorrect, there'll be corrective actions for the facilities or possibly closing facilities, what's happening is not happening, we're working on a number of different ways for reporting the sexual abuse. we're developing a new 800 number that's easier for the children to access without anyone knowing that they're doing the call. but also, they also have many of the children have individual attorneys. we also have legal service providers that go into the facilities regularly. so there are a lot of people who are providing care and having an eye and look on what's happening with the children in addition to just the facility staff. >> i recognize that there are not these children and as other detainees are not entitled to the assistance of counsel, which is a fact that i bemoaned, but i understand that that is the case. is there any kind of group of trained advocates that, you know, provide a series of core supports for these detainees and post detainee protection for the protection? >> yes. we have -- we have a number of programs in the works right now. so we do have the know your rights presentation to the children. we also have a video that was recently developed that also adds to the information that children receive. and we recently started a grant to provide actual direct service to the children. it isn't retired by statute. but one of our goals is to increase the individual representation for the children. we have -- i think by this summer, we should have a new request for proposals out for service providers to come in and apply to provide legal representation to the children. >> do you -- any of you have any direct impact on the -- on the judicial, the judges who make i'll defer to -- i mean, if our role is the care of the children and we include the legal services as part of that, but we don't have any affect on the immigration judges or hearings. >> the immigration courts are within the department of justice, executive office of immigration. >> is there any training that they receive at your behest, or do you provide them with any kind of overview information about the nature of the phenomena that we're experiencing here? >> i'm actually not sure to what extent there is that communication or provision by i.c.e. of background information for immigration judges beyond what would typically be happening in the course of adjudications where i.c.e. attorneys are regularly interacting with immigration judges. but that's something i'd be happy to inquire about. >> thank you. >> we have 15 minutes left, and this is the order on the next questions. commissioner has one quick question. we'll follow it up with commissioner harriet followed by kladney and the staff director. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this goes -- i hope to ms. mack. i'm not quite sure what your purview is. because the question i'm asking is -- follows up on what commissioner -- and chairman castro were talking about, which was, to what extent do we require as a matter of law and contract that the protections that someone would be affording in a federal facility are afforded at a private facility, as well? and i mean by that not just prea. i mean by that, training, i mean by that, access to records for inspection that are -- that apply to federal, federal agencies. what is it that we require, as a part of our contract right now, to ensure that people who we send to these private for profit institutions are afforded at least the same kinds of rights and protections as they would if they are housed in a federal facility? >> so i don't want to try to skirt the question, kevin will have more information on that, but i will say kind of as a header to what his response might be that there isn't a difference in the type of standards that apply. you know, he already responded to you about us not being aware about the legal obligations of a contractor, for example. but, i.c.e. applies their standards across the board to facilities where they are in place. >> right. so our federal detention standards are easily established. federal government requirements. all of our private contractor facilities adhere to the most recent, most rigorous level of the detention standards. 2011. which i mentioned, and those detention standards are intended to apply robust safeguards across the board. but we do consider that federal policy. we consider that agency policy, which is applied to our private contractor facilities through contractual modifications. and that has occurred in all instances for the private contract. >> so everyone has to abide by prea, everyone has to provide by other humanitarian laws that govern the treatment of prisoners -- not prisoners detainees, if they were in federal versus a private? >> right. well, with respect to the private contractor facilities, all of them are governed by our most recent detention standards. not yet all of them are not yet governed contractually by prea. in that prea is rolled out gradually through, it has to be applied through contract modifications. it's not -- it's not immediately applicable to our private contract facilities, which is the same -- which is the same for department of justice private contractor facilities as well. as i mentioned, prea dhs prea regulations are more rigorous in that respect in terms of requiring quicker application of prea. there's also a commitment that dhs has made in the preamble of the regulations that regulations will be applicable, or that we will endeavor to make preregulations applicable at all of our data facilities, which includes our private contractor facilities within 18 months of the affected date. >> just -- could you please send to us a list of which facilities do or do not currently have pria -- prea as part of their contract? >> yes. >> all right. >> commissioner harriet? >> i guess i'm on the same topic. >> could you turn your mike on? >> thank you. >> there you go. >> i just want to clarify -- >> it won't go on. >> there we go. process of phasing in. these rules with facilities that are under contract. and i'm assuming the basic problem is these facilities are compensated for their responsibilities. if you up the responsibilities, then you have to increase the compensation and that's why the renegotiation has to occur. but i also assume a facility is free to either begin to implement the new prea standards or maybe even do it entirely if they think this is appropriate even before the contract is actually renegotiated such that there may be facilities that are implementing partially or fully the new standards even if they are not yet renegotiated contracts. is that right? >> that's correct. and, in fact, we have been told our larger private contractor companies in terms of those that operate more of our facilities that they had been undergoing and have been undergoing to implement prea requirements in advance of the contractual modifications. but it's not legally contractually binding until it's incorporated in the contract. you're right, we might have to address requests for additional compensation under the contracts, if prea requires the facility to incur additional costs. >> what drives the speed to which the contracts are renegotiated? are you waiting for some period of time when they are up for renegotiation or is it just a question of, you know, you're doing this as quickly as you can? >> well, it's required by law if the contracts are renegotiated or modified. and then beyond that, we will also, although, not require under the regulations, we do intend to proactively seek implementation of prea at additional facilities. >> you're working on it, in other words? >> yes. >> chigser -- commissioner kladney followed by vice chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. landy. how are you? i want to get back to the lgbt question. >> uh-huh. >> when we were talking -- you were talking about segregated housing, los angeles facility i think that was for trans sexuals. is that correct? >> yes. well, for gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. >> okay. you know i've been in -- i've visited many prisons. i've not been in many. i've been in them. how is your segregated housing set up for lgbt people? >> well, we don't consider that segregated housing. there's, there's some -- what is referred to in most facilities as a segregation management unit, which is what is often referred to as solitary confinement, in which individuals are kept in individual cells. this housing unit i'm referring to is not that. it has the same features of any other general population housing unit within the housing unit opportunities to co-mingle both indoors and outdoor recreation among that group. it's just that they are separate from the rest of the population. in order to ensure their own protection.in order to ensure their own protection. and, again, with respect to people transferred into that housing unit, it is voluntary. >> and it's not like a 23-hour a day indoor, one hour a day outdoor facility, it's more like a prison as opposed to a county jail? >> it's the same requirements that apply to this general population, sorry, to this housing unit as any other general population housing unit. they're not confined to their cells. so they are moving freely about in the day room. i haven't been there. in terms of their outside recreation, i don't know how many hours they have literally in outside recreation. >> and do you do this for all lgbt people? >> not at all. not at all. in that field office that is the, within the los angeles field office -- >> i guess what i'm trying to get at is how do you treat lgbt, not just transsexuals, but there must be, if you're talking about transsexuals, you're talking about, you even said, i think a small number. but when we're talking about lgbt, we may be talking about a larger number. is that correct? >> probably. we don't, we don't ask people their sexual orientation or gender identity unless they wish to come forward and indicate that they indicate it for some reason. >> is there a reason for that? that you don't ask? >> up until now, it's felt that it should be up to the individual to volunteer it. if they have a particular need, and that might be a medical need or it might be concern about one's own protection. >> do you think maybe, and i don't know. i'm just asking that they may want to conceal that for any particular purpose from the authorities. and not ask for assistance protection in housing, that type of thing. >> yes, and up until now if that's the case, i.c.e. would respect their wishes. