June 3, 2026 · Armed Services, Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee · 9,257 words · 10 speakers · 69 segments
The Armed Services Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee to order. Clerk, please call the roll.
Chairman Johnson. Yes, here.
Vice Chairman Wilson. Present.
Breaking member Weinstein. Senator Craig checked in.
Senator Patton. Here.
Senator Schaefer. Here.
Okay, we do have a quorum. We do have minutes on our iPads. Seeing no objections, they're going to stand approved. And we're proceeding as a full committee. We're going to start with a prayer and a pledge. Please join me in prayer. Dear God, please be with us today as we consider issues that are important to the citizens of Ohio and to our great nation, the United States of America. Please be with us. Let us draw on your wisdom and grant us discernment to make good decisions here in this body. In the name of Jesus Christ, I pray. Amen. Senator Patton, would you lead us in the pledge?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, we'll begin with a second hearing proponent on SB 416, that's our own Senator Patton, regarding Board of Education members deployed on active duty. Today we have some testimony that's written only. Kevin Kusumal, Parma City Council, Ward 6, a proponent, and Rachel Reedy, County Commissioner's Association of Ohio, a proponent. Is there anyone that wishes to testify in person today? Seeing none that will conclude the second hearing Senate Bill 416. We'll move on to second hearing proponent on House Bill 464 Representative Richardson to exempt military certified child care providers for licensure. Again we have some written testimony. David Coordineer, Dayton Development Coalition, as a proponent. Is there anyone that wishes to testify in person today? Seeing no one, that will conclude the second hearing of House Bill 464. And that will bring up second hearing proponent on sub-House Bill 217, Representatives Cochley and Ritter, to enact the finding and identifying with NamUs data the FIND Act. We have proponent testimony today from Amy Chapman. Is Amy here? Hello. You may come on up and begin. Welcome to our committee.
Thank you.
Very welcome.
Chair, vice chair, ranking member, and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 217, Andy Chapman's Act. My name is Amy Chapman. I am Andy's sister. I'm here today as a family member of my brother who disappeared from Columbus, Ohio, 20 years ago this year. Andy was more than a missing person's case number. He was a son, a brother, an uncle, a father, and now a grandfather. He is someone deeply loved by our family. Twenty years later, we still do not know what happened to him or where he is. What we do know is that the pain of not knowing never goes away. People often think that after enough time passes, families find closure. The truth is there no closure when a loved one is missing Every holiday birthday family gathering and milestone is a reminder that someone is absent We are left wondering what happened whether he is still out there and whether there is information somewhere that could finally provide our family answers. Over the last 20 years, our family has worked tirelessly to keep Andy's story alive. We've shared flyers, maintained social media pages. We have a March for the Missing that's coming up this Saturday, spoken with law enforcement, and asked the public to not forget him. Families of missing persons become advocates because we have no choice. If we stop talking about our loved one, we fear they will be forgotten. My advocacy has also extended beyond my own family's search. I had the privilege of serving on the governor's missing persons working group, where I worked alongside law enforcement professionals, policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders to identify ways to improve Ohio's response to missing persons cases. Through that experience, I saw firsthand the significant amount of time, collaboration, and bipartisan effort that went into examining Ohio's missing persons system and developing meaningful solutions. I also saw the importance of consistent data collection, information sharing, and the use of every available tool to help locate missing individuals and provide answers to families. I'm especially encouraged that Andy Chapman's act incorporates recommendations and considerations that emerged from Governor DeWine's working group's efforts. This legislation reflects the thoughtful work of people from different backgrounds and perspectives who came together with a shared goal, improving outcomes for missing persons and their families. One of the most important lessons I learned, both as a family member of a missing person and through my work on the missing persons working group, is that information matters. Missing person cases often span years, jurisdictions, and agencies. A clue in one state could connect to information in another. An unidentified person or unidentified remains somewhere in the country could be someone's missing loved one. That is why databases like National Missing and Unidentified Person, or NAMUS, are so critical. Andy Chapman's act would ensure that missing person information is entered into NamUs, creating another opportunity for connections to be made and answers to be found. It helps ensure that families do not have to wonder whether every available tool is being used in the search for their loved one. This bill is not complicated, but its impact could be profound. It creates consistency, improves information sharing, and strengthens the ability of law enforcement agencies to collaborate across jurisdictions. Most importantly, it gives families hope. Our family continues to search for Andy and believes answers are still possible. While this legislation bears Andy's name, it is not only about him. It is about every missing person in the state of Ohio and every family living with the same uncertainty and heartache. No family should have to spend decades wondering if critical information was never entered into a system designed to help find missing people and identify the unidentified. This bill ensures that every missing person has the greatest possible chance of being found, and every family has the greatest possible chance of receiving answers. I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 217, Andy Chapman's Act.
Thank you for your time consideration and for helping Ohio missing persons families and their families Thank you You very welcome Any questions comments I just like to say thank you for coming in and for having the courage to stand here and tell such a heart-wrenching story.
