[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS:
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS,
AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-272 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�0900012009
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, PETER T. KING, New York
Chairman LAMAR SMITH, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington TOM DAVIS, Virginia
JANE HARMAN, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
NITA M. LOWEY, New York BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
Columbia MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Islands GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
VACANCY
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff
Director & General Counsel
Todd Gee, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff
Director
_________________________________________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
NITA M. LOWEY, New York BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
Columbia PETER T. KING, New York (Ex
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Officio)
Islands
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex
Officio)
Craig Sharman, Director
Nichole Francis, Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Heather Hogg, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 1
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response............ 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Mississippi, Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security....................................................... 4
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina.................................... 24
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York.......................................... 26
Witnesses
The Honorable John M.R. Kneuer, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, Department of Commerce:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, Commanding Officer, NYPD
Communications Division:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Mr. Corey Gruber, Acting Assistant Secretary for Grants and
Training, Office of Grants and Training, Department of Homeland
security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Appendices
A. Letter from Hon. John M.R. Kneuer and Mr. Corey Gruber........ 39
B. Additional Questions and Responses:
The Honorable John M.R. Kneuer Responses................... 44
Deputy Chief Charles Dowd Responses........................ 41
Mr. Corey Gruber Responses................................. 42
ARE THE DEPARTMENTS OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND COMMERCE EFFECTIVELY
COORDINATING TO MEET THE NATION'S EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION NEED?
----------
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Lowey, Etheridge, and
Thompson.
Mr. Cuellar. [Presiding.] The subcommittee will come to
order.
This subcommittee meeting today is to do oversight over the
interoperable communications grant programs and receive
testimony from the Office of Grants and Training and the
Department of Homeland Security and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration at the
Department of Commerce on the question of whether they are
coordinating effectively to meet our nation's emergency
communications needs.
In addition, we will hear from a representative of the New
York City Police Department to receive a local perspective on
the best way to utilize the grants.
And again, for the witnesses, I certainly want to say
welcome for being here with us.
The only thing I do ask you is we do have a committee rule
about getting the testimony 48 hours before, and again, it is
just for the purposes to allow the members to have it
beforehand and have staff an opportunity to review. So I know
we are all pressed with time, but I would ask that next time
that we get that information at least within the 48 hours to
meet our committee rules.
Again, good morning, and I want to thank all of you all for
being here. And on behalf of the members and our chairman of
our full committee, Mr. Thompson, we want to welcome you to
this committee and certainly welcome our panel here.
We are glad that you are here to discuss the MOU between
the Office of Grants and Training at DHS and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration at the
Department of Commerce to administer the $1 billion public
safety interoperable communications grant program.
We are also glad that we have a representative of the New
York Police Department communications division who is here to
give us a local perspective on the interoperability problem and
give us guidance as to whether the federal government is
helping to facilitate solutions.
It is unsettling that even after the devastating Oklahoma
City bombing, the 9/11 attacks, the London and the Madrid
bombing, and the devastation that we had of Katrina, the
hurricane Katrina, the interoperable communications still
remains a problem across the nation.
The 9/11 Commission report made it clear that this type of
communication is critical yet until recently we made a little
bit of progress. However, I believe that we are starting to see
positive developments at the Department of Homeland Security,
and I want to thank you for the progress that we have been
seeing.
And I am hoping that we are seeing the light at the end of
the tunnel, and I do appreciate the hard work that your
department has been putting in.
The tactical interoperable communications scorecards
recently released by the department assess the maturity of the
tactical interoperable communications capabilities in 75
metropolitan areas. The scorecards will help the department
focus technical assistance programs and target specific areas
of improvement in communications interoperability.
Additionally, through the efforts of this committee and our
chairman, Congress created a new Office of Emergency
Communications at the department as part of the Katrina reform
bill.
The goal of this new emergency communications entity is to
develop a national emergency communications strategy. It will
be used to coordinate efforts by federal, state and local
government emergency responders and the private sector to
achieve interoperability and promote emergency communications
operability.
Finally, this Congress has begun to allocate real dollars
to state and local governments aimed at funding
interoperability solutions. In 2006, Congress authorized a $1
billion interoperability grant program as part of the Deficit
Reduction Act, which authorized the auction of some of the
spectrum in the 700 megahertz band.
Most recently, Democrats steered the passage of H.R. 1, the
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.
Title 2 of the bill will create a standalone emergency
communications grant program at the Department of Homeland
Security.
It appears that the Senate version of the 9/11 Commission
includes the similar grant programs. Therefore, we are hopeful
that this provision will become law in the near future.
So I would like to once again thank the witnesses for their
testimony that they are about to provide us members, and I look
forward to a productive discussion on this very, very critical
issue.
