[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROJECT SAFECOM: MORE TIME, MORE MONEY, MORE COMMUNICATION? WHAT
PROGRESS HAVE WE MADE IN ACHIEVING INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL FIRST RESPONDERS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION
POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 8, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-264
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
98-292 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Columbia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida ------
------ ------ BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida, Chairman
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Bob Dix, Staff Director
Shannon Weinberg, Professional Staff Member/Deputy Counsel
Juliana French, Clerk
Adam Bordes, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 8, 2004................................ 1
Statement of:
Beres, Timothy L., Associate Director, Office for Domestic
Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security.............. 49
Boyd, David G., Ph.D., Director, SAFECOM Program Office,
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security................................................... 37
Jenkins, William O., Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office...... 11
Lischke, Maureen, Senior Executive Service, Chief Information
Officer, National Guard Bureau............................. 102
Muleta, John, esq., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.................. 71
Neuhard, Michael P., fire chief, Fairfax County Fire and
Rescue Department.......................................... 121
Stile, Vincent, past president, Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials International, Inc................ 110
Worden, Thomas B., chief, Telecommunications Branch, State of
California, Governor's Office of Emergency Services........ 128
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Beres, Timothy L., Associate Director, Office for Domestic
Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security, prepared
statement of............................................... 51
Boyd, David G., Ph.D., Director, SAFECOM Program Office,
Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security, prepared statement of............................ 40
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 8
Jenkins, William O., Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
prepared statement of...................................... 14
Lischke, Maureen, Senior Executive Service, Chief Information
Officer, National Guard Bureau, prepared statement of...... 104
Muleta, John, esq., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, prepared
statement of............................................... 74
Neuhard, Michael P., fire chief, Fairfax County Fire and
Rescue Department, prepared statement of................... 124
Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
Stile, Vincent, past president, Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials International, Inc., prepared
statement of............................................... 112
Worden, Thomas B., chief, Telecommunications Branch, State of
California, Governor's Office of Emergency Services,
prepared statement of...................................... 131
PROJECT SAFECOM: MORE TIME, MORE MONEY, MORE COMMUNICATION? WHAT
PROGRESS HAVE WE MADE IN ACHIEVING INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL FIRST RESPONDERS?
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam H. Putnam
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Putnam, Miller, Clay, and
McCollum.
Staff present: Bob Dix, staff director; John Hambel, senior
counsel; Shannon Weinberg, professional staff member/deputy
counsel; Juliana French, clerk; Grace Washbourne, professional
staff member, full committee; Adam Bordes, minority
professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant
clerk.
Mr. Putnam. Good afternoon, and welcome. This hearing of
the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will come to order.
Good afternoon and welcome to the subcommittee's hearing on
``Project SAFECOM: More Time, More Money, More Communication?
What Progress Have We Made in Achieving Interoperable
Communication Between Local, State and Federal First
Responders?''
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the status and
progress of achieving communications interoperability among the
various first responders and to continue the subcommittee's
oversight of related Federal, State and local government
programs. Specifically, this hearing will review the progress
of Project SAFECOM, one of the President's 25 Quicksilver e-
Government initiatives, in developing policies that encourage
State and local agencies to work together to promote first
responders communications interoperability.
In its short history, Project SAFECOM has been relocated to
three different agencies, with four different management teams.
Now at the Department of Homeland Security, the initiative
appears to be progressively moving forward. In April of this
year, Project SAFECOM adopted the statement of requirements for
wireless public safety communications and interoperability.
What remains unclear, however, is the status of implementation
of these standards.
Interoperable communications is the ability of first
responders to share time sensitive information across
disciplines and jurisdictions via communications systems in
real time. On September 11, 2001, we witnessed a failure in
communication not only among differing first responder
agencies, but within the responding agencies themselves. The
tragic loss of so many lives was among the most shocking events
in our modern history. The tragedy of this event is compounded
by the knowledge that the loss of many lives, particularly
those of numerous first responders, could have been prevented
had there been fully interoperable communications.
Interoperability is not only important in managing a
terror-related incident, but also critical in answering the
call of other emergencies. Federal, State and local governments
work together to answer many other types of emergencies. Here
in our Nation's capital, we have the U.S. Park Police, the U.S.
Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department working
together on a regular basis for crowd control at celebrations
and demonstrations. The 2003 wildfires in San Diego, California
drew response teams from a number of Federal, State and local
agencies, as well as other States. And more recently, in my
home area in Florida, twice in the last 25 days, numerous
Federal, State and local agencies have worked together to
evacuate 47 out of our 67 counties, nearly 3 million people in
the State's largest ever evacuation for Hurricane Frances, only
3 weeks after evacuating nearly 1 million people for Hurricane
Charley.
The vast majority of infrastructure for these interoperable
communications resides in the management of the State and
locals. Consequently, the Federal Government's role through
Project SAFECOM is that of facilitating the development of the
communication across the Nation. Frequently, we have support
and response from other States coming in to support local
responders in a major emergency.
Through standards development and implementation, the goal
of Project SAFECOM is to avoid situations in which the only way
to communicate emergency response efforts is by switching a
hand-held radio between responding agencies. By encouraging the
adoption of standards, the hope is that cash-strapped local
governments will not spend tens of millions of dollars on
communications systems that prove to not be interoperable with
surrounding counties.
For instance, in the San Diego, California example, in
October they were hit by the most devastating wildfire disaster
in their history. Three major fires raged across the county,
killing 16, leaving more than 390,000 acres burned and 2,700
residential or commercial buildings destroyed. The
comprehensive study of that firestorm declared that better
communication was necessary. Not all firefighters had uniform
ability to communicate, first because while county fire
agencies used spectrum in the 800 megahertz frequency, State
and Federal agencies use a VHF system.
Further, some officials report that in that incident, their
$90 million regional communication system proved to be
ineffective, or at the least it performed sub-par in this and
other major catastrophes. The system was first used in 1998 and
was meant to enable 80 county, local and State government
agencies, such as sheriffs, deputies and firefighters to
communicate during emergencies.
But during the firestorm of 2003, the system was plagued by
busy signals, 38,000 in the south county and 68,000 in the east
county. While fire administrators and many county officials say
the system is better than what they had before, that's not good
enough given the state of technology and the state of perpetual
danger today. We can and must do better.
With the interoperable communication and homeland security
grants available to State and local governments, now
centralized under DHS within the Office of Domestic
Preparedness, it appears that the Department of Homeland
Security has the carrot to persuade State and local governments
to adopt the standards developed by Project SAFECOM. This
appearance may be an illusion, however, because the grant money
is awarded in the form of a block grant with few opportunities
to follow up to ensure that the standards tied to those grants
are actually adopted or implemented.
Last November, this subcommittee held a joint hearing with
the Subcommittee on National Security and Emerging Threats to
discuss the challenges of achieving first responder
interoperable communications. Today's hearing is an opportunity
to examine those continued efforts to measure the progress and
to determine the next steps in not only Project SAFECOM but
other Federal, State and local efforts.
As several offices still play a role in achieving
communications interoperability, this hearing also provides an
opportunity to examine cross-agency coordination in this
effort. We have two very distinguished panels of witnesses
today, the first comprised of representatives from the Federal
offices working on communications interoperability, and I am
eager to hear about the current state of their efforts in
achieving an interoperable communications network of first
responders.
Our second panel is comprised of a number of Federal, State
and local officials who either work on the government side of
communications interoperability or who have first-hand disaster
management experience, involving multiple response teams. One
of our panelists, Larry Alexander from Polk County, FL, was
prepared to give us first-hand disaster management expertise
but he is still managing a disaster with multiple Federal,
State and local agencies as we speak, as part of the recovery
operations center in the aftermath of Hurricane Frances and in
preparation potentially for Hurricane Ivan.
We look forward to the expert testimony of those who are
able to join us today. I'm pleased to be joined by our
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Clay and our distinguished Vice Chair from Michigan, Ms.
Miller. At this time, I would yield to Mr. Clay for any opening
remarks he may have. You're recognized.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.003
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing
on what is a critical issue to our national welfare. Let me
also say that we're glad to see you back here in one piece, and
to know that your family and constituents are safe from the two
hurricanes that occurred in Florida and from what we hear, an
expected third one, and let you know that we are glad you are
here.
This is not the first time our subcommittee has addressed
the issues of communication and interoperability and
substandard management within the organizations that our
citizens depend on in times of crisis. It is my hope that our
efforts today will aid all stakeholders in establishing long-
term policies and mechanisms for improved communications when
we need them. To begin, I am dismayed by the recent findings of
GAO with regard to the lack of cooperation among Federal
agencies having responsibility for both financing and
operations of Project SAFECOM. As a starting point for its
troubles, the program has undergone various changes in
management and oversight since its creation 3 years ago, having
been assigned and reassigned among three different agencies and
four separate management teams. Although management of the
multi-agency project now permanently resides in the Department
of Homeland Security, past efforts have been ineffective for
managing a program that is designed to coordinate the efforts
of our Nation's first responders.
Further complicating matters is DHS' failure to secure
operational and financial agreements among several of its
partnering agencies on SAFECOM initiatives. While DHS has
placed significant effort into its role as managing partner of
SAFECOM, it cannot hold the system together without the
cooperation and financial support of other stakeholders
throughout the Federal, State and local bureaucracy.
Until such financial and operational mechanisms are agreed
to among SAFECOM stakeholders, the project will continue to be
underfunded on an annual basis, fail in its attempt to define
and implement national standards for wireless interoperability
and lose the confidence of all other stakeholders in its
mission as a central coordinator for responding to local and
national crises.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing
and I look forward to the testimony from the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.005
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to
tell you how much I appreciate you holding this hearing and how
very much we all appreciate you actually attending, considering
what you have just been through. As Mr. Clay mentioned as well,
I think the audience needs to recognize our chairman just
literally got off the airplane. He's too modest to tell you
that, but about 20 minutes ago, because that hurricane hit his
county very, very severely, Polk County and in that immediate
area. And I know that all the members of both chambers were
very happy to authorize additional expenditures for the State
of Florida. They've been so hard hit with these two last
hurricanes and another one coming. So we appreciate your
attendance here today and your commitment and your dedication
to that. Certainly our thoughts and prayers are with everybody
in Florida and hopefully Ivan doesn't get there. But in the
interim, having this hearing today I think is very appropriate,
very timely as we discuss this particular issue.