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i just have one, one more question of ms. mack. you mentioned solitary confinement. and in your statement, do you recall that? >> i believe i said segregated housing. >> segregated housing and you put in paren solitary confinement. and then you said that was for people, and i really didn't understand that paragraph. who goes to that housing and then you said there's regular checks on those people and they could be up in that kind of housing for more than 30 days? >> so, i can find it, and again, you're fortunate mr. landy is the expert in this area. >> gee whiz. >> thank you. >> but i can look and see if i can find what i said. >> you said -- i actually have it here. >> sorry. >> it says the department has taken many important steps to acknowledge the special vulnerabilities of individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions who are in civil and immigration detention and the obligation to provide appropriate reasonable combinations to detainees with disabilities to assure they can participate fully in the programs and services offered across the department, including in detention. so, for example, 2013 i.c.e. issued a directive on segregated housing often called solitary confinement that ensures regular review of long-term placements in special housing unit that has substantial, additional requirements for initial and regular review of detainees in special housing who have a serious or medical mental health condition or disability. >> yes, so that's something that, indeed, mr. landy worked long and hard on for some time and spoke to, as well, but that's the directive that requires certain procedures and review be in place for people who are in housing for 14 days or longer or in these particular categories, anyone with a serious medical or mental health concern. and so -- >> well, my question -- what i'm trying to get at is, again, mr. landy, are they these people placed in solitary by themselves all day? or are they allowed to walk around and mix in the yard and things like that? i mean, that wasn't very clear to me in this statement. >> this is a hallmark of -- most adult detention or correctional facilities. and typically in segregated housing, individuals are kept in-house in their own cells and opportunities for co-mingling is limited. and in some cases, probably in most cases in i.c.e. custody, someone in segregated housing does not have the opportunity to co-mingle. certainly they have the opportunity to communicate with each other, but they're not physically in the same place. segregated housing is typically for one of two reasons. as a form of discipline, for people who have committed serious disciplinary infractions after there's been an adjudication by the facility. and that person's been found guilty of that infraction. or for the safety and security of either other detainees, staff, or the individual himself or herself. >> well, commissioner, i'm sorry i'm going to cut you off. madame vice chair and we're going to close with a question from the staff director. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. mr. landy you are indeed, a popular fellow here today. it's clear from all that's been said that our government relies very heavily on private prisons. and those, of course, are for profit concerns. but we rely heavily on them. when our government contracts with one of these private prison companies, how is it that the government determines what is a sufficient per diem rate in order to ensure that the detention conditions that the facility satisfies the standard, the current enforceable standard? >> well, that is part of the contract negotiation process. i.c.e. has an office of acquisitions which works with the i.c.e. component and removal operations. it requests jail cost statements and other information regarding whatever the facility or contractor is claiming is cost to be. those are reviewed by the office of acquisitions and other offices. also including the office of chief financial officer. there's often negotiations regarding the reasonableness of the rate. and then a determination on a file rate. >> after that process is completed, is there any monitoring to ensure that the proportion of the moneys of the rate is being allocated toward services for the detainee and the overall condition of the facility? >> well, there are actually a number, several layers of oversight. which specifically with respect to the contract, the mechanism provides there's a contract office representative on site responsible for ensuring all aspects are complied with. not just detention standards, but the contract has a number of other provisions. in terms of compliance with the detention standards themselves, i mentioned that there are several different types of inspection programs i.c.e. has. the annual contract inspections against standards, as well as on-site detention monitors, which are placed at a large number of our facilities and those are full-time. those are full-time on-site monitor. so this is rigorous over site, both for compliance, but they are required to be checking the contractors performance against the requirement itself. >> thank you, vice chair. we'll close the questioning of this panel with our staff director. >> -- unaccompanied minors and the special immigrant juvenile status capabilities i know that eoir is responsible for reviewing the application and also approving it to allow the child to remain in foster care in the united states, but it is the dependency court judge that has to ensure that the appropriate language is included that will allow for the application to be submitted. for a review and approval. are you aware of how many unaccompanied minors have been found eligible for an application? and if so, how could we get that information? >> i don't know that immediately, but i think that will be pretty easy for us to find out. and we may have to work with our partners at doj and dhs. are you looking specifically for the state approvals? or are you looking at the actual fij application approvals? >> i would like both. just to see how many are actually being submitted and comparison to number of kids that are currently being taken care of through the foster care system and ultimately to see the approval rate. overall. >> i'm not sure about the state court approvals, how to gather that information. >> so with -- correct, because that can be kind of secretive. but sometimes if it is available anywhere, i would like to see that, to see how many folks. one of the concerns is, is the training being provided to the dependency court judges on a regular basis to ensure they understand what factors should be considered? and what type of protections could be provided. >> i know there's a lot underway on that. i know that, i think cis was doing a training for judges and hhs also -- we just started to put out regional orr representatives. not specifically on the unaccompanied children, but all of the kids that we work with. so we have regional representatives out and they're starting to reach out to the state court judges. >> thank you very much. >> thank you to panel one. we appreciate it. and you're free to stay and listen to the rest of the hearing today. we're going to transition now from panel one to panel two. so we ask our staff to come and change the name plates and ask members of panel two to begin to work your way up. we'll remain on the record, but we'll start again in a couple of minutes. and we're live on capitol hill this morning as the senate commerce committee holds a hearing on progress made in establishing the nation's first wireless public safety network called firstnet. expected witnesses this morning include deputy commerce secretary bruce andrews and firstnet chair susan swenson. on monday firstnet board members approved a public notice for comments on allowing states and territories to opt out of the national network. under the law, each of the 50 states and six territories will have the choice of adopting the public safety plan proposed by firstnet, or to opt out and create its own radio access network that meets firstnet standards. this is live coverage on c-span3. should get