The chair now recognizes the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for
any statements that he might have at this time.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am really pleased that today we have officials from
the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Commerce here today to discuss this new $1 billion Public
Safety Interoperable Communications grant program that was
approved previously.
I am also pleased that we are going to be hearing from
Charles Dowd, Deputy Chief of the New York City Police
Department. I look forward to hearing the NYPD's perspective on
this grant program and to listening to any questions or
concerns regarding the disbursement of grant funds and the
application process.
I was also pleased to hear that the long-awaited memorandum
of understanding between DHS and Commerce was signed last
month. I was particularly pleased to hear that the Department
of Homeland Security will be playing a significant role in the
administration of these funds.
This Committee played an integral role last Congress in
ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security will help
manage this important new grant program to support first
responder emergency communications.
DHS, in my view, is the logical choice to administer this
new program, given its role directly supporting and interacting
with first responders through grant programs, technical
assistance, training, and exercises.
The NTIA, at least as I understand it, has little
experience in distributing or administering grant funds, nor
does it have experience working closely with state and local
first responders.
It is my understanding that DHS plans to integrate the new
Public Safety Interoperable Communications grants with other
existing programs like the State Homeland Security Grant
Program.
I also look forward to hearing how this will affect grant
guidance, the application process, and the distribution of
interoperability grant funds. For instance, how will these
grant funds be distributed? If the grants are to be distributed
based on risk, what will be the distribution formula?
I also look forward to hearing more about the development
of the grant guidance for this particular program. Many areas
of the country have invested billions of dollars of their own
monies in interoperable communication systems that do not
utilize spectrum in the 700 megahertz range.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State
Police recently began using an 800-megahertz system to
modernize and integrate communications among emergency services
across the Commonwealth.
And so my question is how will the grant guidance for the
new $1 billion program ensure that agencies like the
Pennsylvania State Police are not penalized for their past
investments.
And how will the grant program leverage interoperability
investments that have already been made or that are under way
across the country?
So I do look forward to discussing these and other issues
with the panelists today, and I certainly will welcome your
testimony. And again, thank you all for being here.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an
opening statement.
And, Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for the leadership
that you provided, and I know that you made it very clear to
this subcommittee that this is a critical issue, that we need
to get to a solution, a practical solution, as soon as
possible.
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chairman Cuellar.
And I welcome the witnesses here today.
As you know, we had a hearing on February 9th before the
full committee, and I had to remind Secretary Chertoff that the
MOU hadn't been completed at that time, and I am happy, based
on comments made earlier, to see that it is, in fact, in place.
Though a little late, it is nonetheless in place. The fact
that two acts of Congress couldn't get it done--we still got it
done, so I am happy with that.
The $1 billion is real important to the process. Congress
has made a commitment because interoperability--from our
vantage point, this a really serious problem.
During 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and Rita--if everybody
involved in those three disasters could have had on-time
communication, all of us are certain that a number of lives
could have been saved.
So we are committed to doing it. I am concerned a little
bit that sometimes vendors get out ahead of the strategy and
the plan, and so what happens may be like Pennsylvania or other
states who are moving forward.
I want to know, how will we now compensate or coordinate
states who have been proactive or cities that have been
proactive in this interoperability situation to bring it into
an overall strategy?
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony.
And again, I thank the witnesses for their testimony they
are about to give.
I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under
the committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for
the record.
I now welcome the panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Corey Gruber, who is the acting
assistant secretary from the Office of Grants and Training for
the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Gruber has served in
that capacity since October of 2006 and has over 15 years of
experience in the areas of emergency planning, programming and
response.
Our second witness is Mr. John Kneuer, who is the assistant
secretary for communications and information for the National
Telecommunications Information Administration, also known as
the NTIA. Mr. Kneuer oversees and directs the NTIA, which
represents the executive branch in both domestic and
international telecommunications and information policy
activities. The NTIA also manages the federal use of spectrum
and performs telecommunications research and engineering,
including resolving technical issues for the federal government
and the private sector.
Again, thank you for being here.
And our third witness is Chief Charles Dowd, who is the
commanding officer for the New York Police Department
Communications Division. Chief Dowd has a special appreciation
of the importance of interoperability in that he has served for
27 years in the New York Police Department.
And, Chief, thank you very much for being here with us.
We are all pleased that all of you all here are present.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record.
And I now ask each witness to summarize his statement for 5
minutes, beginning with Mr. Gruber.
STATEMENT COREY GRUBER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GRANTS
AND TRAINING, OFFICE OF GRANTS AND TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Gruber. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, Chairman
Thompson and members, my name is Corey Gruber, and I serve as
the acting assistant secretary in the Office of Grants and
Training.