Our Nation's war on terror has certainly placed our Nation
at a pivotal moment in history, quite frankly. Brave men and
women are fighting for our freedoms across our entire globe.
But our enemy seeks to take the fight to our homeland as well.
And first responders, of course, as often, and we certainly
witnessed that on September 11, are the very first line of
defense.
Historically, we've considered, of course, police and
firefighters as our Nation's first responders. But with today's
threats, individuals such as health care officials and utility
workers and others as well are also now going to be called
first responders. I think they will certainly be called to duty
in the event of an emergency. And it's vital to support these
individuals in order to recover quickly from an urgent
situation and to minimize its impact.
Project SAFECOM is one aspect where the Federal Government
can offer a considerable amount of support to State and local
governments as they prepare their first response teams.
Interoperable communication between Government agencies and
organizations is vital to emergency response, it has to be done
very quickly, especially with the availability of new
technologies. We need to be able to utilize those technologies.
State and local government support the necessary
infrastructure, but the Federal Government, our role certainly
is to offer them all guidance and set some standards. Upon
reviewing the written testimony of today's witnesses, I am
cautiously optimistic that Project SAFECOM is on the right
track, and I certainly look forward to the testimony that we'll
have from our panels today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller.
At this time we will move directly into testimony. I would
ask our first panel to please rise and raise your right hands,
and anyone accompanying you who will be providing information
for your answers to be sworn in as well. Please raise your
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. I note for the record that all the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. And we will move directly to
testimony, beginning with Mr. William Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins
currently serves as the Director of Homeland Security and
Justice Issues within the U.S. Government Accountability
Office. In this position, he is responsible for issues
regarding emergency preparedness and response, elections,
Federal Judiciary sentencing and corrections and bankruptcy.
Prior to joining GAO as a faculty fellow in 1979, Mr. Jenkins
was a professor of political science. He has also served as an
adjunct professor to the American University. His principal
areas of concentration include budget policy, defense,
administration of justice and homeland security. He is a
graduate of Rice University and received his M.A. of political
science and Ph.D. in public law from the University of
Wisconsin at Madison.
We have a room issue, we will be doing everything we can to
move the hearing along, and we would ask all of our witnesses
to please abide by the 5-minute rule. Mr. Jenkins, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM O. JENKINS, JR., DIRECTOR, HOMELAND
SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss
our work on wireless interoperable communications for first
responders. First, it's important to note that interoperable
communications is not an end in itself and is not primarily a
technology issue. Rather, it is a necessary means of achieving
an important goal, the ability to respond effectively to and
mitigate the effects of incidents that require the coordinated
actions of first responders. Interoperable communications is
but one important component of an effective incident command
and operation structure.
Achieving effective interoperable communications for first
responders requires the successful integration of people,
processes and technology. The technology needed flows from a
comprehensive assessment of needs and the incident management
structure in which the technology will be used.
In our July 2004 report and November 2003 testimony before
this subcommittee, we outlined three challenges in achieving
interoperable communications that remain the principal
challenges today. They are, one, clearly defining and
identifying the problem; two, establishing performance goals,
requirements and standards; and three defining governmental
roles and addressing the problem. These are primarily people
and process issues.
The single biggest obstacle to achieving effective
interoperable communications has been and remains the lack of
effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary and
intergovernmental planning. The cultural and turf barriers for
achieving this are deeply rooted and longstanding.
Second, Federal, State and local governments all have
important roles to play in developing standards that can be
used to assess interoperability requirements, identify gaps in
the current ability to meet those requirements and develop and
implement comprehensive plans for closing those gaps. The
Federal Government could provide the leadership, focus and long
term commitment needed.
For example, it could take leadership in developing a set
of baseline requirements, a national data base of interoperable
frequencies, a national standard nomenclature for those
frequencies, and a governance and funding structure that
supports State efforts to develop and implement statewide
interoperable communication plans.
Moreover, only the Federal Government can allocate public
safety spectrum. With support from the Federal Government and
broad participation and input from local and tribal governments
and first responders, States can serve as the focal points for
statewide interoperability planning and implementation. The FCC
has recognized the States' importance by providing the States
authority to administer the interoperability channels within
the 700 megahertz spectrum. Some States are working to develop
statewide plans, but there is no established structure or
funding to support such efforts. Nor is there any guidance for
States on what should be included in such plans. Such plans
would need to encompass cross-State interoperability issues in
such areas as New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati, where
metropolitan areas cross State boundaries.
SAFECOM was established as the umbrella program for
coordinating all Federal initiatives and projects on public
safety interoperable communications. According to SAFECOM,
there are more than 100 Federal agencies and programs involved
in public safety issues. SAFECOM's ability to provide the
needed Federal leadership and coordination has been hampered by
its dependence on other Federal agencies for funding and
cooperation. DHS has recently created the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility to be fully established by
November 2004. However, that office's structure, funding and
authority are still being developed.
The status of current interoperable communications
capabilities nationwide, including the scope and severity of
any shortcomings, has not yet been determined. To assess these
capabilities, a set of requirements is needed that can be used
to assess what is compared to what should be. In April 2004,
SAFECOM issued a document designed to serve as a set of
baseline requirements, expects to complete its baseline
assessment of current interoperable capabilities by July 2005,
but is still refining its methodology for developing that
baseline.
Third and finally, the fragmented Federal branch structure
for first responders limits the Federal Government's ability to
provide consistent, effective guidance and support for State
and local planning and implementation efforts. SAFECOM has
developed recommended grant guidance for all Federal grants
whose moneys could be used to improve interoperability But
cannot require consistent guidance be included in all Federal
first responder grants.
Moreover, some grants do not support long term planning
efforts. For example, they do not require interoperable
communications plans prior to receiving funds or have a 1 or 2
year performance period that may encourage a focus on equipment
purchases rather than comprehensive planning to guide those
purchases.
In addition, Federal and State Governments lack a
coordinated grant review process to ensure that funds allocated
to local governments are used for communications projects that
complement each other and add to overall statewide and national
interoperable capacity. One result is that grants could be
approved for bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting
interoperable solutions.
We recognize that SAFECOM has made progress in bringing
leadership and focus to the Federal Government's
interoperability efforts and many State and local officials are
working diligently to assess and improve interoperable
communications. Our July 2004 report includes recommendations
to the Secretary of DHS and the Director of OMB for enhancing
Federal coordination and providing assistance and encouragement
to States to establish statewide interoperability planning
bodies that draw on the experience and perspectives of local
first responders.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.028
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenkins.
Our next witness is Dr. David Boyd. Dr. Boyd is the Deputy
Director of System Engineering and Development under DHS'
Science and Technology Directorate. He serves as the Director
of the Project SAFECOM program office, and was recently placed
in charge of creating the Department's new Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility. He is also a member of the
President's National Task Force on Spectrum Management.
Prior to his work on the civilian side, Dr. Boyd served in
the U.S. Army for more than 20 years, in which he commanded
combat, combat support and training units in both war and
peace, and has served on military staffs from battalion level
to the Pentagon. He has more than three dozen military awards,
including the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.
Dr. Boyd holds a career appointment in the Senior Executive
Service, is a graduate of the University of Illinois and holds
graduate degrees in operations research and public policy
analysis, as well as a doctorate in decision sciences. He is
widely published and we are delighted to have him. Dr. Boyd,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BOYD, PH.D., DIRECTOR, SAFECOM PROGRAM
OFFICE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before
you today.
Mr. Chairman, as you, Chairman Davis and Chairman Shays
observed recently in a letter to GAO, ``Effective
communications between and among wireless communications
systems used by Federal, State and local public safety agencies
is generally accepted as not only desirable, but essential for
the protection of life and property.''
Interoperability is not a new issue for public safety. It
was a problem in 1984 when the Air Florida flight crashed into
the Potomac; in New York City when the Twin Towers were bombed
in 1993; at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City; at Columbine
and on September 11. But September 11 put the issue in such
stark relief that more effort has now gone into
interoperability than at any time in history.
Since 2001, FEMA and the COPS office have partnered with
SAFECOM to coordinate well over $230 million in
interoperability grants to localities. At least $1.1 billion
more has been provided through preparedness grants to States.
Two major interoperability initiatives have been or are being
established at the highest levels: SAFECOM, established as a
Presidential Management Initiative, and the DHS effort to
establish an Office of Interoperability and Compatibility by
the end of this year.
When I testified before you last November, interoperability
programs were spread across the Government. The Homeland
Security Act had made three different agencies responsible for
interoperability in DHS alone: the Office of Domestic
Preparedness, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and even
an agency in the Department of Justice. SAFECOM was under its
fourth program manager and the Government Accountability Office
was finishing one study of the program and beginning another.
I'm happy to report to you today that while much remains to
be done, and responsibility for interoperability remains
diffused across the Government, our efforts to bring order to
the problem have been validated by the most recent GAO report
and by the major State and local public safety associations,
who declared in January that ``with the advent of the SAFECOM
Program public safety, and State and local government finally
have both a voice in public safety discussions at the Federal
level and confidence that the Government is coordinating its
resources.''
We have created the Federal Interagency Coordinating
Council to coordinate funding, technical assistance, standards
development and regulations affecting communications and
interoperability across the Federal Government. We have
published a statement of requirements which, for the first
time, defines what it will take to achieve full
interoperability and provides industry requirements against
which to map their product capabilities. We have issued a
request for proposals for the development of a national
interoperability baseline and will make an award in October.
We have issued a request for information to industry to
tell us what technologies they had or were developing to help
with interoperability which produced more than 150 responses.
We have accelerated the development of critical standards for
interoperability and developed a framework for defining a
national architecture.