under way in just a moment. order. we convene this morning to conduct oversight of the first responder network authority, also known as firstnet. in 2012 congress established firstnet with a mandate to deploy an interoperable nationwide broadband net woerks for america's first responders. three years later our committee is revisiting this issue for the first time since we passed the spectrum act. today's hearing will examine the progress and challenges firstnet is encountering as it moves forward with the important mission of building a 21st century communications platform for our country's emergency personnel. the title of this hearing asks whether we are any closer today to having this 21st century public safety network. of course, in the literal sense we are. the spectrum act was enacted firstnet has been stood up, consultations with the states have begun and firstnet is on the verge of releasing its highly anticipated draft request for proposals. but in other ways we are still a very long way away from having an interoperable public safety network. there are a great many things that can go terribly wrong unless good decisions are made right now. for example, firstnet's forthcoming rfp will give us a sense of whether a network with be built to meet the needs and expectations of a diverse audience of emergency responders in a cost effective way that secures firstnet for future generations. firstnet must work diligently to make itself a self-funding entity because frankly, we are not in a budget environment that can easily tolerate spending more than $7 billion taxpayer dollars it has already been committed to the network. we're also confronted with many pressing and unanswered questions due to the complexity of establishing a new communications systems. stake holders including many in south dakota have questions about what firstnet will mean for them. there are legitimate concerns about how much network access will cost local police and fire departments who are already dealing with constrained budgets. and, if the network is competitive from a cost perspective many wonder whether it will be appreciably better than what first responders currently use. i know firstnet is aware of these issues and i encourage the organization to be sensitive to the unique challenges of local communities. last year i asked gao to examine firstnet and its progress in building network. in just a few minutes we'll hear from mr. goldstein about gao's findings and the concerns they raise. miss swenson i hope and ask firstnet will take this constructive criticism seriously and improve its approach to building the network. specifically i urge firstnet to more fully assess the risks it may face. i also ask firstnet to implement a detailed data analysis plan that builds upon the valuable lessons learned from the early builder projects. i share gao's view that without such a plan firstnet might not take full advantage of the sizable federal investment that's already been made in these early building projects. the commerce department's inspector general also recently released a report on firstnet that raised several issues concerning firstnet's ethics and procurement practices. i look forward to hearing what lessons firstnet has learned from this report and whether the ig's findings have been fully addressed. department of commerce also finds itself at a crucial stage of this process. the department should ask itself whether it's being the best partner it can be to firstnet and facilitating development of a public safety network that makes us all more secure. firstnet's unique position as an independent authority within the department comes with some risk. so much so that one commentator recently asked whether firstnet is on the path to becoming the next healthcare.gov. the obamacare website best known for its disastrous rollout thanks to the mismanagement, not only of the challenge of setting up this network i should say only the challenge of setting up this network is arguably many times greater. i strongly encourage the department to do everything it can to learn from the many mistakes of healthcare.gov. firstnet itself also has questions it will need to answer for this endeavor to be successful. for instance, to what degree will emergency responders wish to join a network affiliated with the federal government? what is the value to wireless carriers of secondary network access when public safety has priority access? who exactly will be permitted to used public safety network? as this committee proceeds with oversight of firstnet i will focus on whether a high quality and useful network can be offered to first responders in rural america. firstnet will be a failure if it leaves large pockets of rural america uncovered or served by second rate solutions. we have experienced and knowledgeable panel with us today and i expect their testimony will provide the committee with important insight into the issues that i've raised. and i want to yield now to my distinguished ranking member on this committee the senator from florida, senator nelson, for his opening remarks. >> mr. chairman i know the committee members would like to hear my dulcet tones, but i would prefer to hear the witnesses, and so i will enter my remarks for the record. >> very good. we'll get under way, and i want to start by introducing our distinguished panel today. first we have with us mr. bruce andrews. he serves as deputy secretary at the department of commerce. he'll be followed by mr. keith bryant. mr. bryant serves as the fire chief for the oklahoma city fire department and as the president and chairman of the board of the international association of fire chiefs. mr. mark goldstein mr. goldstein serves as the director of physical infrastructure issues at the government accountability office, referenced earlier. miss susan swenson, miss swenson serves as the chairmanwoman of the first responder network authority, also known as firstnet and finally mr. todd zinser. mr. zinser serves as inspector general to the department of commerce. so we will start on my left and your right with mr. andrews and proceed, and if you can, keep your comments confined as closely to five minutes as possible. and then we'll proceed with questions. mr. andrews. welcome. >> good morning, chairman thune ranking member nelson, and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me here today to testify. i feel a special affinity for firstnet because i actually worked on the staff of this committee when senator rockefeller and senator hutchison originally conceived of firstnet. and as we all know this mission arose as a result in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. when the work of our brave first responders was seriously impaired by the problems with communications. we at the department are proud of our active role in haeping to stand up and support this important program. this is a difficult mission but we are confident that firstnet is making strong progress towards meeting its goals. a nationwide first responder network, a key recommendation of the 9/11 commission, will enhance public safety communications across agencies, and jurisdictions. congress established firstnet as an independent authority within the department's national telecommunications and information administration, ntia, to develop and maintain this network. firstnet is a unique federal entity and one of the most significant initiatives in the department's portfolio. it is the start-up with the challenges of standing up a self-sustaining, world-class network within the applicable rules and regulations of a federal government. suffice it to say, that has its challenges. the department actively supports and oversees firstnet. senior leadership from the department, ntia and firstnet meet on a regular basis to discuss the status of firstnet's project, milestones, and potential risks. now that firstnet is maturing it depends less on our staff and its day-to-day activities. however, we continue to offer support and guidance to firstnet and its strategic development. secretary pritzker and i are personally engaged on firstnet and she has leveraged her experience in creating and running companies to help firstnet. for example, we led a collaborative process through which firstnet developed a strategic road map and cost model. validated by outside, independent experts. the department provides certain legal procurement human resources, and administrative support to firstnet where it does not otherwise have its own resources or direct authority. in doing so we seek to streamline and expedite federal processes. ntia works with firstnet on statutory compliance internal controls, financial management systems, and annual independent audit. ntia also administers the state and local implementation grant program which supports consultations with state regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions. in december, the department's inspector general issued an audit report regarding the management of certain firstnet disclosure reports, and the monitoring of certain firstnet contracts. the department appreciates the inspector general's efforts and takes these matters seriously. we concurred with the inspector general's recommendations, and have taken a number of steps to address them. it is important to emphasize that the report focused on firstnet's