On behalf of the secretary and the entire department, it is
my pleasure to appear before you this morning and to discuss
the strong partnership we formed with the Department of
Commerce to co-administer the public safety interoperable
communications grant program.
I know, as you are aware, grants and training is
responsible for preparing the nation against terrorism by
assisting states and local jurisdictions, tribes and regional
authorities as they prevent, deter and respond to terrorist
acts.
And this support, of course, includes grants, coordinated
training, exercises, equipment acquisition and technical
assistance.
From fiscal year 2003 to 2006, DHS has provided more than
$2.9 billion for interoperable communications initiatives,
making it the largest category of expenditure in our homeland
security grant program.
Through 2006, we worked with 75 urban and metropolitan
areas to develop tactical interoperable communications plans,
test these plans through full-scale exercises, and assess the
results through the development of the tactical interoperable
communications scorecards.
The scorecards were released in January of this year, and
they provided a tailored assessment and specific
recommendations on how best to improve an area's capability in
the near term using its existing technology.
We have relied heavily on our interoperable communications
technical assistance program to support grantees. That program
provides assistance and training at no cost to first responders
in conjunction with communications equipment purchased with
grant funding.
Since its inception in 2003, that program has provided
assistance to more than 65 urban and metropolitan areas, and
that support has proved critical in all the interoperability
efforts we have administered.
As outlined in the memorandum of understanding, grantee
technical assistance will continue to be a key component of
this program as we support the development of the statewide
plans and implementation of the grants.
Section 3006 of the Deficit Reduction Act directed that
NTIA, in consultation with us, help to establish the program
and administer it to assist public safety agencies in their
acquisition, deployment and training related to the use of
interoperable communications systems.
The Call Home Act also helped to describe how we would
administer this program, again together, and instructed us to
award the grants no later than September 30, 2007.
So in support of the Deficit Reduction and the Call Home
Acts, we established a partnership with commerce to develop and
implement the program. The MOU was signed on February 16th. It
authorized commerce to transfer funds to DHS, and we would
administer the grant program.
The Department of Commerce retains ultimate approval
authority over all aspects of the program.
Achieving the program goals requires building on many
efforts that are under way regarding interoperability. The use
of the funds, of course, will be linked to forthcoming
statewide interoperable communications plans as well as
recommendations that were provided during the tactical
interoperable communications planning effort.
A portion of these funds, up to 5 percent, will be used by
states to support their statewide planning efforts. The
remainder of the funds will be conditioned on the acceptance of
the statewide plans and the supporting investment
justifications. We will award all the funding by September 30th
as required in the Call Home Act.
Keeping with established grant processes, as advocated by
many of our state and local public safety associations, these
funds will be allocated using a modified version of our 2007
risk methodology.
DHS and the Department of Commerce are currently working to
determine those specific allocations. They will be distributed
via the state administrative agencies in the 56 states and
territories.
Both departments are currently developing the program
application and guidance materials in line with the SAFECOM
guidance, as directed in the Call Home Act. The guidance
supports all lanes of the SAFECOM interoperability continuum,
with allowable costs for planning, technology procurement,
exercises and training.
Regarding technology, the Deficit Reduction Act stated that
funding should be used for systems that utilize forthcoming
spectrum in the 700 megahertz band or provide interoperability
with future systems.
We believe it is important to support interoperability
beyond 700 megahertz to ensure we can meet public safety
agencies' unique requirements.
Interoperable communications have been a longstanding
priority for the administration and that is now supported by a
strong partnership under the leadership of our colleagues at
commerce.
We are committed to ensuring we achieve baseline
interoperability across the nation that can accommodate scaling
seamlessly from localized incidents to large national
responses.
I look forward to answering any questions you have. Thank
you, sir, for your time.
[The statement of Mr. Gruber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Corey Gruber
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Corey Gruber, and I serve as the Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Grants and
Training (G&T). It is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss
the Department's progress on interoperable communications. Specifically
my goal is to provide information on the Public Safety Interoperable
Communications (PSIC) Grant Program and the way we are coordinating
with the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) to implement the program.
As you are aware, G&T is responsible for supporting the
Department's broader efforts to assist State, local, tribal, and
territorial authorities in preventing, deterring, and responding to
terrorist acts. G&T interacts directly with State and local
jurisdictions and provides a broad array of support to America's State,
territorial, and local governments. G&T's support includes grants,
coordinated training, exercises, equipment acquisition, and technical
assistance. G&T's grant programs were initiated in 1998, and currently
provide funds to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
territories, high-risk Urban Areas, public safety entities, non-
governmental and academic institutions, and the private sector.
As you know, G&T will re-align and report to the Administrator of
FEMA beginning on March 31st. This will strengthen our service support
role to DHS components and our external partners across the full
spectrum of homeland security activities.