We have created coordinated grant guidance and implemented
it in the FEMA and COPS interoperability grants last year, and
in the COPS interoperability grants and ODP State block grants
this year. We have established a joint task force with the
FEDERAL Communications Commission to consider spectrum and
regulatory issues that affect interoperability. And we've
created a model methodology with the State of Virginia for the
development of statewide communications plans supported at
every level within the State.
Since we know neither terrorists nor natural disasters will
wait, the Secretary has directed the Science and Technology
Directorate to provide assistance to 10 high threat urban areas
through a program called RAPIDCom. We found that most of the 10
urban areas have the technical capability to achieve a basic
command level of interoperability, but lack many of the
operational elements required to actually achieve
interoperability, so that, in some cases, equipment provided by
the Federal Government is still not integrated into the local
system. We have been working for several months now to help
fill those operational gaps, since technology, as our
interoperability continuum displayed on the easel before you
illustrates, is only one of the elements needed for successful
interoperability.
Earlier this year, the Secretary of DHS directed the
Science and Technology Directorate to establish a new Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility to address relevant
equipment and training as well as communications. We have
already identified more than 60 different programs in the
Federal Government that deliver equipment or training to first
responders.
We still have much to do, but we have laid a firm
foundation. Never before has a Presidential Management
Initiative existed that addresses communications
interoperability issues at all levels of Government. Never
before has Congress made so much grant money available for
States and localities to improve their interoperability.
Never before has common grant guidance been applied across
the entire Federal Government. Never before has a national
statement of requirements for interoperability existed.
We are confident that with your continuing support and the
assistance of our many local, State and Federal partners, we
can ensure that lives and property are never lost because
public safety agencies cannot communicate. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.037
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Dr. Boyd.
Our next witness is Timothy Beres. Welcome to the
subcommittee, Mr. Beres. Mr. Beres is the Associate Director of
DHS' Office of Domestic Preparedness, with responsibility for
the State and Local Operations Division. He has been with ODP
since its inception.
During his tenure at the Office of Domestic Preparedness,
Mr. Beres led the effort to establish the Center for Domestic
Preparedness, an emergency responder training center, for the
management and remediation of incidents of domestic terrorism
involving chemical weapons. Additionally, he was responsible
for developing ODP's national training program, developing
ODP's assessment and strategy development process, and
developing and implementing the pre-positioned equipment
program.
Mr. Beres received his bachelor's degree from Virginia
PolyTech and State University in 1991. Welcome to the
subcommittee. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. BERES, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Beres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. It is with great pleasure that I come and speak to
you today. Thank you very much for having me.
As you know, the Secretary recently established the Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, of
which ODP is now a key component. On behalf of our executive
director, Suzanne Mencer, and Secretary Ridge, it is my
pleasure to appear before you today to discuss briefly the
current status of our program, specifically our work on
interoperable communications.
The Office of Domestic Preparedness is responsible for
preparing our Nation against terrorism by assisting States,
local jurisdictions, regional authorities and tribal
governments to prevent, respond to and recover from acts of
terrorism. Through its programs and activities, ODP equips,
trains, exercises and supports State and local homeland
security personnel, our Nation's first responders.
During fiscal year 2004, ODP's record of service to the
Nation's first responders continues. All the 56 States and
territories have been awarded their fiscal year 2004 funds.
These awards represent $2.2 billion in direct assistance. ODP's
two primary sources for assistance to States and local
communities requires them to assess their risks, capabilities
and needs, which includes requirements relating to
interoperable communications. Since 2002, $1.2 billion in grant
assistance has been used by States and local jurisdictions to
improve interoperability.
On December 17, 2003, the President issued Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 8, or HSPD-8. Through this
HSPD-8, the President tasked Secretary Ridge, in coordination
with other Federal departments as well as State and local
jurisdictions, to develop a national preparedness goal and
readiness matrix to improve the delivery of Federal
preparedness assistance. ODP is leading that effort for the
Department.
ODP has developed and is currently implementing the
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program, or
ICTAP. ICTAP provides onsite technical assistance and training
at no cost to first responders in conjunction with
communications equipment purchased with grant funding. The
program is not limited to a set time period, but focuses on
quickly and thoroughly meeting unique interoperability needs
and requirements of jurisdictions across the country.
The ICTAP technical assistance team works closely with the
Sates and regions to provide onsite support from an initial
assessment and inventory of what currently exists to live
operation of the new system. This process covers four phrases:
identifying requirements, identifying an appropriate solution,
implementing the solution and followup and transitioning to the
new system. ICTAP has received requests for assistance from 32
of the 51 participating urban area security initiative
jurisdictions as well as 8 States and 3 U.S. territories.
With regard to some specific examples of work we're
conducting, in South Florida significant attention is focused
on the difficult policy issues of developing standard operating
procedures and mutual aid agreements to address incompatible
systems in that region's largest jurisdictions. In Central
Florida, the immediate issue that we're working on with that
region is to document what equipment is placed throughout the
region. In Kansas City, Missouri, ICTAP is working with an
organization called the Mid-American Regional Council, which
represents city and county governments on regional issues.
Working with the MARC representatives, ICTAP has proposed an
interoperability solution known as the Regional Area Multi-Band
Integrated System, which is a radio system that will provide
interoperability between disparate radio systems.
As we are well aware, there are a number of different
activities both within the Department of Homeland Security as
well as with other departments that involve interoperable
communications issues. As you will hear about these activities
from other witnesses, I will simply state that the role of
ICTAP is to fill the operational communications needs of States
and regions by responding to the requests coordinated through
the States. ODP looks to SAFECOM to provide standards and
conduct research that can help our jurisdictions develop a
better interoperable communications program. As an example,
earlier this year, we adopted the SAFECOM-developed Guidelines
for Interoperability as recommendations for use of funds. In
addition, ODP supports Project RAPIDCom with technical experts
and is a member of the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council
which seeks to avoid duplication.
In closing, DHS' mission in the area of improved
interoperable communications among first responders is
critical. ODP fully recognizes the specific and vital role we
must play. We will strive to fulfill our mission and meet our
responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. We will,
to the best of our abilities, continue to identify where and
how we can improve. This concludes my statement, and I am happy
to respond to any questions the committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beres follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.057
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, and before we take our
final testimony, I would like to welcome to the subcommittee
our newest member, Ms. McCollum, the gentlelady from Minnesota.
We will move forward with our testimony.
Our final witness on panel one is John Muleta. Mr. Muleta
serves as Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
within the Federal Communications Commission. Prior to his
appointment as Chief, Mr. Muleta served the FCC in various
positions, including Deputy Bureau Chief in the Common Carrier
Bureau and Chief of the Enforcement Division of that same
bureau. In the private sector, he began his career at GTE Corp.
and later worked at Coopers and Lybrand Consulting. He received
a B.S. degree in systems engineering at the University of
Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and his
J.D. MBA also from the University of Virginia. Welcome to the
subcommittee, sir. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MULETA, ESQ., CHIEF, WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Muleta. Good afternoon, Chairman Putnam and other
members of the subcommittee.
I'd like to note that I'm sitting beside my colleague from
the Department of Homeland Security, one of the few times
University of Virginia has been behind Virginia Tech. That's a
little aside there. [Laughter.]
I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you on behalf of FCC to discuss our work on facilitating
interoperability between the Nation's public safety
communications systems. On July 20th of this year, I appeared
before the committee to discuss our work on facilitating
interoperability. On that date, GAO had released its
comprehensive analysis on Project SAFECOM and testified as to
the challenges that are inherent in fostering interoperability
on a nationwide scale. During the past month, the Commission
has taken several steps to further its efforts in this area.
First, the Commission released its decision regarding public
safety interference on the 800 megahertz band, which will go t
a significant way toward alleviating and ultimately eliminating
instances of interference to public safety in that band, while
simultaneously freeing up additional spectrum for public safety
use, including for interoperability purposes.
Second, the FCC's Homeland Security Policy Council report
to the Commission on the FCC's overall efforts to ensure that
our regulations and policies promote public safety
interoperability, enhance 911 implementation, network security
and reliability and other vital homeland security goals. In
addition to our initiative, the 9/11 Commission released its
report with its recommendations that may impact
telecommunications policies.
Before discussing these important matters, however, I'd
like to review the FCC's background and history in dealing with
interoperability and public safety spectrum issues. The
Commission's experience working with public safety entities and
stakeholders is expansive and far-reaching. Today there are
more than 40,000 spectrum licenses designated for public safety
systems under the Communications Act. The FCC has the unique
role of providing the spectrum that States and local
governments use as an integral part of these systems.
Under the leadership of Chairman Powell, the Commission has
intensified its effort in this area and designated homeland
security and public safety issues as one of the Commission's
six core strategic objectives. As September 11th vividly
demonstrated, the ability of public safety systems to
communicate seamlessly at incident sites with minimal onsite
coordination is critical to saving lives and property. The FCC
is therefore committed to using all of its resources to promote
and enhance interoperability of the thousands of other safety
systems that make up a critical part of our homeland security
network.
Our experience indicates that a holistic approach is the
best method for fostering interoperability. Achieving
interoperability requires a focus on more than spectrum,
technology and equipment issues. It also requires a focus on
the organizational and the personal coordination communications
that are necessary to make it available at the times of our
greatest needs. For its part, the Commission directed its
efforts toward providing additional spectrum for public safety
systems, to also nurture technological developments that
enhance interoperability and also providing its expertise and
input within the limits of the statute to interagency effort
such as SAFECOM to improve our homeland security.
With that said, it's important to understand that despite
all its efforts, there are limits to what the FCC can do. The
FCC is only one stakeholder in the process, and many of the
challenges facing interoperability are a result of the
disparate governmental interests, local, State and Federal,
that individually operate portions of our national public
safety systems. Each of these interests has different
capabilities in terms of funding and technological
sophistication, making it difficult to develop and deploy
interoperability strategies uniformly throughout the country
without initiatives such as the ones that SAFECOM and DHS are
now implementing.
Regardless of these problems, we at the FCC continue to
advance policies that enable all of the stakeholders to do
their best in maintaining a strong and viable national public
safety system.