Thank you.
And one that goes on and on for you. Very difficult for anyone to understand what you're going through. So God bless you.
Thank you so much.
You're very welcome. Thanks for coming in today.
Thank you.
You're welcome. So next we have, oh, my goodness, my friend from Adams County. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Yeah, we'll get that. So next we have my friend from Adams County, Aaron Haslam,
Governor Mike DeWine's working group on missing persons. Good afternoon. Chairman, vice chair, ranking member, and members of the committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 217, known as the Andy Chapman's Act. My name is Aaron Haslam. I'm honored to serve as a member of Governor Mike DeWine's Missing Persons Working Group and previously served as the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association's representative on that working group. I'm also a former county prosecutor who has worked closely with law enforcement and families that have been affected by missing person cases. I'm here today because House Bill 217 reflects many of the recommendations and concerns identified by that working group. Throughout our discussions, one theme consistently emerged. Time matters. The earlier investigators can identify risk factors, preserve information, and access investigative tools the greater the likelihood of successfully locating a missing person or solving a case. House Bill 217 helps accomplish that goal in several ways. First, it establishes a process for identifying high-risk missing children and adults. Those are often the cases where law enforcement needs immediate access to information and investigative resources. The bill appropriately involves county prosecutors in that process, helping to ensure that high-risk cases receive not only prompt attention, but the necessary legal support. Second, the bill improves the preservation of missing persons records. These cases can remain open for years, as we just heard. Investigators, they retire, agencies change systems, and information can become difficult to locate. This legislation helps to ensure that important records remain available for future investigators. Third, the bill promotes the consistent use of the national missing and unidentified person system. You previously just heard about that. Also more commonly known as NAMIS. NAMIS is a federally funded resource that helps investigators connect missing person cases with unidentified remains and identify leads across multiple jurisdictions. It's one of the most valuable tools available for resolving long-term cases. Finally, and probably most importantly, this bill recognizes that every missing person matters. Behind every report is a family searching for answers, as we just heard. The recommendation of the governor's missing persons working group were developed with those families in mind. And House Bill 217 represents a meaningful step forward in Ohio efforts to support those families As a member of both that governor working group and a former county prosecutor I seen these cases from multiple perspectives When a case goes unresolved families do not remember jurisdictional boundaries. They don't remember databases. They don't remember agency responsibilities. They simply want answers. House Bill 217 gives investigators additional tools to find those answers and help ensure that no person that is missing in Ohio is forgotten. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of House Bill 217 and I'm more than happy to entertain any questions you may have and thank you for your time. Thank you so much
and good to see you here today. Always a pleasure. Any questions?
Sir? Thank you Chairman. Thank you for your testimony and your work in the passed as a prosecutor, I know that's never an easy job. And not so much a question, but just to kind of underscore what you've been able to share with the committee prior to committee starting, I had gone ahead and read some of the written testimony, and one in particular from Pete Elliott, who's a U.S. Marshal from Northern Ohio, who I've worked with for the 24 years that I've been down here, and it's remarkable the work that they do, but they specifically went on, and this is what I would just glean out one quick paragraph. NamUs is one of the most frequently used national databases for missing person cases, including missing children and fugitive cold cases. NamUs provides a unified and secure database for missing, unidentified, and unclaimed person records. Their database allows for searching, cross-matching, and sharing of case records and information about missing and unidentified person. This is the line. It is also free and accessible to the public, which allows any individual, especially family members of a missing person, to access the database and consistently cross-check any and all information within the system. And along with your testimony, I think that just underscores the importance of this database.
Very, Mr. Chairman, Senator Patton, you're absolutely correct. No cost to us to use this system. And one of the things we're looking at, and we heard it from Ms. Chapman, consistency, uniformity, making sure this data is entered so all law enforcement agencies and the public have access to it. Who knows what might lead to, if nothing else, closure. A lot of times we're just looking for closure, but if not, maybe there's a person out there that can be found and saved.
Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, thank you so much, Aaron, for coming in today.
Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you, committee.
We also have written only from Peter Elliott, a self-proponent, Maria York, Ohio Domestic Violence Network proponent, Judy Rafferty, for Judy's self, a proponent, Carolyn Kinkoff, self, and that's also a proponent. Anyone else wish to testify on this bill today? Seeing no one, that will conclude the second hearing, a substitute House Bill 217. Thank you, ma'am. Next we'll bring up third hearing proponent, opponent, and IP on House Bill 533. That's Representative Miller to revise the list of vehicles that can commit vehicular homicide. Is there anyone here today that wants to testify on this bill? Seeing no one, that will conclude the third hearing on House Bill 533. Moving on to the fourth hearing proponent, opponent, IP on sub-House Bill 251, Representative Willis regarding drone use by law enforcement aviation facilities. Vice Chairman Wilson with a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to adopt Substitute Bill 0243-6.