PROGRESS TOWARD INTEROPERABILITY
From fiscal year (FY) 2003 through FY 2006, G&T has provided more
than $2.9 billion for communications interoperability initiatives,
making it the largest category of expenditure through the Homeland
Security Grant Program due in part to it being one of eight National
Priorities under the National Preparedness Goal. We have learned
through our partnership with state and local emergency responders that
addressing interoperable communications is about more than simply
purchasing equipment. In December, the SAFECOM program at DHS completed
a comprehensive National Baseline assessment of thousands of state and
local emergency response agencies. In addition, throughout 2006 we
worked with 75 urban and metropolitan areas to develop tactical
interoperable communications plans (TICP), test these plans through
full-scale exercise, and assess the results through the development of
Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards. These scorecards,
released in January 2007, provide a tailored assessment of the progress
each urban and metropolitan area has individually achieved with its
available resources, as well as provide recommendations on how to best
improve an area's capabilities in the immediate future using its
existing technologies.
In both the Baseline and Scorecard efforts, the findings have shown
that interoperable communications equipment is only as effective as the
governance structure planning, operating procedures, and training
programs within which it is used. Specific findings and recommendations
of the Tactical Scorecard report include:
Governance--Areas with mature governance structures have
advanced further in implementing shared systems/solutions that
facilitate regional communications. Regionalized strategic
plans are largely not in place and should be developed for
communications interoperability with careful consideration for
how investments can be shared across the region.
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)--For many of the urban
areas, the DHS TICP assistance developed provided the first
formal, region-wide communications interoperability SOPs.
Additional steps should be taken to ensure that these
procedures (as well as those outlined in the National Incident
Management System) are fully instituted at the command and
responder levels.
Usage--The proficiency in the use of communications
interoperability equipment and accompanying procedures varies
by the types of equipment used and is increasingly complex as
additional agencies are included in response efforts. In
addition, almost no region had completed a communications-
focused exercise before the DHS TICP validation exercise, which
meant that the areas had no specific practice using their
interoperable communications capabilities in a region-wide
context.
Throughout the TICP and Scorecard efforts, we have relied heavily
on the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program
(ICTAP) to support our grantees. ICTAP provides technical assistance
and training at no cost to first responders in conjunction with
communications equipment purchased with grant funding. This program
ensures that first responders understand the scope of their
interoperability needs and how to fully utilize new technology. Since
its inception in 2003, ICTAP has grown to provide assistance to more
than 65 urban and metropolitan areas, and this support proved
absolutely critical in the success of the TICP initiative. As outlined
in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DHS and NTIA, grantee
technical assistance will continue to be a key component of the PSIC
Grant Program as we support the development of statewide plans and the
implementation of communications interoperability grants.
INCORPORATING LESSONS LEARNED
As we strive to develop the most effective PSIC Grant Program, DHS
initiatives like the Baseline Assessment and TICP Initiative have
provided critical data that will be incorporated into the PSIC Grant
Program. For example, the use of PSIC funds will be based on a
comprehensive planning effort by the state and local agencies, and must
provide the flexibility to leverage the tens of billions of dollars in
existing communications infrastructure already in place.
Need for Planning: Building on the success of the TICP efforts for
local planning, validation and improvement efforts, DHS has developed a
statewide planning approach, which each State will be implementing
throughout 2007. These statewide plans and the criteria set forth for
their development must be the foundation for effective equipment and
system purchases.
Flexibility with Use of Funds: The Baseline Assessment and TICP
Initiative have also documented that a wide range of communications
technologies are currently in use at the State and local levels. The
Deficit Reduction Act references interoperability with newly assigned
700 megahertz (MHz) spectrum. DHS and Commerce believe that the Act's
language does not limit the grant funds only to 700 MHz systems
investments. Rather, we are committed to exploring the use of all
available technologies to advance overall public safety
interoperability, as long as those technologies will enable first
responders to interoperate with the 700 MHz bands in the future.
In developing the program plan upon which the MOU was signed, we
have taken a thoughtful and developed approach to incorporate the
multiple legislative directives and guidance that has been received
over the last year, as well as feedback from practitioners and these
lessons learned. Specifically, we have worked to reconcile timelines,
guidance, and allocation methodologies to meet the goals of making
meaningful improvements to public safety interoperable communications.
PSIC GRANT PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Section 3006 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 directed NTIA, in
consultation with DHS, to establish a $1 billion grant program. The
purpose of the grant program is to assist public safety agencies in the
acquisition of, deployment of, and training for the use of
interoperable communications systems that use or enable
interoperability with communications systems that use the reallocated
public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The Call Home Act of 2006
further amended how the PSIC Grant Program shall be administered by
requiring NTIA, in consultation with DHS, to award the PSIC grant funds
by no later than September 30, 2007.