Moving on to the actual spectrum that's available for
public safety, the Commission currently has designated
throughout the country approximately 97 megahertz of spectrum
from 10 different bands for public safety use. The Commission
has also designated channels of these public safety bands
specifically for interoperability, including 2.6 megahertz in
the 700 megahertz band, five channels in the 800 megahertz
band, five channels in the 150 megahertz band which is commonly
known as the VHF band, and four channels in the 450 megahertz
band, known as the UHF band.
In addition, starting next January, the Commission will
require newly certified public safety mobile radio units to
have the capacity to transmit and receive on a nationwide
public safety interoperability calling channel in the UHF and
VHF bands in which they operate.
In recent years, the Commission has also made additional
spectrum available for public safety use. First, consistent
with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the FCC identified and
allocated 24 additional megahertz of spectrum in the 700
megahertz band for public safety use. In particular, it's
important to note that the FCC designated 2.6 megahertz of the
spectrum for interoperability purposes. Given the central role
the States provide in managing emergency communications and in
concert with what my colleague from GAO has reported on, the
FCC also concluded that States are well suited for
administering the interoperability spectrum and that State
level administration would promote the safety of life and
property through seamless coordinated communications on
interoperable spectrum.
Second, the FCC designated 50 megahertz of spectrum at 4.9
gigahertz for public safety users in response to requests from
the public safety community for additional spectrum for
broadband data communications. The 4.9 gigahertz band rules
also foster interoperability by providing a new and innovative
regulatory framework where traditional public safety entities
can pursue strategic partnerships with others, such as a
critical infrastructure industry, that are necessary for the
completion of their mission.
Most recently, in our July agenda meeting, the Commission
adopted by unanimous and bipartisan vote a solution to the
ongoing and growing problem of interference based in the 800
megahertz public safety radio system. In addition to providing
a means to abate such interference, the Commission's decision
will ultimately result in the availability of additional 4.5
megahertz of the 800 megahertz band, which is the most heavily
used band for public safety and critical infrastructure
licenses. We are hopeful that public safety organizations will
take full advantage of this additional spectrum to advance
interoperable communications goals.
Moving on to the coordination efforts that we carry on, the
Commission staff also routinely confers and does outreach with
critical organizations, including the Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials, the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council, the International Association of
Fire Chiefs, International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Moreover, the staff is working closely with the Department of
Homeland Security SAFECOM as we both share the common goal of
improving public safety communications and interoperability. We
are continuing our collaborative efforts to develop a strong
working relationship, both formally and informally.
Dr. Boyd and I also continue to work together at a personal
level to promote and ensure effective coordination regarding
homeland security issues. As I mentioned in July, Dr. Boyd and
I are committed to establishing an informal working group
comprised of representatives of our respective staffs to meet
on a regular basis to focus on interoperability issues of
mutual interests. I am pleased to announce that we have taken
steps to this end, and just recently, representatives of our
staff have initiated this effort. I am encouraged by this
action and confident that this interagency cooperation will
prove beneficial to all the groups involved.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you on
this important issue, and I will be glad to answer any
questions you might have. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muleta follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.074
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. I know that there will be
a number of questions. We will begin with 5 minute rounds. The
Vice Chair of the subcommittee will begin, the gentlelady from
Michigan, Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciated all of you coming today and your testimony is
very interesting. One of the more emotional debates I think
that we had this year on the floor of the House was when we
were debating the Department of Homeland Security budget. There
was an amendment that just about everybody had something to say
about, where they were talking about whether or not we should
be expending more funds in the State of New York, in the city
of New York rather than spending funds in Montana or Wyoming.
This is not a new debate. I think the entire Nation has engaged
in it. In fact, I noticed recently one of the networks had a
story about this. I forget the numbers numerically, but I think
they were saying that some of the less populated States were
getting almost $50 per capita, States like New York, etc., were
in the $20 range or something. Again, I've forgotten the
numbers, but quite a discrepancy there.
So I have a question about the dollars as well, and how we
actually are expending the dollars. I think Dr. Boyd and Mr.
Beres both mentioned a little bit about the dollars. Whether or
not, I think Mr. Boyd said there was quite a bit of money that
we had never before authorized so much money for the DHS and
for the various programs. I think Mr. Beres mentioned the $2
billion amount.
But I'm just wondering, first of all, how much actually has
been authorized by Congress in regards to SAFECOM and how are
you actually granting the dollars? Especially I guess my
question goes to, how are you actually working with the States
or localities? It's been my experience in Michigan that it's
almost exclusively with the State of Michigan rather than the
individual counties. I'm just wondering if that is true or my
observation is correct, and are you then working with the
States, each one of the States of course is responsible to have
their respective department of homeland security assessment,
their State assessment? How is all this working?
Mr. Boyd. I think we probably ought to answer that in two
parts. Tim Beres manages the actual grant funding. Let me talk
a bit about how we're approaching the States and what we think
it requires to make things work in the States.
We're convinced that for any statewide plan to work, and we
think you need a statewide plan, it has to be one that's built
from the bottom up, that includes the small counties and the
small towns. When we worked with the State of Virginia to help
them develop a statewide plan, we intentionally started the
effort in Wytheville, VA, a very small place, and then worked
our way around the State. In fact, that statewide plan is
attached to testimony that you will be hearing in the next
panel.
We believe you can't make interoperability work unless you
start at the local level and work your way up. Because
interoperability isn't something that's isolated to a single
city or a single place, if we're going to have real
interoperability you have to be able to take it to all levels.
For example, when urban search and rescue teams deploy, no
matter where it is they go they come from a variety of
jurisdictions. They don't just come from big cities; they often
come from volunteers in smaller counties, from a combination of
groups from around the United States.
It's important when they arrive that their communications
equipment be fully interoperable. The way it's handled now in
many cases is exactly as the chairman has pointed out, by
exchanging radios. They either bring extra radios with them, or
the agency that they're coming to support has to provide them
radios. We need to be able to do a much better job than that,
and we think that means you have to start with a collaborative
effort that includes all of the players at the very lowest
level of government all the way up to the very highest level.
It's our experience that no statewide plan will work unless
it's built this way.
Ms. Miller. Tim.
Mr. Beres. Thanks. The majority of our funding goes through
the States, as you mentioned before, both the urban Area
Security Initiative funding and the State Homeland Security
grant program does go through the States. Then it has to be, 80
percent of those funds have to be sub-granted out to local
units of government.
The reason for this is to allow the State, a central
player, to have an overall look, strategic look, strategic
planning outlook, as to how to allocate the funds. This is
especially important when we're talking about interoperability,
so that we aren't making individual grants to smaller
communities that aren't necessarily incorporated into an
overall broader plan or broader strategy for interoperability.
We want to make sure that coordination is done at a central
level in the State, along with all the communities that would
be receiving funding for interoperability.
Ms. Miller. You know, if I could followup on that, a big
purposes of this hearing today is so that we can continue to
fine tune and do a better job and make sure the dollars are
getting where they need to get. It's not as though we all just
fell off the truck and now find out that the ability to
communicate is a problem. It's not as thought it's inherent to
one particular area. It seems to be very widespread.
In fact, I'll give you a personal experience, Secretary
Ridge came into one of my counties, and that's what he said,
almost everywhere he went in the Nation, that's what he was
finding, is the ability to communicate amongst the various
first responders and public agencies, etc., was a big problem
that we were having. I'm wondering whether or not Congress, for
instance, maybe we have made the criteria for the granting too
restrictive for you. I have a county in my area, all politics
being local, this is the county that has the Bluewater Bridge,
which is the third busiest commercial artery on the northern
tier, it is the only bridge that is authorized to transport
hazardous material. We have a CN Rail tunnel that's immediately
under there. We have something called Chemical Valley that runs
along, we have a liquid border that we share with Canada for
miles and miles with all these chemical plants, etc.
And yet almost all the money that comes into our State
seems to go into a county that is host to the city of Detroit,
because of these population criteria that we have foisted on
all of you. Is there a way that Congress can make you better
able to accomplish your mission, give you more flexibility? Do
you have any comments on how restrictive we've made it in
handicapping your ability to get the dollars?
Mr. Beres. There's two different programs that we have, one
of which is the Urban Area Security Initiative program, which
is based on risk primarily, a risk-based formula that really
hits to the highest threat urban areas in the country, one of
which is Detroit and its core county that is around it. Then
the other program is a little bit larger than the Urban Area
Security Initiative Program, which is a statewide program,
which is, the purpose of that is to meet those other areas that
are not covered under those high risk programs.
So we do focus a great deal of our dollars on high risk
areas that have been identified, but then a whole other pot is
focused on high risk areas that the State has identified that
aren't in our original pot. Some of those can be pushed to
those other areas through the State itself.
Mr. Boyd. We also had some other difficulties as we applied
the common grant guidance. Depending on who it was they were
applying to for the grant, and what legislation governed the
agency, the rules for the grants were different. So with
SAFECOM grant guidance we tried to create a common set of
requirements, but then we had to tailor them based on what the
law actually said, for whether it was a grant that was coming
through FEMA or it was a grant coming through the COPS office
or it was part of a State block grant coming through the State.
In some cases the grants would permit funding only for
equipment. One of the great difficulties with this is that many
of these localities lack the technical expertise, the
engineering help, and the consulting help they needed. But in
the case of the COPS grants, they could spend the money only on
equipment. In the FEMA grants, they had a bit more flexibility
and they were actually able to use these to pay for all the
elements of interoperability.
One of the points we make, and one of the reasons we
developed the continuum is that technology is only one
component of interoperability. You also have to help the
jurisdictions develop solid governance structures, you have to
work with them through exercises and training, you have to help
them develop standard operating procedures, and you have to be
able to provide the technical assistance they need. So it would
be useful if mechanisms were made available, if the legislation
didn't have different requirements to address the same problem,
and if they weren't so restrictive that communities couldn't
seek the kind of help they needed in order to support
interoperability.
Ms. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Ms. Miller.