Thank you, Vice Chairman. That substitute bill is in order and you may proceed. The substitute extends the bill's effective date from 24 months to 48 months. Very good. Any objections to that being adopted? Seeing none, the sub-bill is adopted. We do have a number of people to testify today as opponents. Do we have Joshua Pickens, Bellevue Police Department? Welcome. Very welcome. So you may proceed when you're ready.
Chairman Johnson, Vice Chair Wilson, and members of the Armed Service Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testimony in opposition of unmanned aircraft systems UAS provisions contained in substitute House Bill 251. My name is Sergeant Joshua Pickens. I serve with the Bellevue Police Department as the lead of our drone unit and as Vice President of the Law Enforcement Drone Association Ohio Chapter, which supports and trains law enforcement drone teams throughout Ohio. I appreciate the committee's efforts to address concerns raised by public safety agencies through their recent amendments to House Bill 251, the delayed implementation period and revisions to the proportions of the legislation demonstrate a willingness to consider the operational realities faced by first responders. However, concerns still remain. When I testified before this committee last week, I emphasized the importance of allowing AHA public safety drone agencies to continue operating the drones they have already purchased with taxpayer dollars until those systems reach the end of their service life. Doing so would allow agencies time to secure funding and plan for a transition to NDAA-compliant platforms. With now the 48-month time frame, with no funding, it's tough to complete that full transition. Several members of the committee stated that the goal of House Bill 251 is not to hinder public safety agencies or jeopardize existing drone programs. However, as currently written, this is precisely what the bill will do. Agencies across Ohio have invested substantial resources in building drone programs, forcing agencies to replace operational equipment on an accelerated timeline without financial assistance will significantly impact their ability to provide these services. While the bill has been described as creating a phased transition, the current language raises additional concerns. Under the revised proposal, agencies may continue purchasing affected UAS platforms during the transition period, yet the deadline to cease purchasing those systems appear to coincide with the deadline to stop operating them. In practice, an agency could legally purchase equipment shortly before the deadline, only to be prohibited from using that equipment almost immediately thereafter. This creates a cliff effect rather than a true phase transition and introduces unnecessary uncertainty into procurement, budgeting, training, and operational planning. The bill still relies on federal approval and waiver framework that currently appears to lack practical implementation pathway. There is no clearly established process, staffing structure, review framework, timeline, or operational mechanism for the state and local agencies to obtain the approvals contemplated by the legislation. As written the process may exist in theory but not in practice leaving agencies without realistic means of compliance Additionally recent independent cybersecurity testing highlights the importance of basing policy decisions on demonstrable technical risk An independent security assessment conducted by OnDefend, a U.S.-based cybersecurity firm with national security expertise, examined multiple DJI drone systems through extensive hardware, software, firmware, radio frequency, and supply chain testing. According to the assessment, no critical, high-risk, or medium-risk findings were identified. The testing reportedly found no evidence of unauthorized data transmission outside the United States. No hidden back doors, no unauthorized remote access mechanisms, and no evidence of supply chain tampering. While no technology should be exempt from ongoing scrutiny, these findings reinforce the need for evidence-based policymaking. Security concerns should be addressed through documented risks, practical mitigation measures, and realistic transition plans, rather than policies that can unintentionally diminish Ohio's emergency response capabilities. Public safety agencies remain committed to working collaboratively with lawmakers to develop a responsible transition strategy that protects both national security interests and public safety operations. We respectfully encourage the committee to further revise House Bill 251 to align with existing federal guidance, provide realistic operational timelines, establish workable implementation procedures, and include financial assistance for effective agencies, and preserve critical emergency response capabilities during any transition period. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to oppose House Bill 251 in its current form and continue working with the Ohio Public Safety UAS community to develop practical solutions that protect both security interests and the public safety. Thank you, and I'll welcome to any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions? I may have misheard you. Did you say that the way it's written, people could buy one of these drones right against that four-year deadline and then have to retire it?
To the chair. So my understanding, and I haven't got to see the new amendment that was just proposed. So my understanding with the way that was is it was still that the 48 months was delayed. So that was you could still procure the drones during that 48 months, but then once it got to that 48 months, the end, that was you can't purchase or no longer fly any current equipment. So it wasn't an end of life. It appeared, from what I just heard, it was just a 48 months. You could go up to that point, but then you have to stop using at that point, unless I've misheard.
Well, what I would certainly hope is that no law enforcement agency would be buying a Chinese drone after these discussions. So the 48 months is to retire what you already have, basically.
Right. And that's the goal, too, as well, to have that time to then be able to get the funds to then buy the NDA compliant drones.