Through the Deficit Reduction and Call Home Acts, a partnership was
established between DHS and NTIA to develop and implement the PSIC
Grant Program. This partnership was affirmed in an MOU signed by each
agency on February 16, 2007. Through the MOU, NTIA will transfer PSIC
funds to DHS and NTIA will obtain the grant administrative services and
expertise of DHS. DHS will support the administration of those funds
while NTIA will retain ultimate approval authority over all aspects of
the PSIC Grant Program. Through our strong working relationship with
NTIA, we outlined a program plan and aggressive schedule of activities
for meeting the Call Home Act deadline and as depicted in the timeline
below.
Figure 1. PSIC Timeline of 2007 Activities
PSIC GOALS AND ADMINISTRATION
The PSIC Grant Program is a one-time opportunity to target specific
funds and resources toward improving interoperability with respect to
voice and data communications. The goals of the program are two-fold.
First, the PSIC Grant Program will support public safety agencies in
their acquisition, deployment, and training on interoperable
communications systems that use or enable interoperability with
communications systems that use the reallocated public safety spectrum
in the 700 MHz band. Second, PSIC funds will be used to promote cost--
and spectrum-efficient technology solutions so long as those
technologies will enable first responders to interoperate with the 700
MHz band in the future. Working together, DHS and NTIA are committed to
ensuring that these goals are met as we develop the guidance, criteria,
and evaluation processes for the PSIC Grant Program.
As part of our coordinated planning activities, we have determined
that achieving these goals requires that PSIC funds build upon the many
efforts that DHS, Commerce, as well as state and local agencies
themselves, have in motion regarding interoperability. This means that
the use of PSIC funds need to be linked to objectives identified in the
forthcoming statewide interoperable communications plans, as well as
linked to implementing the recommendations that were provided to local
areas through the TICP process. We are ensuring these linkages, and
therefore believe that we are avoiding any unnecessary duplication of
efforts or requirements on state and local agencies, by providing a
portion (up to 5%) of PSIC funds to states to support their statewide
planning efforts related to the requirements of Section 3006 of the
Deficit Reduction Act for the PSIC Grant Program. The remainder of the
funds will be conditioned on the acceptance of the statewide plans and
supporting investment justifications that clearly map state priorities
to uniform planning criteria. All PSIC funding will be awarded by
September 30, 2007 as required in the Call Home Act of 2006.
Also keeping with known grant processes, as advocated by many state
and local public safety associations, and in order to comply with the
deadline set forth in the Call Home Act, PSIC funds will be allocated
using a modified version of the DHS FY 2007 risk methodology. Currently
DHS and NTIA are working to determine the specific allocation to be
distributed to States and local public safety agencies via the State
Administrative Agencies in the 56 States and territories.
We are also currently developing the PSIC grant criteria in line
with the SAFECOM guidance. The PSIC Grant Program will assist public
safety agencies in the acquisition of, deployment of, and training for
the use of interoperable communications systems that use or enable
interoperability with communications systems that use the reallocated
spectrum in the 700 MHz band. Moreover, the Program will assist public
safety agencies in exploring the use of all available technologies to
advance overall public safety interoperability, so long as those
technologies enable interoperability with the 700 MHz band in the
future. However, Federal funding is only part of the overall strategy
to improve interoperable communication capabilities across the Nation.
State and local community leaders are making interoperability a
priority and leveraging their resources. Ultimately, solving
interoperability is a complex issue that rests on leadership at the
State and local level. Leadership through improved governance,
dedicated funding, and commitment to working with neighboring
jurisdictions will only succeed with sustained support at the local,
State, and Federal level.
Although the PSIC funding provides substantial assistance to State
and local agencies in addressing and meeting their interoperable
communications needs, more work will need to be done. Funding from
programs such as the PSIC must work in concert with planning and
program management activities at the State and local levels. We will
work with our State and local partners to maximize the effectiveness of
PSIC funding and continue our assistance to other planning and program
management activities.
CONCLUSION
Interoperable communications remains a priority issue for the
Administration, for DHS, and for our NTIA partners. DHS remains
committed to improving interoperable communications capabilities in
every State to ensure that our Nation's first responders have the
ability to communicate when the next disaster strikes. In closing, the
DHS mission is critical; its responsibilities are great; and its
commitment to protecting the citizens of this Nation is unwavering. I
will gladly respond now to any questions that you and the Members of
the Committee may have. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you again for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Kneuer to summarize your statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KNEUER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPRTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Mr. Kneuer. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Chairman Thompson,
Ranking Member Dent, for inviting me here to testify at NTIA
and our responsibilities related to the public safety
interoperable communications.