early operations, and to highlight the department's full efforts on these matters. as congress recognized firstnet's needs private and public board members with deep technical expertise and experience in wireless broadband communications. however, to get such private sector board members it was likely that they would retain interests in affiliations with the industry, thus creating a need to consider carefully potential conflicts of interest. the department anticipated and addressed this issue through a robust ethics program that worked closely with firstnet board members to counsel them regarding their employment and financial interests. even before they entered government service. although some administrative requirements may not have been fulfilled, board members made the necessary, material disclosures. notably, the inspector general's report did not identify any violations of conflict of interest laws or circumstances that affected firstnet decision making. it is also important to note that the early firstnet contracts resulted in valuable work product that has been critical to the rapid establishment of this organization, and to your point senator, earlier, about getting this stood up as quickly as we can. to be clear, administrative errors were made and the department takes those mistakes seriously. for example, we are implementing increased review of financial disclosure reports increasing the level of review of potential conflicts of interest arising from acquisitions, and working to ensure that employees receive appropriate ethics training. firstnet has grown significantly, it is now in a stronger position to exercise its own governance and oversight to provide clear direction and structure for the organization. i also think it is important that we emphasize our appreciation to the private sector board members. these private citizens are making significant sacrifices for important goal in trying to do it the right way. firstnet has made strong progress. it is achieving its milestones according to the strategic road map related to state consultations, draft requests for network proposals, and public notice and comment. in addition firstnet is now fully funded due to the proceeds from the fcc's recent auction. this coming year will be critical as firstnet transitions to a new phase focused on developing and deploying its network. to be clear we understand the mission will not be fulfilled quickly. we want firstnet to set ambitious, but realistic time frames and deadlines. and we understand that some internal deadlines have not, and will not, be met. none of that undermines the hard work being performed by this terrific team in place at firstnet. creating a multibillion dollar public safety wireless network is a major undertaking. we take our responsibility for this project very seriously and we will continue to help enschuur that firstnet succeeds in its important mission. thank you again for the opportunity to discuss firstnet's progress and challenges. and as you can see, firstnet is making strong progress towards its goals. i appreciate the committee's time and welcome your questions. >> thank you, mr. andrews. chief bryant. >> good morning, chairman thune, ranking member nelson, and members of the committee. the international association of fire chiefs represents more than 11,000 leaders of the nation's fire, rescue and emergency fed cal services. i would like to thank the committee for this community to provide a public safety perspective on the need for a nationwide public safety broadband network and to examine the progress made by the first responder network authority or firstnet. firstnet's goal of building the nationwide public safety broadband network to meet the needs of first responders is a matter of critical importance for public safety. while the task will not be easy the iafc believes that firstnet is developing the leadership staff, and support from states public safety, and other key stake holders required to make this network a reality. as a fire chief and as a firefighter who has responded to numerous large scale events including natural disasters and a major act of terrorism i know firsthand the benefits that the first net network stands to offer in terms of improving communications coordination, and situational awareness during emergency response operations. just as smartphones have changed our personal lives, firstnet devices and applications ultimately will change the way local fire and emergency medical service departments, operate. in terms of daily operations, america's firefighters deal with an increasingly complex environment that requires every increasing amounts of information and data to keep citizens and themselves safe. the firstnet network will make it possible to gain quick access to new tools and applications that provide location data and other vital information for firefighters. it will enable the exchange of realtime data and audio/video fears on the fire ground to assist incident commanders with operational decision making and maximize search and rescue, and fire suppression effectiveness. the firstnet network will make profound change in how emergency medical services practice. in the field of ems it is important to arrive at a patient's location and transport him or her to emergency care at the hospital within minutes. the firstnet network will facilitate critical decision making in realtime in the field which in turn will help save lives. lessons learned from many events throughout the nation tell us that under emergency conditions the nation's cellular carrier networks quickly become overwhelmed and unusable for the transmission of emergency data. we experienced this firsthand in oklahoma city 20 years ago when the alfred p. murrah federal building was bombed. the full deployment of firstnet's nationwide public safety broadband network will ensure that america's first responders can access vital information under all emergency conditions. candidly, i think there was skepticism from some in public safety at firstnet was formed that our concerns were not being heard initially and that the network would not end up being a mission critical network. public safety organizations have consistently said that the network must be mission critical at the outset. under the leadership of new wearwoman sue swenson firstnet has sought greater input from the public safety advisory committee and engaged with public safety far more than previously. the public safety advisory committee is a 40 member committee established in statute to provide significant recommendations and advice to firstnet on mission critical issues. public safety advisory committee meets several times a year, and including once this past year near my hometown in norman, oklahoma. we believe public safety's ongoing input through the public safety advisory committee is vital at all stages of the network's development so that it will be tailored to meet the needs of the end users america's first responders, and other public safety entities. the ifc and public safety in general also are very pleased with the naming of chief jeffrey johnson, former president and chairman of the board of the ifc, as vice chair of firstnet. chief johnson is a well recognized service community as a leader on public safety communications issues. we believe firstnet has worked to create opportunities for the public safety community to help shape the design of the network in several states and territories. for instance firstnet board members including chairwoman swenson and executive level staff have traveled throughout the country over the past year reaching out and connecting with local and state public safety officials. this outreach has dramatically improved over the past year and we look forward to it continuing as the network is deployed. firstnet's state consultation process is a key element to its success and is a venue where ifc members and other public safety personnel are able to ensure that the firstnet is meeting our needs. firstnet has made tremendous strides with state consultations in the past year, conducting more than 100 engagements, involving 20000 stake holders, in fiscal year 2014. many of our members have attended and reported favorably on the firstnet's team engagement, and their respective states and territories. i understand that firstnet intends to hold consultations with the remaining states and territories by the end of this year. while there are still gaps in understanding and agreement during this in-person meetings on what the final network will look like, how much it will cost, for public safety to use and the networks' exact coverage areas these are exactly the types of questions that should be and are being asked and debated at state consultations throughout the country. public safety must be included in these conversations and we appreciate firstnet's engagement with public safety community over the past year. we realize there's still a lot of work to be done and firstnet must continue to move quickly on several key activities in 2015. collectively, these and other developments from the past year have helped foster a more inclusive, transparent and productive dialogue between firstnet and the public safety community. the firstnet network is urgently needed to increase the safety and capabilities of all public safety personnel, and protect the american people. however, it is not only firstnet which bears the responsibility of success. it also falls on all public safety officials to ensure success in the creation and administration of the broadband network. i feel confident that the -- that first net is on the right path toward building a broadband network that will serve the nation's firefighters emergency medical service providers, and other emergency responders. a truly appreciate the opportunity to be before you today, and offer this testimony. thank you, sir. >> thank you, chief. mr. goldstein. >> good morning, chairman thune ranking member nelson and members of the committee. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work on firstnet. person that is tasked with establishing a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network specifically for public safety. we are currently finalizing a report on firstnet's efforts. as such of the findings that i'm reporting this morning are preliminary in nature. the 2012 act established numerous responsibilities for firstnet provided $7 billion from spectrum auction proceeds for the network's construction, and required firstnet to be self-funding beyond this initial allocation. as part of that effort firstnet is working with five early builder projects that are permissioned to build local and regional interoperable public safety broadband networks. my statement addresses one firstnet's progress carrying out its responsibilities in establishing internal controls. two, how much the network is estimated to cost and how firstnet plans to become self-funding. and three, what lessons can be learned from our early builder projects. our preliminary findings are as follows. first, gao found that firstnet has made progress carrying out the responsibilities established in the act but lack certain elements of effective internal controls. firstnet has made progress establishing an organizational structure, planning the nationwide public safety broadband network and consulting with stake holders. nevertheless, stakeholders goochlt contacted cited upcoming issues such as deciding the level of network coverage which will be difficult for firstnet to address as it continues to carry out its responsibilities. with respect to internal controls firstnet has begun establishing policies and practices consistent with federal standards but has not fully assessed risks or established standards of conduct. given that firstnet faces a multiple of risks to achieve its objectives fully assessing risks would help firstnet respond to risks in a pro-active way. developing standards of contact but help firstnet address conduct and performance issues in a timely matter. second, gao found that a nationwide public safety broadband network is estimated to cost billions of dollarses and firstnet faces difficult decisions. determining how to fund the network's construction and ongoing operations. various entities have estimated the cost to construct and operate such a network from $12 billion to $47 billion over the first ten years. the actual cost of firstnet's network will be influenced by firstnet's business model, especially the extent of commercial partnerships. the use of existing infrastructure, efforts to ensure network reliability, and network coverage. for example the cost of a network will likely increase if firstnet does not utilize commercial partnerships and at least some existing infrastructure. the 2012 act provides firstnet's $7 billion to establish the network, to become self-funding firstnet is authorized to generate revenue through user fees and commercial partnerships the latter of which can involve secondary use of the network for nonpublic safety services. however gao's work suggests firstnet faces difficult decisions in determining how to utilize the revenue sources. for instance widespread network coverage can attract more users but is expensive to construct and maintain especially in rural areas as the chairman has noted. finally we found that firstnet has taken steps to collect and very ool out information from the five early builder projects developing local and regional public safety networks but could do more to ensure that it properly evaluates and incorporates these he willsons for example firstnet has asked the projects to report on experience of network's users and has assigned contractors to collect and log lessons. however preliminary results indicate that firstnet does not have a plan that clearly articulates how it will evaluate those experiences and lessons. gao has previously found that a well developed evaluation plan for projects like these can help ensure that agencies obtain the information necessary to make effective program and policy decisions. given that the early builder projects are doing on a local and regional level what firstnet must eventually do nationally and evaluation plan can play key role in firstnet's strategic planning and program management providing feedback on both program design and execution and ensuring firstnet has not missed opportunities to incorporate lessons. chairman thune ranking member nelson members of the committee this concludes my remarks i'll be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you mr. goldstein. miss swenson. >> chairman thune, ranking member nelson and members of the committee thank you for inviting me here to testify on behalf of the first responder network authority. i really welcome the community to brief you on the progress and the development of the interoperable broadband safety broadband network. it's also a pleasure to appear today with my fellow panel members and i'd also like to welcome several members of the public safety community who are with us here today to hear about their network. so i appreciate everybody coming with us today. as you know we experience growing pains in the early days of our existence. with only board members in the firstnet organization until mid 2013, and an executive team not in place until the latter part of that same calendar year we were dependent on the support from other agencies in particular ntia. we worked very hard to completely shore up the areas of weakness, and to take on as much responsibility as we can, and i am very confident that today you would find our processes and procedures in line with expectations. with an executive team in place towards the end of 2013, we developed and publicly communicated our strategic road map in march of 2014. and have been on pace with our major milestones ever since. specifically we've initiated the formal consultation meetings. we've issued an rfi and the first public notice and comment in september of 2014. on monday of this week we released our second public notice and comment, and finally the board is on track to address the draft rfp later this month. from a consultation and stakeholder perspective we've held outreach meetings and presentations in over 275 engagements since the beginning of fy-2014 connecting firstnet with more than 45,000 stakeholders. we've held or scheduled 43 initial consultation meetings. we've conducted 15 state consultations, and we've scheduled meetings with an additional 28 states. we've also held a variety of forums beyond the state consultation meetings with single points of contacts in your states including weekly e-mails, monthly phone calls, quarterly webinars and upcoming on april 14th and 15th, we will host an in-person meeting where we're going to have all 56 state and single point of contacts attending. if they can make it. i am, frankly, very proud of the organization and what it has accomplished. and also where they are in terms of their readiness for what lies ahead. it is an extremely committed and dedicated team working on a project that is unprecedented, complicated, and one that faces headwinds each and every day. what no one really sees is the toll that this takes on the organization and the people in it who are working so hard. and i have to tell you i worry about that a lot. at firstnet we are taking on this historic and monumental task to deploy a nationwide network. knock of this size and scope has been attempted before and we are constrained by a number of factors that are frankly out of our control. coming from the private sector i have found the federal rules and processes extremely challenging at times. this undoubtedly slows our ability to move as expeditiously as we and others would like. i know there are some in the stakeholder community who would have liked to see more progress at this point. i would, too. but the fact remains we are a federal entity subject to federal rules and regulations. to be sure we are making great strides towards our mission. still, i hope you understand why we may not be moving as quickly as everyone expects. we have discussed with secretary pritzker areas where processes and cycle times need to be improved and she has committed the necessary resources within the department of commerce to make those improvements. we are very appreciative of her support, as it could make a very big difference to our effectiveness. the first two areas we're exploring are the hiring process, and procurement. to the degree that firstnet can assume responsibility for functions like hiring and procurement, much like we have for finance, i believe that having people dedicated to these functions, whose