The still 48 months is we still need, whether it's funding or the end of life for the equipment that we already have. I mean, it's been spent by taxpayer dollars that we've used to try to get these drones to go through the end of life. What I hate to see is when it comes to the 48 months, it life equipment okay If we have to ground equipment and some of the smaller agencies that cannot afford the NDA compliant drones that the issue we running into It not that we don want to transition to NDA compliant drones it to be able to have the funds to be able to do that And when there's no funding in the bill to help agencies do that, I hate to see a smaller agency, especially like when I'm from, that we have to ground our fleet. And so then we have to try to find, if we have an emergency situation, an agency that does have an NDA-compliant drone, and then what's the time period for them to drive to where we're at to be able to launch that equipment where it could be too late. Where sometimes it's not just minutes, it's seconds matter. And with the drones that we have currently in the cruisers with us being able to put them up in the air and to try to save someone's life, that's what it comes down to. I just don't – I feel like the way it is written, it puts Ohioans' lives at risk by taking the drones out of law enforcement's hands. Duly noted. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions coming? Senator Patton.
Thank you. And thank you, sir, again, for being back. Yes. The benefit of being on a committee like this is that your colleagues that aren't on the committee, but they have interest in, because they're hearing from constituents and they're hearing from other folks. I was led to believe in a conversation I had in the hallway with someone that represents the Sheriff's Association, said that the four years made them go from opponent to, I don't know if he said proponent, but they wouldn't have a problem with the four years. I hear what you're saying about finances, and this has become such a valuable tool. And four years is a long time. I always tell people, I said, how would you like to hang from a cliff for four minutes? So four years. And I'm hoping that with the advance of American technology, we're giving them four years to catch up. The reason we call the Ohio Revised Code, we use that word revised all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have jobs. We revised some codes today, gentlemen, didn't we? So we had a busy day on the floor of the Senate today. So I'm looking at it from a perspective that, number one, funding. We might have to try to find some way, maybe going through the Attorney General, if we give them safety funds for schools, and maybe that's the department we need, or a privacy department of public safety, to try to come up with some financial assistance to replace those drones. Because I understand, you know, at first of all, you said a small town, but then you said a fleet of drones. So that kind of shook me. I'm thinking that most police departments maybe have a drone, maybe two.
But can I ask, how many drones does the Bellevue Police Department have? To the chair? Yes, sir. So currently we have four. And like we had said, we have two exterior, because we have two pilots on our team right now. So it's me and another officer. So both of us have an exterior and an interior unit for us to be able to fly. And we've always went under, if you have one drone, you have none. If you have two, you have one. Because if something goes wrong, you don't want to just have nothing there. It's a lot of the matter. And especially with the funding, like I advised last week with Scott Malakar, Lake County, they have 20. and so theirs is $785,000 to just get that initial cost and it's not just the initial cost of replacing these drones it a lot of the NDAA compliant drones come with software continuing software costs and that is something that we not used to In the past it been with some of the manufacturers not all of them that you buy the equipment, the software that's on it, that's yours. Once you purchase it, it's yours to use. A lot of the NDAA-compliant is you're paying yearly subscription fees as well. So for him, he said in three to five years, that drone cost is close to $1.5 million, I believe. So it's a significant cost. And with their capital purchases, I mean, the prices of even the foreign major owns, they're high. So those are capital purchases. So where we're at is this year is done. And I understand the four years is a long time, but these purchases are done, and they're already starting budgets for the following year. So to be honest, we're at least two years out before we can even start planning to have those funds to get the NDA compliant drones. And sometimes then that two-year period isn't enough for some of the prices that we got because the city operates on high budgets with everything. And that's kind of where we're at with it.
Follow-up, Chair? Sure. Thank you, sir. How many police cars does the Bellevue Police Department have?
Oh, we just got a new one. So I believe we're up to 14 or 15 crews. And I was going to say, you know, between police and fire, equipment must be always maintained and that's why I'm trying to think of when I was stopped by this representative of the Sheriff's Association to say that this four-year thing helped change their mind a little bit. Some of my colleagues that again are not on this committee are hearing from people. They're going back to the balloons, the Chinese balloons that flew over the United States a few years back. They flew from the West Coast, all the way to the East Coast before somebody in the administration decided to shoot them down. And so there was the perception then that there was a reason why those balloons were flying over from another country, flying over our nation, especially over our military grounds and potential silos for missiles. So I just wanted your department, not your department, your organization, I want to make sure that I told you last time I have a retired Cleveland police nephew that's a drone officer in Westlake, Ohio and he supports the technology that he has now versus what he might not have going forward so this is left or right, you're hearing both things and so it's people that are just concerned because the average person, number one, remind Chinese subversive American subversive. That's strike one to a lot of people. And the second issue is the fact that just here in Ohio, I've heard the chairman mention, it's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. It's critical, and it's something that could be easily approached by a drone. And so I just want again, the four years the reason I mentioned revised code, in four years we could take this four years and make it two more years. If such time as the American technology hasn't caught up or we have not found a way to fund, you know, to make sure that it's not a big hit to the local departments that are trying to plan out. But in the meantime, you know, going to back you as a devil's advocate, if we do nothing but ignore the fact that no American drones are being bought and we're going to continue to allow the Chinese drones to be bought, You know, like you said, up until including this fourth day, I would imagine being around this place long enough that if we're two months out from this, four years, you know, going into effect, you know, and we still aren't capable of coming up with affordable ways for the people to replace, you know, obviously, how often do you, I mentioned police cars, how often do you use your cars? Right. I mean, but how often do you replace the cars? Oh, to the chair. Yeah. So mileage, it's went down because now we're at least, each officer has issued their own. Before when we did line cars, I mean, it's three years max maybe if you're not over. So with the cars it is, it's much higher.