I'd be happy to recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota for
your first wave of questioning.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just had a meeting with the first responders'
representatives in Minnesota with Congressman Szabo this past
month in August. And there were a couple of themes that came
up, and of course they all had to do with dollars. One of them
was just in applying for the grants, and I noticed in the GAO
study it talks about Federal grant structure does not support
statewide planning. And another section of it deals with grant
submission, performance period, time, also presents challenges
to short term and long term funding.
One of the issues, and everybody around the table shook
their head, is the supplying online that they're doing. The
system is down for maintenance quite often on the weekends.
These are people who are putting this on top of already a 40
hour work week that they're doing, quite often coming in to do
this on evenings and weekends. And the system is down for
maintenance, they can't, I'll get you their comments. But they
were really looking to having a system that was user friendly
and easy to use. There is room for needs improvement in this
category for our local elected officials.
The other issue was the way that reimbursements were being
held. They have budgets and budget frames in which they work
under for county and local units of government. The Federal
budget frame doesn't work the same way. And they are not
allowed to run deficits, they have to balance their budget. So
they either have to make decisions that the grant is going to
forward and the funding will come when they submit their
budgets to, whether it's a city council or the county or the
State. Then if it doesn't come, they've created a deficit, a
hole in their budget.
So I hope as we move forward and along with this, we take
into account not only do we need to get our work done for our
budgeting in a timely fashion, that is stay here and do the
work, but we also have to be cognizant of what their budgets
are like. And also the joint powers agreement that many
municipalities have to enter into in order to make their
projects cost effective also is causing problems in applying
for grants.
So having said that, I'll move to the two questions that I
have. One is in a document that was prepared for us and it's on
page three. It talks about the GAO, however, according to the
Department of Homeland Security, failed to secure agreements
with two of the key stakeholder agencies in 2003, the
Departments of Interior and Justice. Thus, only $17 million of
the $30.9 million OMB allocated through participating agencies
was received by SAFECOM. So my question is, what happened to
the other $18 million?
And I also have heard very clearly from my first
responders, both private sector and public sector, that they
are very concerned about interoperability continuing on in the
future as technology upgrades will be happening. First they are
trying to get the money to convert everybody to 800, then they
have the challenge of how do we keep everybody from the
National Guard to the smallest township in Ramsey County
current with upgrades? Has there been any talk about how we're
going to play for the money for that?
Mr. Boyd. Well, let me answer the first question about the
partner funding. So far we have agreements in place and have
received the funding this year from all of the partners except
the Department of Interior. We continue to talk with the
Department of Interior. But all the rest this year has been
provided.
Part of the SAFECOM planning makes the assumption that
we're going to have a variety of different technologies over
time. That's because technology doesn't advance in an orderly
way and localities can't simply upgrade every time something
new arrives on the horizon.
So for that reason, we believe the development of our
standard strategy and the kinds of help we provide to
localities needs to provide what we call a migration path; that
is, a rational way to migrate forward to full interoperability
while maintaining backward interoperability with legacy
systems. We know, for example, that software defined radio is
on the horizon. We know that increasingly we're going to be
moving from analog to digital systems. And so all of those are
going to continue to create some of the technology disconnects
that contribute to a lack of interoperability.
There are near term ways to get around this, and part of
what RAPIDCom is focused on doing and what we're trying to help
localities with is to put into place near term interoperability
solutions, things like patch devices. We, for example, issued a
set of specifications to govern the purchase of patch devices
that localities could use when they issued their requests for
proposals from manufacturers.
We think all of those things, together with a standards
process that allows that migration, is going to be essential in
order to permit the upgrades to happen in a way that doesn't
lose contact with the technologies they're leaving. We're well
aware that a typical jurisdiction that made an investment 8
years ago in an analog system is not likely to be able to
afford to spend $11 million or $20 million or $100 million to
go to a digital system in the next year or 2 or 3 years. The
technologies we deal with here, and the way public safety
agencies put them into place, means that some of the systems
will last 30 years, even though the technology life cycle is 18
to 24 months.
So all of our planning and all of our standards are
designed to take this into account so we don't leave behind
legacy systems. There will always be legacy systems with us.
Ms. Miller. Mr. Chair, I don't think that answered my
question on how the Federal Government is going to provide
funding. Have we provided long term funding for these legacy
systems to continue the upgrades?
Mr. Beres. The Department continues to request the
approximately $4 billion in homeland security grant funds, of
which upgrades for interoperability communications planning,
the exercises that Dr. Boyd talked about, all of which are
allowable costs. As we progress down this road of upgrading
technologies and looking back and hanging on to legacy systems,
the funding that is currently in the President's budget that's
before Congress now provides for us to look forward to new
technologies and increase better interoperable communications
at that State and local level.
Mr. Boyd. It's also important to remember that more than 97
percent of the funding that goes out to the field, even for
emergency communications, is provided by States and localities.
Federal money represents only a relatively small part of that.
So one of the things first responders asked us to help them
with was to provide them tools to build a business case that
they could use to take to their county commissions, to their
city councils and their State legislatures to explain why
interoperability was important and why interoperability had to
be built into new funding plans, and why you had to think about
a life cycle system instead of buying a system now and then
hoping that it will last 30 years and then funding a whole new
system in 30 years.
One of the things that we believe that a rationally
developed set of standards will help us do is to allow
incremental upgrades of technologies. Right now, one of the
unfortunate problems we have, because of the lack of standards,
is proprietary features and proprietary standards that make it
very, very difficult for a community to upgrade pieces of a
system in 2 or 3 years that are a little more advanced.
For example even though you may go buy a device for your
computer that's designed to operate on a version 1.1 bus, it
will work in your new computer with a version 2 bus. That's not
the case with most of the communications systems now, because
of proprietary elements. Typically, manufacturers will design a
system and sell it for about 5 to 7 years, then manufacture
parts for it for a few years and finally stop supporting it.
Unfortunately, because we don't have the universal standards
yet, that we're trying to put in place, when it comes time to
modernize a system, agencies only have two choices: either
continue to buy equipment with the current technology, which
means going to the used market and hoping there somebody has
recently retired a system that they can use for parts to
maintain it; or it means buying an entirely new system, which
usually means a bond issue.
Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. As you can see,
if we don't have a universal system out there, we are going to
have many municipalities making a choice as to what to do,
similar to just throwing a dart at a dart board and hoping it
lands in the right space. So this really needs to be addressed.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
Mr. Muleta, you've heard your fellow panelists field these
questions about the issues that are out there. Could you give
us some sense of what concrete success we have had in improving
interoperability since September 11, 2001?
Mr. Muleta. Given that there are 40,000 public safety
licensees, it's difficult to find one concrete example. I think
there are many. The bigger success has been all of the things
that we are talking about today, which is the focus on long
term planning, the focus on the need for interoperability
outside of the sort of narrow context of urban areas, but to
look at threat areas and sort of understand that it's all part
of the matrix. I think there has just been an incredible amount
of focus on those issues.
Other areas where I have seen success has been the way that
the public safety community has come together in terms of
representing their interests in front of FCC and making sure
that we are focused on addressing interoperability issues. They
are not sort of like small pockets of divided forces, so that
the Commission can act in concert in dealing with these issues.
So for me, it's very difficult to say here are communities
where it's very successful.
Mr. Putnam. Let me try to narrow it down a little bit,
then.
Mr. Muleta. Let me address one community. Alexandria, the
community of interest that follows along the Department of
Defense Pentagon building, in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax
County and the District have a workable system that actually
worked on September 11th by statements made by other folks. But
they had a coordinated plan, they could react accordingly. They
had the processes in place. That's a community that was already
there. I think that reflects the sort of threat level that the
Pentagon has as opposed to other communities out there.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you. We have a panelist from the area,
too, in our second panel, so we'll be able to hear from them.
40,000 licensees, how many options are there? If you have
municipality, local fire department puts out an RFP to upgrade
their system, how many choices are there?
Mr. Muleta. By choices, in terms of systems?
Mr. Putnam. Yes.
Mr. Muleta. I think there are 10 different bands that can
be used for public safety. So that at least gives you an idea
of the size of the matrix, because the first thing that you do
with a public safety system, you say, what channels are
available for use. And depending on the sophistication of the
licensee, what goes into it is, am I part of a statewide
system, am I part of that plan, am I part of a regional plan,
are there channels available and then what can I afford. Am I
having to buy a used system, am I having to buy a new one,
because the price difference is significant.
So I think in terms of technology, one of the issues has
been to, and this is a broader statement than a spectrum issue,
that there needs to be more variation, more ability, more
technology available that's similar to the computer technology
where you sort of have open standards and you can plug and
play, and have different manufacturers playing in the field.
So there are lots of choices on how you design your
systems, but probably not enough open systems to allow for the
sort of mix and match, plug and play type of environment that
we have in the computing world. I think we are in essence in
the worst of best worlds, there are too many choices and not
enough choices in other areas.
Mr. Putnam. So how many manufacturers are there that are in
this field?
Mr. Muleta. I think it's sort of a handful of significant
players in the field. A couple of companies have significant
market share in the public safety community.
As Dr. Boyd explained, these systems are being purchased
for sort of 10, 15 year life cycles. And the ability of
companies to support that on a proprietary basis limits the
universal appeal of this business. So it's limited. But we are
trying to get into the world where you have plug and play.
Mr. Putnam. Dr. Boyd, let's pursue that a little bit.
Coming out of the State legislature, we want a 6-year plan or
something to get the highway patrol 800 megahertz trunk systems
and undoubtedly by the time the last batch is purchased in year
6 the folks who got theirs in year 1 are already up onto
something else.
Where does this really end? Is this just a cat chasing its
tail? What is the end mission? The GAO is quoted as saying that
you will never be fully interoperable, so what is, how do we
define success and what is the best way to approach this? What
is the ordinary emergency mission that we are using as sort of
our model? And undoubtedly September 11th, I would hope is a
bit on the outlier side of the spectrum, and tornadoes in the
Midwest and floods or hurricanes on the Gulf Coast or things
like that would probably be the more normal type of multi-
jurisdictional emergency.