As you are aware, the Deficit Reduction Act created the
public safety interoperable communications grant program. This
program, established within the Department of Commerce, is to
be administered by NTIA in coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security.
The act directs NTIA, in consultation with DHS, to develop
grant program policies, procedures and regulations to be
awarded.
I also note that the Call Home Act accelerated this grant
program that all funds need to be awarded by the end of this
fiscal year, as Mr. Gruber alluded to.
Shortly after the signing of the act, we at NTIA began
leveraging our expertise in the area of public safety
interoperable communications and our relationships with the
public safety community in order to implement the grant
program.
This program will assist public safety agencies in the
acquisition of, deployment of, or training for the use of
interoperable communications systems that can utilize or enable
interoperability with reallocated public safety spectrum in the
700-megahertz band.
Getting to your point, Mr. Dent, with regard to 800 systems
and others, we received communications from the city of New
York with regards to their concerns from Mayor Bloomberg. Based
on that, I traveled to New York. I have been with Chief Dowd in
New York.
Their focus is on consolidating at UHF, the point being--
and Pennsylvania and other states focused on 800--we clearly
recognize that we should not be administering this program in a
way that creates any disincentive to leverage existing
resources and existing infrastructure to solve the
interoperability communications program.
I note that in New York, in consolidating at UHF, they also
will have the ability to interoperate with a future 700-
megahertz system, so should Connecticut or New Jersey or
another neighboring jurisdiction have a 700-megahertz system,
their UHF system does have the ability to reach out.
That would make them qualified for this grant program the
way we are interpreting it in partnership with DHS. So I wanted
to make that part reasonably clear at the outset.
As we noted, on February 16th NTIA and the Office of Grants
and Training executed our MOU--it is attached to my testimony--
to implement the $1 billion PSIC grant program.
In consultation with the Office of Grants and Training, we
will develop program policies, procedures and regulations to
implement the program, will approve final grant awards and
provide funding for the Office of Grants and Training for
administrative costs and grant awards.
The Office of Grants and Training, in cooperation with us,
will provide administrative services and its considerable
expertise to implement the PSIC grant program.
In developing the PSIC grant program policies, NTIA will
rely heavily on the expertise of our Institute of
Telecommunications Science laboratories in Boulder, Colorado.
ITS has been actively involved in the standard-setting process
for public safety communications.
We have partnered with agencies such as the National
Institute of Standards and Technologies, Office of Law
Enforcement Standards, various DHS offices including SAFECOM
and the chief information officer's Wireless Management Office,
the Department of Justice's Offices of Community Oriented
Policing Services, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officers, and
others.
As directed by the conference report accompanying the
Deficit Reduction Act, the PSIC grant program will be
administered consistently with the recommended federal grant
guidance, public safety communications interoperability grants
from fiscal year 2007 developed by SAFECOM.
In addition, our grants will be administered in a manner
consistent with the urban area tactical interoperable
communications plans, statewide interoperable communications
plans, state and urban area homeland security strategies, and
the national preparedness goals.
Finally, NTIA and DHS will utilize existing application
programmatic and administrative processes and resources to
minimize the administrative burden on applicants as well as the
non-grant management and administrative costs of the PSIC grant
program.
The program plan associated with the MOU sets forth a
schedule of major activities regarding administration of the
grant program, and the budget plan delineates the amounts of
funds to be transferred between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal
year 2011 for specific activities.
Grants will be awarded after the grant guidance is
completed, and grant application information and eligibility
requirements will also be released at that time.
Over the past year we have worked very closely with DHS to
implement this program. In the months ahead, we intend to use
our collective expertise to explore all available technologies
that are available to first responders to advance overall
interoperable communications.
Thank you again for inviting me, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Kneuer follows:]
Prepared Statement of John M.R. Kneuer
Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and Members of
the Committee, for inviting me here today to testify about the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and our
responsibilities to administer the Public Safety Interoperable
Communications (PSIC) Grant Program created and funded by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, and our coordination with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement this program. My
name is John Kneuer, and I serve as the Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and Administrator of NTIA.
NTIA serves as the President's principal adviser on
telecommunications and information policy issues, and in this role
frequently works with other Executive Branch agencies. NTIA also
manages the federal government's use of the radio spectrum. The
intersection of telecommunications policy and spectrum management has
been the key focus of NTIA, including public safety communications and
interoperability issues. Spectrum enables communications for military
operations and first responders in support of response and recovery
efforts for natural disasters and terrorist attacks. At the same time,
spectrum for communications contributes to innovation, job creation,
and economic growth. Wireless technologies and services that depend on
spectrum provide critical support to federal agency missions that serve
the American people, and support to a wide array of commercial and non-
federal government applications. These applications provide economic
benefits, and protect lives and property.