And once again, and I understand the concerns with the Air Force Base that were brought up before and everything like that.
A lot of the, and I'm not saying it's not, but the bill is designed to limit law enforcement. It has nothing to do with everyday Americans still having DJI drones or foreign-made drones and flying anywhere. And when we had talked about before, it's law enforcement and fire. We have high standards for our data and where it's secured and where it's not getting out and everything like that. With the general public, which this doesn't affect, are they anywhere near taking that as serious as what their data is showing or with that? So I say the Air Force bases and the silos and everything like that, how much is also available on Google Earth as well? I mean, we have these drones are flying smartphones, ultimately. I mean, and a lot of things are now that can be seen, whether it's over an airplane. You're flying. I just went out to Utah a few weeks ago. You're looking down and you can see on a clear day how much can you see just from an airplane with that. And I just don't want to see the life-saving equipment taken out. And ultimately, and I understand that's where we're at with it, is trying to get the funding there to be able to purchase what we need so we can keep our capabilities so it's not waiting for someone to get there when we need that drone right then and there.
Final question. Thank you, Chairman. Final question was just going to be, you mentioned data.
Is any of the data that you guys acquire available through public record? Public record request? Yeah. So like anything, our flight records or video, anything that's procured during that for a public records request, it would be available. As long as it's not a current investigation going on, but once it's completed at that point, then yes. It's kind of disconcerting that Joe Bagadon can go up and say, I just want to see everything you've done on the west side of Bellevue. And you're showing him all the stuff that you've seen. And it could be a realtor looking for opportunities. It could be a developer looking for opportunities. He's going to use the resources of the work that your men do, your men and women do, in the effort to provide help with his business. So I don't know if we can't somehow legislate to kind of make sure we kind of protect your data more than we currently are now. And to the chair and to the senator, you know, just like body cam, I mean, wherever we're walking in, it's available data. And a lot of times, and I'll be honest, a lot of the flight records or where the camera or the video is, it's not a hindrance to us because if we get the complaint of someone saying, the police were flying the drone over my house, they're looking in my window, they're looking at my wife or daughter or someone in the backyard, we can show where the gimbal of that camera is where we flying We not looking at your This is where we facing So and honestly with the body cams that we thought as well
you thought at one point, is this going to hurt officers?
And to be honest, body cams and the camera, the technology has helped us to prove to the shows that this is actually what we're doing so you can see it on that end. So to the center, I understand the safety of the data and all that, and sometimes it helps us more than it hurts us with that.
Thank you for your answers.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good deal. Any other questions? Thank you so much, and again, thanks for what you do. We really do appreciate that.
Thank you, Chair.
Next we'll bring up Ryan Gilmore, City of Willard, LITA, Ohio Chapter. Welcome.
Thanks for being with us so late in the day. No problem.
If you were waiting for us, we really apologize.
Oh, no problem, Chair.
We never know how long Session is going to go.
No worries. I'm glad to be here, glad to have the opportunity to supply opposition to testimony on House Bill 251. Chairman Johnson, Vice Chair Wilson, Ranking Member Weinstein, members of the Senate Armed Services and Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee, thank you again for allowing me to come in here and provide opposition. Again, I'll be very brief in my testimony. I have supplied the written testimony. Hopefully you've read that. I've also supplied some supplement evidence regarding that data security concerns with On Demand. With that, again, these are very important tools to law enforcement. I'm a 30-year veteran of the city, a police detective and sergeant there at the city of Willard. Retired, and I still fly missions for police and fire and public safety operations. So with that, I do work with Sergeant Pickens and the Ohio Law Enforcement Drone Association, and we train and develop and work on ways that are responsible to operate these drones. With considerations to data security, you guys have already addressed some of the concerns there. We are an open book, if you will. Our records are open and public. That's what government is, and we fully support that. So I don't think there's information there that foreign entities or adversaries would get through our government agency. Again, those are going to be more concerns that unknown consumer drones or unknown consumers may be providing to those foreign adversaries. Again, regarding the study, we have not had any other information, intel, or studies that have been provided us to or from the federal government or any other government entity that shows there's any data concerns from DJI drones or any other forward and adversary drones. I understand the concerns and the involvement of where these are made and understand those concerns. However, there's been no evidence to show that that has been a concern for the drone use that we're operating in. And the major hurdle here is I appreciate you listening to our testimony. I appreciate working with us on this bill and giving us the extension of 48 months. That's greatly appreciative. However, some of us have just purchased new equipment for our operations, and those operations are not cheap. And to put a shelving life as Senator Patten referred to as our fleet I would hope you would not ground a fleet of police cars or any other tool or equipment that we would use just because of an arbitrary date. We would like to get full service out of that. I'm not sure in four years, if we're allowed to use it for four years, what five years would mean or six years would mean
or to the end of the life of that equipment. The federal guidance is where I would recommend this. The FCC is still allowing these current makes and models of drones to be operated here legally. So this bill here would go above and beyond what the federal government would be recommending. And then also procurement. So we understand that we need to move forward with American drones and NDA-compliant drones. We're all for that. just the only thing we would ask out of consideration is please allow us to use the tools and equipment that we're using on a daily basis to go out and look for missing persons and a bunch of other life-saving efforts, whether it be mapping or doing crime scenes or any other of the tools that we didn't have available to us. When I started 30 years ago in law enforcement, we couldn't even imagine using these types of tools. It's progressed us greatly. We'd almost be derelict if we sent somebody into a building and not send a drone in first. With that, I'll conclude my testimony. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
You're very welcome, and thanks for your service. 30 years of doing what you do is an amazing thing, so I really appreciate that. Questions? Comments? Thank you, sir. Thank you, Jared. Next we have Les Bowen, Elite Drone Services. Sir? Welcome, and you may proceed.
Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Vice Chair Wilson, Ranking Member Weinstein, members of the Senate Armed Services, Veteran Affairs, Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding Substitute House Bill 251. My name is Les Bowen. I am the owner of Elite Drone Services, an FAA-107 certified commercial drone services company operating in Ohio. Our company works closely with law enforcement agencies, fire departments, emergency management agencies, and other public safety partners throughout the state. While I appreciate many aspects of the House Bill 251 and support the responsible use of unmanned aircraft, I respectfully oppose the provisions being considered that would prohibit the purchase and operation of certain foreign manufactured drones, specifically produced by DJI and Altel. by public entities after a 24-month transition period, which now I understand you're extending it to 48 months. As someone who works closely with public safety agencies, I believe this proposal would create significant financial and operational burdens for local governments without a demonstrated benefit that justifies the cost. Across the Ohio law enforcement agencies, fire departments, emergency management agencies, utility providers, search and rescue organizations, county health departments, county commissioners' offices, and many other public entities have invested substantial taxpayer dollars into drone programs built around these platforms. The list of public agencies utilizing foreign manufacturers' drones continues to grow because these systems have become valuable tools for carrying out essential government functions, requiring agencies to replace entire fleets, supporting equipment, batteries, software ecosystems, and training programs would impose considerable costs on these on local budgets at a time when many departments are already facing resource challenges It is also important to recognize that cybersecurity concerns are not limited to the country of origin of the aircraft itself. Any hardware, regardless of the manufacturer, can be vulnerable if the software, applications, networks, or data management systems associated with it are not properly secured. For that reason, policy discussions should place greater emphasis on software security standards, data protection practices, operational safeguards, rather than focusing solely on the hardware platform. A risk-based approach centered on cybersecurity controls would be better addressed potential vulnerabilities while allowing public agencies to continue using effective, cost-efficient tools. We can all agree that drones have become essential tools for public safety. They help locate missing persons, document crash scenes, assist during disasters, support firefighter operations, and improve situational awareness while reducing risk to first responders. Restricting access to equipment that agencies currently rely upon could reduce operational effectiveness, delay emergency response capabilities, and require significant new expenditures without a clear public safety benefit. Any transition away from existing systems should be carefully evaluated to ensure continuity of operations, responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources, and consistency in government procurement policy. Furthermore, recent independent third-party security audits have not identified evidence of unauthorized data transmission or national security threats associated with these platforms when properly configured and operated. While cybersecurity concerns should be always taken seriously, policy decisions should be guided by verified evidence and measurable risk assessments. Adopting restrictions based on concerns not supported by substantiated findings could place tens of millions of dollars in existing public safety investments at risk, and force costly replacements without clear evidence of a corresponding security benefit. It is also important to distinguish the nature of public safety drone operations from broader concerns often raised in this debate. In missions such as search and rescue operations, structure, fire response, real-time situational awareness for emergency management, the data collected is operational in nature and directly tied to life-saving and incident response. These types of missions do not involve sensitive national security targets or classified information, but instead focus on protecting human life, property, and first responders in active emergency environments. I can say with confidence that access to current drone resources has already made a life-saving difference in rural-world incidents across Ohio. For example, in Mercer County, an elderly man who was missing and exposed in a cornfield for two nights and was successfully located with the assistance of available aerial resources. Based on the conditions and timeline of that search, there is a strong likelihood that without these capabilities, the outcome could have been fatal. Similar situations have occurred in communities across the state. These are not isolated examples. First responders and volunteer organizations throughout Ohio can point to comparable incidents where rapid aerial situational awareness directly contributed to successful outcomes in search and rescue and emergency response operations. There is a major reason why we continue to volunteer our time and resources because these tools provide a tangible and sometimes critical benefit to the communities that we serve. I would like to clarify an important point regarding our role in the community. Although Elite Drone Services is a commercial business, we have never charged public service agencies for our assistance, services, or resources when responding to emergencies or supporting critical incidents. Our involvement has been provided as a community resource to support law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency management teams at no cost because we believe in helping improve public safety outcomes. Despite this, the proposed legislation would still restrict or eliminate agencies' ability to use these capabilities, effectively removing access to a resource they currently rely on without adding any cost to taxpayers. In other words, even when these services are provided freely, the bill would prevent agencies from benefiting from these solely based on the origin of the equipment being used. I would also like to add that this legislation would directly impact my business and the ability of organizations like mine to serve communities that rely on us as a resource. When these