How will we ever get our arms around this and how do we
approach it? Do we approach it for what's best for a county,
what's best for a State, what's best for a region? Help me
understand that a little bit better, please.
Mr. Boyd. Let me do it in two parts. Our philosophy argues
first that localities are not going to be able to use
communications equipment effectively that they don't use in
normal day to day emergencies. Our perspective is that
emergencies are the business of public safety, that it's not
just the major terrorist event or the hurricane. It is, in
fact, what they do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year round.
So the issue then is scale. Can you handle the incident all
the way from a massive terrorist attack in communications terms
all the way down to something as small as a traffic stop? We
maintain first that this needs to be communications equipment
they're going to use all the time.
The second part is that we believe the development of a
robust standards process, and trying Federal grants to
implementation of guidance built around those standards is one
of the ways to begin to move in the right direction and to
encourage industry to move that way. In fact, if you had asked
me that question in, let's say, 1980, about whether we're going
to have that kind of issue with computers, I would have had to
say that as things stood then, you had a choice of CPM, you had
DOS, and a long list of other different kinds of operating
systems, different networks and even different versions of
ASCII, whether it was a proprietary IBM called EBCDIC or other
kinds of digital exchange or digital storage mechanisms. It
made it extraordinarily difficult to exchange information.
I think that as the standards came along, they were driven
in large measure by the market, and large buyers like the
Federal Government which said, well, gee, if we're going to buy
these things they really need to come down to kind of common
sorts of exchange protocols and operating systems and so on. I
think the same thing is going to have to happen in
communications. That's the way we're trying to approach things,
to try to develop guidance first, because standards take a
little while to produce to get everybody on board, because the
law governs how standards are developed.
So we first want to go to guidance that says, look, as you
build your statewide plans, you have to involve everybody in
the statewide plan, beginning at the lowest level and bringing
all levels in, or you will encounter, as Ms. Miller has pointed
out, the kind of situation you have in some States where you
have a statewide system that only the State police are on and
nobody else is, because they didn't bring the localities in
first.
We think that is the first step, that you have to get
everybody working together along a common set of protocols and
develop a common appreciation of why interoperability needs to
be a part of common planning. Then you can begin to demand
compliance as you develop your RFPs for new systems. You can
demand a way to ensure interoperability, even if in the early
days it relies on a patch system, something like the kinds of
patches that are used in the national capital region. This way
you begin to force an increasing degree of interoperability so
that you eventually arrive at what you're after.
You asked a minute ago whether there were certain
communities that had already developed some reasonably
successful interoperability solutions, and there are. They're
not generally statewide, although South Dakota comes close to
qualifying as a statewide solution. It may be a bit easier with
a population of 650,000, but they actually have a statewide
system where they helped to buy and put the systems in place
for everybody.
There is a system in the State of Indiana which does not
encompass the whole State, but nevertheless began by working
with localities to help bring them in. San Diego County was
probably the first real success for an area in the United
States when they developed a fairly primitive, but effective
solution by developing the first multi-jurisdictional set of
governance agreements, protocols, standard operating procedures
and exercises to allow interoperability in the county. They did
this almost 10 years ago under a project that I was fortunate
enough to be involved in while I was still in Justice.
You have a number of such exempts. The State of Virginia
now has a statewide plan that actually starts at the lowest
levels, and works its way all the way up to the Richmonds and
the Northern Virginias in order to bring them all together in a
statewide plan. So there is movement, but this is a big
challenge. This is a large activity. There are, depending on
how you count them, somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000
independent jurisdictions who have to be a part of bringing all
this together.
Making that kind of change is going to take a while. But I
think we've really laid a foundation and really attracted
attention, in large measure, because Congress has applied so
much attention and so much emphasis to interoperability over
the past few years.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Muleta, do I understand correctly that the FCC relies
mostly on volunteers from input and operations of public safety
spectrums? And is the operation of public safety spectrum well
funded, or is the use of volunteers due to a lack of resources?
Mr. Muleta. To be honest with you, I don't understand the
context of the question. The FCC manages the spectrum for
public safety in the sense that we make the allocation and then
the assignment of that to public safety licensees, we award the
licenses. There is no use of volunteers in that context.
There are State interoperability committees, regional
planning committees that are composed of public safety
officials who get together, based on requests from, as sort of
representative licensees that develop plans, regional plans,
statewide plans. I think the question might be referring to the
fact that some of these, there's not a specific mandate from
the FCC to require State interoperability committees. That's a
recommendation that has been made by the National Coordination
Committee that we established to plan for the 700 megahertz,
the use of the public safety band in 700 megahertz.
We are considering that option. I think one of the issues
that we have to be careful about is when you mandate a specific
requirement on States, on how they can deploy their resources,
we want to make sure that we get all the input and sort of
carefully deliberate that issue.
There's nothing to prevent States from actually putting
together their own interoperability groups. So we believe there
is enough grant resources and things like that to make this a
viable approach.
Mr. Clay. OK, so specifically you rejected, rather the
FCC's rejection of the council's recommendation for a national
planning committee's utilization of a data base for frequency
coordination, that was rejected by FCC, correct?
Mr. Muleta. I think a recommendation was made to us. We
have not acted on it. We're seeking comment and are thinking
through the process of what the requirements would be on
establishing a mandate on this States to do things in a
particular way. So we're seeking comment on those and waiting
to see if we can make a decision. I think we hope to have
something on the various recommendations made by the National
Coordination Committee, which was a Federal advisory committee
that we established to plan for the 700 megahertz. They made a
set of requirements. And I think we'll act upon them
accordingly.
Mr. Clay. And the FCC didn't necessarily care for the
recommendations, so you rejected them and then you FE
Mr. Muleta. Again, I FE
Mr. Clay. So then you will come out with a response to them
at what date?
Mr. Muleta. I think the advisory board gave us a set of
recommendations and we will review them as part of the normal
FCC process. The commissioners will make choices on which
issues can go forward and are appropriate responses. There is a
set of recommendations made, but I think the Commission is
reviewing them and planning to make decisions on them.
Mr. Clay. Let me get to Mr. Boyd. Dr. Boyd, in terms of
technology, can you identify for us any new technological
advances that have the promise of improving interoperable
communications among first responders, or spectrum issues
holding back the emergence of new products?
Mr. Boyd. I'm not aware of any special issues that would
hold back the emergence of new products. What I would say is
that in the near term, there are two kinds of technologies out
there, those that can address the issue in the near term and
those that are more on the horizon. In the near term,
technologies exist now that can help, especially to achieve
command level interoperability.
These are largely switch systems, systems such as those
produced by Raytheon, the ACU systems, the SiTech systems, and
a number of others that you can think of as high-tech computer
driven CAT systems that can tie one radio to another. These
allow for interim, emergency based interoperability. It's not
what we want ultimately, because it ties up a channel on each
system, so it's spectrally inefficient, requiring twice as much
spectrum.
On the horizon, though, we're seeing newer digital
technologies coming into play, including radio-over IP, which
is a way of using digital technologies to permit multiple
networks to share the same spectrum as though they were on
different channels, when in fact they are on the same channel.
We are able to do this in part because voices can be digitized
into very tiny packets. So you can put a great many in a single
channel. There are experiments under way now.
A second possibility is software defined radio. The Defense
Department has a major software defined radio effort underway
called the Joint Tactical Radio System, which we're monitoring
very closely. And there are some private companies that are
working on software defined radios. These are radios that are
computer driven so you can tell them to operate on whatever
band you want them to operate on, using whatever wave form you
want them to operate on--digital, analog or whatever--and you
can drive this all out of a single box.
None of these are panaceas, but there are nevertheless
technologies which we think are moving very rapidly into this
field. In some respects, radio, even though it's an older
technology, is 10 or 15 years behind the computer revolution.
That's in part because installing these systems has been very
expensive, so jurisdictions find it difficult to simply upgrade
tomorrow with a new technology.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Clay, and I regret that we're
going to have to end the first panel here and seat the second
panel. So we very much appreciate our first panel's comments.
We look forward to hearing from the boots on the ground.
The subcommittee will recess for such time as it takes to
seat panel No. 2.
[Recess.]
Mr. Putnam. I hate to do this to our witnesses who just sat
down, but if you would please rise and raise your right hands
for the administration of the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. Note for the record that all the witnesses
responded in the affirmative. We appreciate your being with us
today and look forward to your testimony.
Our first witness to testify will be Maureen Lischke. Ms.
Lischke is a member of the Senior Executive Service and has
served as the National Guard Bureau Chief Information Officer
since 1996. She also serves as the Deputy Director of Command
Control Communications and Computers.
Prior to joining the National Guard Bureau as the Program
Manager for the Reserve Component Automation System in 1994,
Ms. Lischke worked for the Defense Communications Agency, now
the Defense Information Systems Agency. She also served as the
Deputy Director of Program Oversight with the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command Control
Communications and Intelligence. She has been recognized with a
number of awards and recognitions, and she was among the 2002
Federal Computer Week top 100 executives recognized from
Government, industry and academia who had the great impact on
Government information systems for that year.
We welcome you to the subcommittee and look forward to your
testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN LISCHKE, SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE, CHIEF
INFORMATION OFFICER, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
Ms. Lischke. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today on this very important matter. In the interest of
time, I have prepared a written statement that I will submit
for the record. But I would like to take several minutes to
address several important points.
As you know, the National Guard lives with one foot in the
Federal camp and one foot in the State camp. We are the one
organization that is the bridge between Federal and State
governments. We live in a world where we have to communicate
with a myriad of organizations and therefore interoperability
is very important to us.
At least 25 of our Adjutants General are also the State
emergency management officials, and at least 15 of our
Adjutants General have been named the senior homeland security
advisor to the Governor. In order to better coordinate with all
these different organizations, we have created standing joint
force headquarters in each of the States, territories and the
District of Columbia. We have representatives from each of the
military branches and each of the Federal, State and local
governments in those headquarters.