Additionally, NTIA's Institute for Telecommunication Sciences has
been actively involved in the standards-setting process for public
safety communications. We have partnered with agencies and programs
such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Office of
Law Enforcement Standards, DHS's Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility (OIC) and the SAFECOM Program, the Department of
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Federal
Partnership for Interoperable Communications, and DHS Chief Information
Officer's Wireless Management Office. NTIA is working daily with
prominent members of the public safety community, including
representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Association of Public
Safety Communication Officials International, the National Association
of State Emergency Medical Services Directors, the National Public
Safety Telecommunications Council, the National Governors Association,
and the National League of Cities. Our work is centered on developing a
long-term standardized approach for nationwide communications
interoperability and information sharing among local, State, and
Federal public safety agencies, and short-term interim solutions to
facilitate communications while the long-term approach is being
completed.
NTIA's long-term approach is based on an accelerated, yet
structured, process that includes the public safety community to
produce a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative statement of
requirements for public safety communications (OIC's Public Safety
Statement of Requirements), an architecture framework that describes
the current and required future states of interoperability (OIC's
Public Safety Architecture Framework), and interface standards that
define the elements and performance of the interoperability
architecture (Project 25 (P25) standards). Short-term, interim solution
work is focused on testing and evaluating products and services offered
currently to the community to determine if they can enable higher
degrees of immediate interoperability effectively and economically. All
segments of the NTIA program begin and end with practitioner input and
acceptance. NTIA and its federal partners continue to work alongside
practitioners to complete the remaining interface standards for P25,
the digital narrowband solution that federal departments, such as
Homeland Security, Justice and Defense, and many State and local
entities have adopted.
Within a few short weeks of the President signing the Deficit
Reduction Act into law, NTIA began leveraging its expertise in the area
of public safety interoperable communications and its relationships
with the public safety community in order to implement the PSIC Grant
Program. The program, which covers public safety agencies in all 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and four U.S.
territories, will assist public safety agencies in the acquisition of,
deployment of, or training for the use of interoperable communications
systems that can utilize or enable interoperability with reallocated
public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for radio communication.
NTIA does not view this language to limit the grant funds only to 700
MHz systems investments. Rather, NTIA is committed to exploring the use
of all available technologies to advance overall public safety
interoperability, as long as those technologies will enable first
responders to interoperate with the 700 MHz bands in the future.
The Act directs NTIA, in consultation with DHS, to develop the
Grant Program policies, procedures and regulations of the grants to be
awarded. As required in the recently enacted Call Home Act of 2006
(Pub. L. No. 109-459), the grants will be awarded by September 30,
2007.
Accordingly, on June 1, 2006, NTIA entered into an agreement with
the Department of Treasury to allow NTIA to borrow necessary funds to
implement the program as of October 1, 2006. On February 5, 2007, we
hired an additional Communication Program Specialist to focus
exclusively on the implementation of the PSIC Grant Program.
On February 16, 2007, NTIA and DHS's Office of Grants and Training
signed the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the
$1 billion PSIC Grant Program to help state, local and federal first
responders better communicate during a natural or man-made disaster.
NTIA, in consultation with the Office of Grants and Training, will
develop PSIC Grant Program policies, procedures, and regulations to
implement the program; will approve final grant awards; and will
provide funding to the Office of Grants and Training for administrative
costs and the grant awards. The Office of Grants and Training, in
cooperation with NTIA, will provide administrative services and its
considerable technical expertise to implement the PSIC Grant Program.
Consistent with the Deficit Reduction Act, I am the deciding official
on PSIC Grant Program guidance and all grant awards.
The PSIC Grant Program will be administered consistently with the
Recommended Federal Grant Guidance: Public Safety Communications and
Interoperability Grants, Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 developed by the DHS
SAFECOM Program. Grants are to be administered in a manner consistent
with urban area Tactical Interoperable Communication Plans, Statewide
Interoperable Communications Plans, state and urban areas homeland
security strategies, the National Preparedness Goal, and accompanying
guidance. NTIA and DHS will utilize existing application, programmatic,
and administrative processes and resources to minimize the
administrative burden on applicants as well as the non-grant management
and administrative costs of the PSIC Grant Program.
The PSIC Grant Program will be designed to complement funds that
have been awarded through other grant programs--such as the Homeland
Security Grant Program and the Infrastructure Protection Program--that
include interoperable communications funds. The program guidance and
application process will emphasize leveraging grants, contracts or
state/local budgets to build and sustain intrastate and interstate
regional capabilities and identified needs.
The Program Plan sets forth the schedule of major activities
regarding administration of the PSIC Grant Program and the Budget Plan
delineates the amount of funds to be transferred between FY 2007 and FY
2011 for specific activities. Grants will be awarded after grant
guidance is completed in the third quarter of FY 2007 and grant
application information, and eligibility requirements also will be
released, at this time.