tools are restricted or removed, it is ultimately the residents of Ohio who lose access to these faster, safer, and more effective emergency response capabilities. To those who support this bill, I would respectfully ask you to consider whether you are willing to stand in front of a family who has lost a loved one or explain why most capable tools were removed from the hands of the people who have been able to save them. That could be a missing child, a person with Alzheimer's, a firefighter sent into an unsafe area of a burning structure without full situational awareness, or a law enforcement officer entering a scene without critical intelligence that could have provided from the air. These tools are not theoretical advantages. They are practical, world-world capabilities used every day to protect both first responders and the public. Removing them from service could reduce effectiveness in life or death situations and increase risk that are difficult to fully quantify until after an incident occurs. For that reason, I urge the committee to carefully reconsider these provisions, and if concerns exist, they should be addressed through evidence-based standards and operational safeguards rather than broad restrictions that eliminate proven tools from the public's safety. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Very welcome. Thank you for coming in. Questions? Comments? Seeing none, thank you so much. I believe we have one more person to testify. Do we have Justin? Is it Pais? Jason Conflin. Oh, Jason Conflin. Please, go ahead.
Lindsay Volunteer Fire Department. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, members of the committee. Thank you for your time.
And then before you go on, do we have the Chiefs of Police High Association here today? Okay, that's where I got mixed up. I'm sorry. No problem. So, yes, Mr. Conklin, please proceed.
Thank you. You have my written testimony in front of you there on your iPads. And I was just going to, obviously you can read that testimony. So a couple of points I made as I was listening and some of the questions that were asked. So I'm Jason Conklin, Deputy Chief of the Lindsay Volunteer Fire Department. We are in Sandusky County. We are an all-volunteer organization, 100% volunteer. I've been on the department. This will be my 31st year on the department as a volunteer. And over the 31 years I've been on, I've seen a lot of fire service equipment and standards evolve. and I can stand here and say that I would say that the drone added to our capabilities in a rural setting from a volunteer department is probably one of the biggest impactful pieces of tools that we have However knowing that this piece of legislation could take that directly out of our hand immediately at that four-year point, the way it's currently written. And talking about the four years, yes, four years is a long time. However, a lot of departments like ourselves in our area, we negotiate. We work with our township trustees, and we negotiate a five-year contract for fire service. So at the point that we agree on that contract, unless we go back to the voters or we try to go back and have another vote for another levy to pass some more additional millage or something like that, we are locked into what we have for that five-year period. and where we had some issues was this effect can be seen not only with the drone but we also passed a contract just prior to COVID starting and we all knew what happened with prices after COVID so we and other departments like us struggled to try to keep our heads above water if you will because of that. So this could be putting us back in that same situation, trying to replace critical pieces of equipment that we have. Our drone and the equipment that we have was not paid for by those tax dollars. They were entirely done through donations and grants. However, with the increased cost in the short timeline, and it's everyone is going to be in the same boat, those are going to be extremely competitive and extremely hard to get. So we would not have a program if we get grounded. We don't have the capital put back. To give you a few examples of some of the things that we're also trying to navigate from a financial standpoint, we look at purchasing fire trucks. I know this has been a topic of discussion all over the place. when we purchased our engines not that many years ago, eight years ago-ish, we were in the $300,000, $325,000 to replace that same equipment today at $650,000. Our turned-out gear that we wear, we have to have that on. We can't show up without it. 105% increase. So this is something that to take this away and then unfund it, it's just not going to happen. We're just going to have to get rid of the program. and that's going to put our citizens at risk. When we talk about service delivery, as we talked about seconds count, not minutes, our team has the lack of some of these teams and the lack of the availability of some of the teams. Our department, as I say, we're in Sandusky County, and we've been called to help for a missing person in Knox County, which is over a two-hour drive. Our team assembled and drove down, and we were there into the wee hours of the morning and drove back home. So taking more of those out of service is going to create an even greater gap from that standpoint. You know, the other thing I'd like to just talk about is that, you know, even though we're volunteers and we train for fire, hazmat, you know, the list keeps going on and on and on, we had seven individuals step forward that was willing to be trained as drone pilots and be part of our county team Again completely volunteering their time and some of them even stepping up to pay for the class themselves to help offset some of the costs I being one of them So we are trained in Part 107, whereas a hobbyist could just purchase something off of Amazon, fly it wherever they want. And we've, unfortunately, all of us have seen the effect of that, you know, people getting caught. And then that reflects poorly on everyone's group together that if you fly a drone, you're grouped into that group. So that is not where we're at. That's not what we're doing with our drones. We're flying very specific missions. As it's been said before, you know, we're very careful to have our data be secure. So those are some of the points that I just wanted to address. Aside from everything that's already been up, I didn't want to keep reiterating. I think the committee understands all of those points. So with that, I'll entertain any questions you may have. Thank you so much.