first priority is firstnet would enable us to move things along quickly and efficiently, while still adhering to the federal rules and regulations under which we operate. i also want to mention that we are working hard to build a culture at firstnet that is appropriate to serve our public safety community. our first responders are on duty 24/7. so we need to be there to support them. this means working with a lacer is focused commitment to serve and to have a sense of urgency doing whatever is required to support our public safety community. in summary, we have accomplished a tremendous amount and are building a reputation of doing what we say we are going to do. we have much more to complete but i believe that we are on the right path with a dedicated team working hard on the mission. thank you for allowing me to be here today to talk about firstnet. i welcome your questions. >> thank you miss swenson. mr. zinser. >> chairman thune ranking member nelson, members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today as the committee examines firstnet's progress and challenges in establishing the national public safety broadband network called for under the middle-class tax relief and job creation act of 2012. unlike the nationwide telecommunication networks currently aviolable which have been built by the private sector the act authorizes firstnet to use a substantial amount of public money, $7 billion, to build a public safety network. making internal controls, in compliance with those internal controls all the more important. there is no question that it is critically important for our first responders nationwide to have state-of-the-art communications and data capabilities at all times. getting there will be very challenging, oversight of firstnet is also very challenging. at an april 23 2013 firstnet board meeting a former board member presented a resolution raising various concerns about board operations and decision making, including issues related to ethics and procurement. in september 2013, a special review committee established by the board issued a report that addressed issues of openness and transparency board members access to information and network planning. the report did not substantiate the concerns of the former board member. in october 2013 the previous board chairman with concurrence of the board, asked my office to take over the inquiry into ethics and procurement. we issued our report in december of 2014. firstnet did not wait for our report to begin making important changes. for example, among other things, firstnet hired a chief counsel established a compliance program within the office of chief counsel, and coordinated with our office in developing a training program for its board members and staff. nonetheless, the results of our audit disclose serious problems. in the area of ethics we found confidential and public financial disclosure monitoring procedures were inadequate. some board members did not file timely disclosure reports. and monitoring of potential conflicts of interest needed improvement. for example we found that one now former board member did not file a required public financial disclosure report, and when eventually doing so did not disclose a significant interest or position in a conflicting company. another now former board member submitted a required public financial disclosure report five months late. we consider the issue of financial disclosure reporting an especially important internal control because the firstnet mission and membership of the board necessarily include close ties to the telecommunications industry creating a greater risk of potential conflicts. in the area of procurement we found that firstnet's contracting practices lacked transparent award competition, sufficient hiring and adequate monitoring of contracts. for example, we found that the justification for a noncompetitive, $8.4 million sole source contract was not adequate, and that a former board member had inappropriately directed the contractor, in advance of the contract award, to hire specific individuals. this created the appearance that the contractor was required to hire these individuals in order to be awarded the contract. unduly, close personal relationships with contractor personnel can create the appearance of favor itism and may call into question the integrity of the procurement process. we made nine recommendations to address our findings. some recommendations have already been implemented and we continue to work with the department of firstnet on implementation of the remaining recommendations. in our opinion our findings were taken very seriously and progress has been made since these issues were first raised nearly two years ago. however, significant challenges remain. moving forward, the areas that we have identified as watch items which are well-known to firstnet include the following. ensuring the adequacy of funding for a nationwide network. determining the sufficiency of assets contributed to the network by states, local governments, and commercial entities. incorporating lessons learned from the broadband technology opportunities program. continuing to address identified internal control weaknesses and effectively executing the consultation process. we are continuing our oversight of firstnet and will keep the committee informed of firstnet's progress with respect to these challenges, and any others we identify through our audits and investigations. finally, i do wish to inform the committee that the act did not specifically authorize firstnet funding to be dedicated to oig oversight. as a result for the past two years we have beening with the department on funding our oversight, the fy-2016 budget requests and appropriation for oig's oversight work, however the committee may want to consider whether it is more appropriate to authorize funding for oig's oversight from firstnet's mandatory funds. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. zinser. and thanks to the panel for your great comments, and we look forward to asking a few questions. we'll try and confine it to members of the committee to five minute rounds. and i'll start off by asking you, miss swenson, the statute authorizing firstnet specifically states that rural america can't be left behind in deploying firstnet. my question is how do you plan to ensure that more states are adequately covered? >> thank you for the question. as i think you know in discussions with your office and with many of the other members we take the rural coverage very, very seriously. in fact it's as high a priority as urban. in fact, i think it's important for people to understand that it's the urban coverage that differentiates this firstnet network from a commercial network. because commercial as you know doesn't cover rural. we talk a little bit about state consultation, and the importance of state consultation. it's in those meetings where we actually review the program with the state, as you know we work in advance with the single point of contact of your particular state. and plan those meetings, go over our plans, and then give an opportunity for folks from the state to actually tell us where their priorities are. it's really important. we don't know that. so that's why we have to go in to those consultation meetings get the information, which then we are going to feed in to the rfp process, as part of the response mechanism for the -- for the vendors who are going to be responding to this about how they're going to do that coverage, and at what cost. so it's a critical component of the firstnet program. and again, i think it's really important tounder stand this is what differentiates firstnet from a commercial network. >> speaking of the rfp you know, firstnet was established in 2012 but, you know the stakeholders have been pushing for a long time for an interoperable public safety network that's been going on i think for about a decade. but, i think everybody's concerned that if that rfp doesn't move forward reasonably soon that the vendor community and the public safety community could lose confidence in this endeavor. and that could be a tipping point. >> sure. >> with regard to the future success and viability of firstnet. so, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that you were going to try the rfp by the end of the month? >> the draft rfp. let me clarify that. it's really important, if i could, senator i'd like to just talk about the fact that as i said, we're on track with everything we said we were going to do in our strategic road map. as i said we issued the public notice and comment on monday and by the end of this month the board is going to consider the draft rfp for issuance. the reason it's important to put a draft rfp out in the community is the very thing you said. vendors want to know what we're intending, and it provides the opportunity for the vendors to give us feedback about how that draft rfp is actually issued. so that when we issue the final rfp towards the latter part of the calendar year, we won't experience unintended consequences, because of -- because we didn't take that into consideration. so we are on track to issue that. and like i said, we're on track with all the mile stones that we communicated over a year ago. >> and you think end of the calendar year, final rfp? >> that's what i believe