In order to address the need for better communications, we
have with the strong support of Congress implemented a robust
network that not only connects all of our armories together and
our standing joint force headquarters, but also connects us to
the Department of Defense and to our State networks. We have
built 321 digitized facilities through our distributive
training technology project that we are using for exercise
training with our first responders as well as using them for
command and control locations when the situation calls for it.
In fact, they were invaluable to us right after September 11.
We also have fielded 32 civil support teams that have a
communications band as part of their suite of equipment. This
provides them with interagency communications. We currently
have another 12 teams that are in training and are looking
forward to receiving the resources to stand up the last 11
teams.
The recent GAO report referenced the Defense Science
Board's summer study that came out in November of last year. In
that summer study, the Defense Science Board captured the
requirements of the States for communications. As a result, we
have developed a concept that we refer to as the Joint CONUS
Communications Support Environment. It's not a single program,
but rather a number of different initiatives to address those
States' requirements of interoperable communications down to
the incident site, as well as being able to pass information up
and down to those organizations that need it. It also provides
for a joint operations center in each of the 54 standing joint
force headquarters that are being manned 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week.
We are currently running several pilots to determine the
solutions that will best meet the States' requirements. And in
our development of the concept of the Joint CONUS
Communications Support Environment, we have been working with
David Boyd to ensure we are all going in the same direction.
Interoperable communications is critical to us, and we feel
it is very important to establish a nationwide strategy. We see
SAFECOM as that program that is addressing this, and we have
been working with them to contribute to their success.
In summary, the National Guard is committed to providing
interoperable communications working with Federal, State and
local governments and using our unique status to contribute to
the success in this endeavor.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lischke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.080
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. I'm sure there will be a
number of them.
Our next witness is Vincent Stile. Mr. Stile is the past
president of the Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials International, Inc. He became involved with the APCO
association when he began serving as southern New York State's
assistant frequency coordinator for police and local government
in 1970.
During his tenure with APCO, Mr. Stile served in a number
of positions. He served on the APCO automated frequency
coordination board of directors and on the task force that
developed the first in-house automated frequency coordination
system.
He is a 40 year veteran of the Suffolk County Police
Department which he currently serves as the police radio
communications director, a position he has held since 1985. He
budgets, plans, designs and implements new wireless
communications systems for the department, the 14th largest in
the United States.
We are looking forward to your hands-on expertise. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF VINCENT STILE, PAST PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Mr. Stile. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As stated, I am Vincent Stile, and I'm a retired police
officer from the Suffolk County Police Department and serving
as a frequency radio coordinator and radio spectrum management
counseling for police and local government of southern New York
State. I presently also serve as vice chair of the Department
of Homeland Security Project SAFECOM executive committee.
I am here today to discuss interoperability as it relates
to public safety achievements toward that goal. I would first
like to point out that the goals of interoperability are not
new, and the term itself has taken on a heightened level of
meaning since the attack on this Nation 3 years ago.
Interoperability is a daily occurrence for first responders as
they perform their routine duties. Interoperability first
begins in our local communities as police officers, firemen,
EMS workers, along with their 911 dispatchers, all first
responders, communicate with each other.
As I pointed out in my written testimony, the APCO homeland
security task force identified six topics that most identified
the needs for putting together responsible interoperability
planning. Recently, prior to the Republican National Convention
in New York City, I brought together a number of public safety
communication specialists from surrounding areas of New York
City, including radio personnel from the New York City police
department. I mention this to illustrate that the planning
process that homeland security task force identified as steps
to putting together a plan, it was important to have this kind
of a meeting.
It is without question that the city planners and New York
City police department and Secret Service all had all the
communications concerns well covered for the city. The purpose
of our meeting, of the surrounding area communications
specialist, was to make plans in the event of a mutual aid that
may be required from the surrounding police, fire and EMS
agencies. We discussed what radio channels would be in use to
communicate on and who would be in control of designated radio
assignments. This step represents the planning stage of
Homeland Security Task Force recommendations.
We came together to plan what the action would be if
necessary if we were called out. Any call for aid would
represent the next step in the recommendations which was
interoperability phase where radio communications would cross
over the boundaries of official jurisdictions.
Next was the selection of radio frequencies that would work
and provide coverage in that area. Servability and redundancy
was built into the planning process as the communications
specialists present all knew the range and coverage to expect
from the selected radio channels, as well as what radio systems
would be used or re-used for redundancy. And finally, the
training portion of the task force recommendations occurred as
part of the routine testing that has been conducted in the area
up to this point.
The pre-planning of public safety entities is extremely
important and has basically taken hold by many of the local
government agencies due to the help that is beginning to come
forward from the Federal funding sources and guidelines
provided through the help of Federal information sources. Much
of this help has been infused into the Federal programs by
State and local government first responders who were sought
after to provide input for what was necessary to plan for the
interoperability.
The Federal guidelines initiated by the Department of
Homeland Security SAFECOM program are structured to educate,
train, provide financial assistance as money becomes available.
These programs can be a complete source for guiding State and
local government to develop interoperability planning.
Suffolk County and Nassau County in Long Island are
developing a bi-county interoperability program with the help
of Federal grants they recently both received. As part of this
program, 800 megahertz national channel base stations will be
located at vantage points on Long Island to provide radio
coverage for first responders throughout most of Nassau and
Suffolk Counties. The extension of these national channels will
be functional in the five boroughs of New York City under the
control of the Port Authority.
Also as part of this grant money, radios will be purchased
to allow Suffolk County police officers that travel through
Nassau County and into Manhattan have continued communications
with a monitoring dispatcher at each end of the dispatch areas.
Interoperability programs such as those mentioned are also
possible with the assistance of Federal funding and routine
testing and training on the systems implemented plus ongoing
upgrading of improved communications equipment. Clearly,
however, if there is a lack of radio spectrum for public
safety, all the planning for interoperability will only delay
its implementation.
I want to thank you very much again for conducting these
hearings and allowing me to appear before you today. APCO looks
forward to working with Congress to assure that public safety
agencies have access to the needed resources and spectrum that
are needed to protect the lives and the property of the public
we serve.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stile follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.089
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Mr. Stile. We appreciate
that.
Our next witness is Michael Neuhard. Chief Neuhard is a 27
year veteran of the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department,
where he currently serves as the fire chief and Fairfax County
Fire Marshal. In this position, he directs a staff of more than
1,400, including 1,200 uniformed personnel.
Chief Neuhard plans, coordinate and directs the overall
operation of the fire and rescue department, including fire
suppression, hazardous material abatement, emergency medical
services, fire prevention, technical rescue and administrative
and support services. He is a graduate of Mary Washington
College and the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center
for Public Service Senior Executive Institute.
Chief Neuhard's professional affiliations include the
Virginia State Fire Chiefs Association, the International
Association of Firefighters and the International Association
of Fire Chiefs.
Welcome to the subcommittee, sir, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. NEUHARD, FIRE CHIEF, FAIRFAX COUNTY
FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT
Chief Neuhard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. We are grateful for this
opportunity to provide you with a local perspective on
interoperability.
I have provided you with a complete, detailed set of
comments and I will summarize some of those here today for you
in my verbal comments.
I'd like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to indicate to you
that our thoughts and concerns are with your first responders
and citizens in Florida. We know what it's like to live through
a disaster, and we know what they're going through now. And we
hope that second storm doesn't come to you like it's scheduled
to.
The Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department serves over 1
million residents, workers and visitors each day in Fairfax
County. We are an all hazards fire department, providing fire
suppression efforts, basic life support and advanced life
support emergency medical services and technical specialties,
including rescue and cave-in capabilities, hazardous materials
response and mitigation, and marine operations. Last year, we
responded to over 90,000 calls for service and our call volume
continues to grow.
Many of you know us because of our Fairfax County Urban
Search and Rescue Program, which is renowned throughout the
United States and the world, having responded to tragedies such
as the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995,
and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Interoperability is a critical issue for emergency
responders. From a local perspective, where you are in this
country will determine how successful you have been in
achieving interoperability. It must be remembered that
interoperability is not just about technology. In fact, it has
been said that interoperability is really 80 percent
communications and coordination in various forms and only 20
percent technical.
Critical components of emergency response systems which
should be interoperable but are not necessarily technical in
nature including common incident management techniques, common
terminology, common policy and procedures, standardized
training, compatible equipment, such as protective clothing,
metering devices, self contained breathing apparatus and
redundant methods of communication. While it is important to
continue to improve upon and advance technical interoperability
amongst wireless communication devices, it must be remembered
that they will be useless, confusing and counterproductive if
adequate attention is not given to emergency response systems
as a whole in those areas that I've just mentioned.
The Commonwealth of Virginia partnered with SAFECOM to
design a locally driven planning approach to enhance
communications interoperability across Virginia.
Mr. Putnam. If you want to just, well, by the time I got
around to letting you wait, they quit on us. Please proceed.
Chief Neuhard. Thank you. I was mentioning the partnership
between the State of Virginia and SAFECOM at the time and their
efforts to enhance communication interoperability across the
Commonwealth, which has ultimately resulted in a strategic plan
that we are now implementing. The process included six regional
focus group sessions to capture perspective from local public
safety responders throughout the Commonwealth. Key strategic
goals include expanding the statewide use of common language
and coordinated communication protocols, increasing
interoperability capabilities and coordination by maximizing
the use of existing communications systems and equipment, and
by planning for future technology purchases.
Also, we are attempting to enhance the knowledge of proper
use of communications equipment by providing frequent and
routine training for public safety personnel. The plan is now
being implemented by a full time program manager known as the
Commonwealth interoperability coordinator.
There are many challenges that remain. We still face the
challenge of our computer aided dispatch systems talking to
each other within a region. The capability is necessary so that
we can effectively transmit through existing systems amongst
jurisdictions written information and dated field units.
We still have a long way to go to assure that there is
adequate and common command processes, common language and
policies and procedures that ensure seamless functioning on an
emergency scene between multiple agencies. Many localities
continue to simply buy new radios, some through Federal grants,
without having the proper training on operation and integration
of that equipment into emergency operations. Exercises of new
equipment and procedures at the regional level is still very
uncommon. We need to support more regional training and
exercises to incorporate interoperability solutions and
identify additional gaps.