And again, thanks for your service up there in Sandusky. Thank you.
I was going to echo that, Chairman. You know, I thank all my first responders as a point of fact, but volunteer firefighters. It's a special breed. You know, in 31 years of doing that, did you pay for your own gas coming down?
I did. I took off work, too.
And at $5 a gallon, that's going to cost you a little bit of money getting here and there. You know, I want to make sure that you and the rest of the folks listening at home, you know, we don't want to take any tools away from our first responders. You know, that's never been the intent. But at some point, I think the, and we want to make sure they always have the best. I was going to point out that if you are, you talked about your breakout gear. If you get a chance, see if you can get a second set. Because I've done a lot with firefighters and cancer safety and things like that. And that helps a lot when instead of coming back and putting on that same set of gear you just were at a event at, a fire at, with, you know, and you're putting that back on. They've proven that if you have a second clean set of breakout gear, you really minimize somewhat the dangers that you're facing. But as I started to say, we don't want to take anything away, tools away from the folks. But at some point, with the concerns that the American people have, I work at a company called Blue Technologies, and the Department of Defense, Department of War, what it's called today, the company I work at is a Conicum and Olda dealer. They also sell HP, but the United States government said of all the copy machines out there, Xerox, Sharp, Canon, et cetera, Sushiba, all these things, that Conoco Minol is the one copier that cannot be hacked. It's never been hacked. The easiest way to get into a computer system for the world to know, if you don't know this, is through the printers and copiers. They're attached to the network, and you sneak right through there. Conoco Minol has the software to block that. We talked, some of the folks talked earlier about, even if you go out there and get that, someone could play with the software and adjust the privacy or whatever they want to do with it. And I don't know that we have police and firemen out there that want to do that. So I'm not looking at that as a security standpoint. But, you know, I can't see a world, I can't see a legislature that I belong to, that in four years, if we haven't come up with a solution, both financial and equipment-wise, that we're going to suddenly take away necessary equipment. But I think we at least have to start having a discussion now so we're not going to say, by November of this year, you have to do this. And so I think that the committee ability to stretch to two to four years has been a response candidly to the different testament we gotten the written testament we gotten just my conversations to all the police and firemen that I know. And so I want you to feel comfortable. Nobody's going to pull the rug off from our nation. At least I don't ever foresee that. but as a country, as a nation, we always want to make sure that we're doing what's best. As I said, the United States Department of Defense, they took a look and said, no, no, no, you all have to use this particular kind of copy machine because we can trust this one. And maybe we'll get to the point where there's going to be a similar piece of equipment that, out of curiosity, do you know what the U.S. Army, are they using the same drones that you're using or are they using, have any idea?
That was a question I should ask somebody that repairs them, the guy that sells them and repairs them. They are not. They're not using the Chinese ones? No.
There you have it. Anyhow, but I do, I want to say thanks. And again, you know, we're not in the business of making your job harder. We appreciate all that you do. We want to make sure you have all the tools you need to do. As I say, when I say four years of math, try to be flippant, you know, but I want to say this is a problem that obviously that we've chosen to address now going forward. And the decision at the end of four years, we don't know what it's going to look like in four years. But I think that the committee just wants to take a look at what it's going to look like down the road. But again, thanks for taking the ride. And thanks for, I know you, I guess that you were paying for your own gas.
Thank you. To the Chair, Senator. Yeah, no argument that eventually that transition needs to take place, but one thing I would respectfully ask is that the amendment made that our current equipment be used through Useful Life. That's going to help us get that transition versus a hard stop. Our equipment is fairly new, so our equipment could very well be used past a four-year cycle from that standpoint and give us that extra needed time to try to sell enough chickens, if you will, at a chicken barbecue or make enough pancakes or whatever the case may be. And when you're talking thousands, tens of thousands of dollars, $40,000, $50,000 a crack, that's a lot of chicken and a lot of pancakes. So I appreciate your time very much. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Very good. And just a sub-note, I come from a rural county, and most of our fire services and EMS services are volunteer. So I was county coroner in Saudi County for eight years and rarely had a night where we didn't have something going on, so not to mention the daytime. And I've got great respect for what you do and your colleagues back home. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming in today. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, committee members, did I miss anybody in the room? Okay, very good. We have a raft of written testimony in opposition, and it's all on your iPad there. So rather than read through it, I just want you to take a look at it. Is there any other business to bring before, excuse me, that will conclude testimony on this bill today. Any further business to bring before the committee? Seeing none, we're adjourned.