today. >> are there factors that could delay that? >> you know i don't -- i'm not aware of any that could delay that. i mean internally we believe that that's the case, and depending on the comments we get back from the vendor community, and others about that draft rfp, it may extend it a little bit, but i think it will be well worth the time so that we when actually issue the rfp it's done right and it's done effectively so that we get the kind of answers. as you indicated the rfp is the pivotal part of this program. the draft rfp is not only about deploying the network but it's about monetizing the excess capacity in the spectrum. i mean it's a very complicated process so this has to be done right. and i think it's pivotal for the program. >> thank you. mr. goldstein i understand that firstnet hasn't determined yet how the early builder projects in these jurisdictions that are moving ahead with firstnet ready l.t. networks will be incorporated into the firstnet network and that various factors could affect that determination. so i'd be interested if you could please elaborate on those factors, and perhaps even you know wond that, recommend what steps that firstnet could and should take to address those. >> thank you, mr. chairman. regarding the early builder project lessons that they need to learn about and they have been collecting some information, they include governance financing the network, conducting outreach and planning for deployment. all four of those areas the early builder projects have been doing their work and trying to develop options for as they proceed on their own. firstnet has looked at some of those projects but they've not done so in a way that we think is sufficiently effective. they haven't done a full-blown evaluation. they haven't integrated information into a data assessment plan that would allow them to use that information down the road, as these various projects hit certain milestones. and then use that information to make changes themselves, in firstnet's own development as time goes forward. so, we think that they can do a better job in that area, and maybe that it's trying to do everything at once has been difficult for them. i think we recognize that. but that's one area where they are going to achieve success it's absolutely critical for them to obtain as much information from existing projects on the ground as they can. >> and very quickly mr. zinser you identified firstnet as an area of concern for the department in the upcoming year and then you mentioned in december '14 your office released a report raising various concerns. what are your biggest concerns about it going forward? >> thank you chairman. i think that the concerns going forward pretty much mirror some of the issues that you raised in your statement. but there are many unknowns about the network and how they're going to proceed. but i think what we focused on so far is building the organization itself with its personnel, and its policies as procedures, its adherence to internal controls is the thing that we focused on the most. >> are you satisfied that first net has sufficiently listened to, and implemented some of the recommendations of the findings that you came out with in your report? >> yes, sir. we issued nine recommendations. one to the secretary, one to the general counsel of the department, two to the chairman of firstnet, and five to the senior procurement official in the department. and they are all being implemented. >> okay, thank you. senator nelson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's remember the reason for firstnet. to have all the first responders to be able to talk to each other without the hindrances that we've seen in the past where one side can't be talking to the other side, when there is a matter of national security, or national emergency. or local emergency. in front of us. and i want to thank you all for what you're doing. we knew that this mission was not going to be easy. we've certainly seen in disasters in the past one set of radios can't talk to the others. but the stakes of inaction are way too high. and so we ask you all, with creating right from scratch the inner operable nationwide network devoted to public safety. and so you are a unique hybrid. we've asked the board to think like an entrepreneur with a limited budget, to launch a start-up enterprise, within the confines of the federal government. that's pretty huge. and so the fact that the board wasn't even set up until august of 2012 and then you had no employees, you had to go out and do all of that, and so launching this with the urgency that the legislation gave it three years ago, you certainly have chronicled the problems along the way. now i want to go down a different tact with my question. miss swenson, cybersecurity. it's an essential component of firstnet. mission critical network. it's got to be obviously a target for the bad guys. so it's got to be hardened against these threats. so, we required and the legislation that you consider cybersecurity, what steps are you taking in the planning for the nationwide network to prevent against the attacks and then mr. andrews, i'm going to ask you is the department reviewing firstnet's work on cybersecurity protections, and what are you going to do about it in the future? miss swenson? >> thank you senator. as you know we've discussed that in previous conversations. cyber is a very challenging area. not only for firstnet but for the nation. and for a lot of large companies around the u.s. but i'm happy to tell you that we're collaborating very closely with the department of homeland security on this topic. we're adding resources to the organization so that that is built in to our planning, our technical planning, and of course would be a major part of a request for proposal. so it's a high priority and i think we're leveraging the resources appropriately within the federal government. always open for suggestions but, it is a high priority for firstnet. >> are you going to have enough money? >> to harden against cyber? >> well it's probably too early to answer that question specifically because we're just now looking at the planning process. if we >> we believe that business model that we have is sufficient to build out this network. and have incorporated these assumptions into our financial model. so at this point, i don't see any difficulty with that. but like everything we do with firstnet, everything is new. you know there are things that we thought at the beginning two years ago that we've actually changed as a result of what we've learned. and i emergency that we'll continue to learn as we go along the way. but again it's very high priority and we will keep you posted on how we're doing that. because i know it's a very important topic to you. >> mr. andrews i think it's essential to harden against cybersecurity. because, other than your everyday natural disaster but when it's not a natural disaster whoever is attacking us is going to be attacking us with cyber simultaneously, what are you going to do? >> so, senator, cybersecurity is a high priority for the department and we recognize it's a very serious issue that needs to be addressed as part of the firstnet build-out. so not only are we working with the firstnet team and making sure they have all the support they need, but our cio is involved, our team is involved, and we're working hand in hand with firstnet to make sure they have the resources not just from the department, but as sue mentioned from across the federal government. having the best expertise that's available, including our nist team. i think many of you are familiar with the nist cybersecurity framework. we have a number of networks at nist involved with working with the firstnet team as well. >> well, i've met with nist and you're going to need to work with them. you're going to need to work with some of our intelligence agencies. because, the technology is so rapidly changing in these areas of the kind of sophisticated attacks that can occur and if we're talking about a terrorist attack you all are going to have to be able to communicate on your network. and of course that's going to be one of the first thing that the bad guys are going to try to deny. is our ability to communicate and command. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator ayotte? >> i want to thank the chairman and ranking member and all of you. appreciate obviously, why we need this. we've all had incidences in your state a number of years ago we had an incident in new hampshire that promptedable early discussion in our state about this where we had a horrible, horrible madman who basically murdered a judge, murdered troopers that were trying to subdue him murdered local newspaper person and the radios didn't talk to each other. and that created -- that was to the advantage of the perpetrator, and allowing to use that situation to cause more deaths. so this is a real issue, and as i think about our state, i know that the consultation in new hampshire, i guess, is going to be june 9th, i've been told. and you have said, miss swenson, that you're going to get the feedback from the states, and particularly as i think about chairman thune's question two-thirds of my state would technically be really rural areas, where we have challenges on how do we build the network that people can talk to each other. and in other and in that process where you take new hampshire's feedback and every other state's feedback and put together the rfp for the end of the year, will the state's have a feedback loop? in other words, you sit down with them june 9th. they tell you what they think and you're put ingting together an rfp. is there another opportunity to see the rfp or to see what you're working on to make sure your views are reflected on it? >> thank you for the question because i want to emphasize that consultation is a broad and ongoing process. it's not a one-time event. we talk a lot about the state consultations and it's important that people understand what we're trying to accomplish there, but our relationship with the states is ongoing. as i u indicated, we have conference calls. we are available by staff. we have e-mails. we have face to face meetings. r for the state, that will not be a surprise. when you get that plan on that day, you have been so involved there would be no surprises. that's the mind set that we have around the process. it's very important that we all work together. as you know we have been somewhat limited on staff but we're adding people to make sure we have the right number of people available to you and your team so we can be. ive in the information you're providing you. >> one of the things we're hearing from feedback from people on the ground in new hampshire is they are saying what's the benefit of first net. in other words the local agencies that have frankly been working on this issue for years so this isn't a new issue and they are saying why should we opt into first net versus using a private distributor. part of this plan, i assume, is how do we maximize commercial opportunities given the resources we have. we know what to expect from the that would be a pretty real one. i'm curious what you would say to that. i tried to get local feedback, what are you hearing, what's your initial impression. >> i don't think what feedback which is why we're trying to be out is with as many of the constituents as we possibly can. it's not uncommon i go to my local grocery store and talk to law enforcement and ask if they know about first net. it's a lot of people out there. there's hundreds of thousands of people we need to get that message out to. we're working hard to get the information out. i'm going to tell you from a benefit standpoint what we try u to communicate because it's not unusual people don't understand why we should do this versus that, one of the things is the rural coverage. the rural coverage is really a critical differentiateor. this is not a network that's used by all of us. what happens when you have an incident. what is the first thing of all of you do? you get on your cell phone? >> without rural coverage you could do this easily commercially. it's the rural areas we need the help the most. >> i think it's more than that. commercial is focused on commercial. that is their focus and they have shareholders and earnings releases and things they have to worry about. we don't. the money that we get from this we're going to reinvest in the network. so it's dedicated, it also has priority and preemption. so the funding we're going to get from this, we have $7 billion from the last auction, we have spectrum that's very valuable. it's really, really good spectrum. so getting the revenue from that will enable us toalong with users fees to be able to operate this network. i think what's really important for first responders and for anybody interested in this is we're talking about a recapitalized business model. if you look at the systems today, the lmr systems that are in existence today are old. they are 10, 15 years old. it's very difficult for agencies to get the funding to upgrade that. the model that we have is talking about upgrading that as technology presents itself. for example, if we start to deploy this network and move from 4g to 5g we will be deploying 5g. we're going to give the technology that we enjoy as consumers as that technology evolves. we're also going to be working on the standards around had this, but recognizing the network for particular circumstances in your state all the member states, we want to understand what those circumstances are and are working to define hardening standards so that we can try to harden the network to withstand those incidents that from a weather perspective that would affect the network. so we also are going to have applications. i think the development community is going to get excited about the applications that can be made from public safety. this is an organization dedicated to public safety. it's not secondary, it's primary. and commercial networks i was one, i know, i know where the priority is. it's about getting revenue, responding to shareholders every quarter. first net is different. there's not a mandate that they have to. so think of what that says to us in terms of developing this network. we have to create a compelling value proposition that gives them more value. so that's why we are spending so much time with public safety is to understand their needs so what we deliver to public safety is what they are going to want to use. so we're very conscious of that issue and we're working very hard to get information out. we're working with the associations to try to get more information out to the people who are on the street. because it's very, very difficult. in fact, we were at the fop meeting in san diego last saturday. and law enforcement was not that familiar with first net. but our staff i presented at the fop meeting to educate 150 people at that session. so we're working very hard to get the message out. if there's more we can do, we're open to suggestions. >> absolutely thank you, we want to make sure all of our first responders are informed. appreciate it thank you. >> thank you, senator ayotte. senator booker? >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for the work you're doing. you have been tasked with doing something that's unprecedented in american history that is extraordinarily needed. all of us probably, that are serving in the united states senate know the urgency for this. i spent eight years almost as a mayor with crises and crises and crises and i saw, as the chief could attest from his experiences, that communications, whether it's men going into a burning building with no visibility, how important just a radio is to be able to communicate externally. hurricane sandy we saw in the most painful ways sometimes how critical communication was. i even had a situation where we had an earthquake in new jersey, something people don't think we have and after surviving in california, i didn't think it was too serious until all my communications, my police department, all my officials went down and fortunately we had a plan to meet but that made me realize the challenges. so this is really what you're doing is a life or death initiative. you are making strides and should be celebrated. my state is ecstatic about the contributions you're making to new jersey and i'd like to submit to the record an article about atlantic city, without objection, about atlantic city about the public safety work you're doing there and how we belief in new jersey that the mobile platforms that you're creating that can be rolled out in a crisis to key areas really is something for this country that could be a benefit and model for the nation, whether it's rural areas or urban areas or suburban areas. so i just celebrate you. i also celebrate you in the sense that you're working through bureaucracies that are not used to dealing with this very unique public/private partnership that you have. so i really expectrespect the professionals on the panel who have done the work of oversight. but i want to afford you a couple opportunities to respond a little bit to some of the challenges that you put forward. the first is your constructive criticism of having to deal with a lot of challenges on procurement and others that are undermining your progress. it's important that this committee who likes to remove barriers to get good things done. this is one of the more righteous things. let a major crisis happen to this kouncountry if you get this done you'll make a difference that could be thousands of lives could be saved. could you talk for a moment about those obstacles and how we can remove them for you. >> sure, i think the way i'd like to characterize it is we're working with deputy secretary bruce andrews and his staff on improving the processes within the department with first net. set aside the federal regulations for a moment. there's just a lot of people touching a lot of things today and we need to streamline that. we're really committed to working on that improvement. i also think it's important that we take -- we have the ability to control our destiny. and we have the ability to have people who are

Related Keywords

New Hampshire , United States , Florida , California , San Diego , Guatemala , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , Nicaragua , Mexico , New Jersey , Atlantic City , South Dakota , Los Angeles , Spain , Venezuela , Americans , America , Spanish , Mexican , American , Todd Zinser , John Morton , Bruce Andrews , Alfred P Murrah , Keith Bryant , Swenson Firstnet , Susan Swenson , Janet Napolitano , Jeffrey Johnson ,