The Department of Homeland Security, through the SAFECOM
program, has gained the support of all the major associations
representing public safety officials, State and local elected
and appointed officials. In January 2004, the 10 associations
released a joint statement that declared, with the advent of
the SAFECOM program, public safety, State and local government
finally have a voice in public safety discussions at the
Federal level and confident that the Government is coordinating
its resources.
In conclusion, the key to all interoperability is
cooperation among and between the various agencies and
jurisdictions. Maintaining forward momentum on improving
communications and operational interoperability requires
continued actions on multiple fronts, including common command
language, local and State level planning, common policy and
procedures, training and technical advances. It is imperative
that interoperability remain a high priority at all levels of
Government and with adequate funding, coordination and support.
Failure to do so will allow interoperability to be a passing
fad leading to inefficiencies and poor performance at the next
major emergency requiring more than one agency to respond or
more than one level of Government.
Project SAFECOM is one answer to ensuring it stays focused
at the Federal level. Thank you very much.
[Note.--The Commonwealth of Virginia report entitled,
``Strategic Plan for Statewide Communications Interoperability,
Fiscal Years 2005-2007,'' may be found in subcommittee files.]
[The prepared statement of Chief Neuhard follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.093
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Chief.
We have three votes pending, one, the clock is running now.
Mr. Worden, we are going to move to your testimony, we will
hold people here. We are going to do a very brief, brief round
of questions. I certainly respect and appreciate the distance
you all have traveled and your time being here with us, but
unfortunately, we are going to have to cut the second panel
short to get to the vote.
So Mr. Worden, your introduction, Chief of
Telecommunications Branch of the Governor's Office of Emergency
Services in California, the office responsible for providing a
communications structure for daily operation of the agency. Mr.
Worden is a 30 year veteran of the Air Force, where he
commanded airlift control flight responsible for deploying
communications and a support group directing communications
information technology and other support services.
We greatly appreciate your being here, and you are
recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS B. WORDEN, CHIEF, TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BRANCH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES
Mr. Worden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members.
I'll attempt to avoid repeating much that is in the
prepared testimony, skim through here and just hit some
highlights, and some highlights as well observed in the earlier
testimony. My perspective is different. At the State level, the
Office of Emergency Services, we focus on bringing public
safety professional together across levels of government and
across disciplines to do planning and to effectively use our
statewide emergency management system to coordinate during
emergencies.
We also do operate as the operator of public safety radio
systems and administer the licenses of several statewide
families of channels, bringing together public safety
professionals from across the State, representing the different
regions, the different geographics, the different disciplines
and the different political and financial capabilities of the
governments they represent.
The plans they wrote have served for decades, and they have
been the model for planning. In the fire services they have
risen to the level of doctrine that drives training and
equipment decisions, not only in California but nationwide.
That doctrine is what made the 1,000 vehicle deployment during
the southern California firestorm possible. While we did have
some difficulties, we responded to seven major incidents and
only on a few did we have issues.
The worst issues were not, however, in San Diego County.
The limited ability of the San Diego County system to respond
in growing areas reflects more the lack of guidelines,
established, accepted, if you will, standards, on how quickly
you must expand your radio systems as communities develop in
the suburban fringe and in the wildland urban interface. We
have very well established standards by which we judge how soon
we have to open a firehouse, how many police cars we need to
add, but we do not have those standards in how many radio
transmitters we have to add, how many repeaters, how much more
complex to make the system, and yes, we did have tremendous
problems with calls crashing in the suburban and rural portions
of San Diego County as a result of that lack of standards.
Project SAFECOM, by the way, has demonstrated the
understanding that we build all of these programs successfully
up from the local requirement to the region, to the State, and
ultimately to some national standards.
Our most successful regional public safety radio systems,
including San Diego, developed out of a need to resolve
communications issues at the local level, lack of spectrum
being one driver, the need to modernize extremely outdated
equipment, and finding a funding mechanism to do so being the
other. Again, when cross discipline committees have come
together and cross government committees have come together,
they have come up with the best solutions. We have yet to see a
solution imposed from above which has been effectively
implemented.
As the Chief said, technology is a very small part of the
problem. I often tell people that given a reasonable amount of
time and a huge amount of money, my communications specialists
can get anybody to talk to anybody. But during a crisis, you
don't have the time, and in government, we never have an
unreasonable amount of money.
There has been a resistance, however, in the pervious grant
programs to deal with the kind of detailed operational planning
and technical analysis that the Chief and others have
discussed. It's been resisted as time consuming; it's been
resisted as frustrating. It is both of those, but it is the
core of success.
We have been working with SAFECOM on RAPIDCom 9/30 and
we've had the opportunity to read the progress reports from all
10 cities. Interestingly, we in California asked SAFECOM and
the ICTAP team to focus on governance documents, on coming up
with the words and phrases that will regulate how the shared
frequency system will work.
We read reports from other cities that are still talking
about who should be coming to the table to discuss who should
be on the system. We're beyond that, but we're beyond that
because in both cities, local government was already beyond
that, not because of anything that was imposed on them.
Training is a huge issue. These are complex systems, even
the ones fielded now. And if the public safety responder does
not use those features in exercises, doesn't use them in daily
operations, they will not use them effectively during crisis.
Most of our grant programs have only now begun to address
training as an essential portion of implementing these systems.
Funding, we've already talked about the difficulties for
local government in retroactive funding and the need to resolve
that. We do need process controls to make sure that the money
is spent well, but we can protect, I think, local coffers as
well as State coffers by assuming honesty as we develop our
programs, rather than assuming dishonesty on the part of local
government.
Another area of funding is those joint power authorities
that Ms. McCollum referenced. Often, they require local
governments to pre-commit to year in-year out funding. And when
Federal and State partners are not willing to do so, it's very
difficult for those to go forward.
Very quickly, there are two other areas where Federal
issues arise. We are happy to invite the tribal governments,
but when they are unable to sign documents because of liability
issues in those documents or issues that hit upon tribal
sovereignty, we at State and local or regional committees
cannot address those issues. And whether it's implementing the
800 megahertz consensus solution or other issues, we cannot
deal with international border issues, which severely limit our
ability to update in Southern California.
And with that, sir, I ran very quickly through. Thank you
for your time, and we all stand ready for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Worden follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.099
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. And again, I apologize for
the fact that we're going to have to cut this short.
I'm going to give everyone the opportunity to ask the
question of the day before I have to run off to vote, we'll
begin with Ms. Lischke, and I would ask all of you to please
keep your answers to a minute.
What specifically can the Federal Government do, for the
short term, for the State and local governments that you
represent, to improve interoperability?
Ms. Lischke. Again, I believe the support for the SAFECOM
program helps us in the long term. And in the short term,
again, we're working with the SAFECOM project and the RAPIDCom
project. But it's coming up with some of the patch devices that
David Boyd was talking about, that allows us to connect
different types of radios together.
And also working with the Department of Defense program
that is putting out land mobile radios, which is a commercial
off the shelf product and provides us some of the
interoperability we need until the long term radio that David
Boyd was talking about, the joint tactical radio, comes out.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. Mr. Stile.
Mr. Stile. Thank you. I would say that we need to have the
SAFECOM continue with their programs at least to better provide
more of the training, more of the ability to get information
out to the State and locals, local government needs to be
funding wise, needs to come down from the State to the local
level. I would actually like to see it go to the regional
level, but there is no regional point that those moneys could
be funded to.
So it needs to come from the States to the individual
localities. And I personally believe that it's necessary for
SAFECOM to continue their program, as to what they've started
out with and what they're doing.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, sir. Chief.
Chief Neuhard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three
suggestions as to what the Federal Government can do to
continue to help us as first responders. First and foremost, we
need continued grants that not only include equipment but also
include planning, training and exercise money, specifically for
interoperability issues.
Second, there is, as you heard today, a real need for
continued facilitation and coordination at all levels of
Government. I think now SAFECOM is on track and we need to see
that continue.
And third, finally, we need a long term commitment to see
interoperability through. As you've learned today, it is not a
steady State. It is going to require continued funding and
continued focus. So at the Federal administrative level, and
from Congress, we need money and focus. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. Money and focus. Thank you.
Mr. Worden.
Mr. Worden. Yes, sir. First, the support for SAFECOM and
the recognition that a single agency developing standards is
critical. Second, elimination of duplication and, please don't
get me wrong, I don't want to eliminate duplicate source of
money, but when those sources of money come with duplicate
guidance, it leads us off in too many directions.
Third, cross discipline planning at the Federal level to
enable locals to plan more effectively for the Federal partners
who will join them during events, rather than having to deal
with each agency separately or distinctly different approaches
to planning from the different Federal agencies.
Finally, for all the funders to recognize the multi-year
nature of the funding that's needed both for planning and for
implementation. It is very difficult to plan and fund a well
thought out system in the funding cycles we have, and having to
make investments in one grant cycle with the fear that they
won't be eligible in the next grant cycle has paralyzed some
local operations.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much to all of you. Before we
adjourn, I just want to apologize again for the brevity of
this, particularly those of you who have traveled.
Unfortunately, that's just the way the vote schedule works.
I appreciate your knowledge and experience and thoughts
that you and panel one shared with us, as well as the efforts
of the subcommittee members and subcommittee staff,
particularly Shannon Weinberg and Felipe Colon, as well as
Grace Washbourne from the full committee.
We're grateful, terribly grateful for the every day heroes,
the first responders in our communities who put themselves in
harm's way on our behalf and run into buildings that everyone
else is running out of. We look forward to a nation that is
safer and better protected through improved communications
capacity and interoperability and also looking forward to
saving the lives of those men and women who do put themselves
in harm's way as a result.
I want to thank everyone who participated in this, and in
the event, and this is certainly the case, that there are
additional questions that we did not have time for, the record
will remain open for 2 weeks for submitted questions and
answers. We will be submitting those to you, and we look
forward to your response.
Thank you so very much. With that, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8292.126