Over the past year, NTIA has worked closely with DHS to implement
this program. In a few weeks, NTIA will participate with SAFECOM and
the Office of Grants and Training in a workshop held in partnership
with the National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices on
Statewide Planning for Public Safety Communications Interoperability.
In the months ahead, NTIA intends to use its expertise to explore all
available technologies that are available to first responders to
advance overall interoperability. We are committed to designing this
one-time grant opportunity to achieve a meaningful improvement in the
state of public safety communications systems with a minimum of impact
to our replacement of existing state, tribal, and local radio
communications assets.
During these days of heightened security and awareness, public
safety agencies are required and expected to serve their citizens as
effectively as possible. The Department of Commerce is committed to
improving the state of communications interoperability within the
United States, and NTIA is working vigorously on various
interoperability issues to assist public safety agencies in meeting
these expectations.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for inviting me here today to
speak to you and the Committee. This concludes my remarks and I would
be glad to answer any question you or Committee members may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Kneuer.
Thank you again, both of you all. We have one more witness,
and then we will go into questions.
I now recognize Chief Dowd to summarize your statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF CHARLES DOWD, COMMANDING OFFICER, NEW
YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
Chief Dowd. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar and members of
the committee. I am Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, commanding
officer of the New York City Police Department's communications
division.
With me today is Assistant Commissioner for Wireless
Services Steve Hart from the New York City Department of
Information Technology and Telecommunications.
On behalf of Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Mayor
Michael R. Bloomberg, I am pleased to be here today to provide
you with some areas of concern with regards to interoperable
communications grant program.
Let me begin by commending the House Homeland Subcommittee
on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response and the
Department of Commerce for your ongoing efforts to address our
concerns with regards to the $1 billion public safety
interoperability grant program.
New York City has a growing population of more than eight
million residents. Our emergency 911 system received
approximately 11 million calls for service in 2006 and
dispatched police, fire and medical responders to over 6.4
million 911 calls. Our city's population is so large that it
exceeds the population of 39 states.
I mention these figures so you can more clearly understand
that any major public safety technology changes have the
potential to place an incredible financial burden on the city.
Scored as one of the top-tiered cities involving threats of
terrorism, New York City has been diligently working on its
interoperable communications program since September 11th, 2001
and has invested more than $1 billion in our own public safety
infrastructure.
This includes a commitment of well over $500 million to
upgrade our interoperable voice and data networks.
The city of New York believes that the funding received
from this grant should be directly allocated to the local
municipalities that understand the needs and technologies that
are required for first responders.
Unfortunately, under the existing plan, the funds will be
shifted away from high-risk terrorist targets such as New York
City and designated elsewhere.
Furthermore, the requirement that funds be distributed to
states only ensures that the communications needs of state
agencies will be given preference over the needs of local
municipal agencies, which are, in fact, the first responders to
all urban emergencies.
Fulfilling the communications needs of public safety first
responders should be the goal. In order to fully understand the
actual needs for interoperable communication, it is crucial
that you listen to the first responders that are using the
technology at these incidents and to avoid what experience has
shown us is a tendency for communications technology to become
vendor-driven.
We believe our challenge is to look at how we can leverage
the power and redundancy of existing and costly
infrastructures. With prioritization for emergencies and
multinetwork access, we can exploit the potential of these
multiple existing networks and their cutting-edge technology
for the benefit of public safety communications.
We need to avoid stovepipe solutions that don't easily
integrate with other systems, have limited capability, are not
future-proof and have closed standards.
We need to ensure that public safety is afforded the
flexibility to explore new technologies such as I.P., Internet
protocol-based systems, for interoperable solutions, through
existing voice and data public safety networks and commercial
systems, as well as cutting-edge communication technologies for
high-rise buildings and subways, both prime terrorist targets.
New York City is currently exploring how to expand its
communications systems to include multiple communications
layers with the use of both public safety and, to a certain
degree, commercial systems.
To obtain the highest standard of public safety, it is
critical that agencies such as the NYPD and FDNY not be
restricted in how we use grant funding.
In the mid 1990s, the Federal Communications Commission
granted the city license rights to Channel 16, which we
utilized to build out a substantial interoperable
infrastructure.
At the beginning of this grant process, the city was faced
with the restriction of using grant funding for a 700-megahertz
system, which would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars
and been absolutely unnecessary.
It is gratifying to note that the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Commerce have taken action to
allow interoperable funds to be used for other than 700-
megahertz solutions.
We have and will continue improving our interoperability
capabilities with state and federal public safety agencies. It
is the hope of the city of New York that we see continued
coordination of effort taking place between the Department of
Commerce, Department of Homeland Security and the Federal
Communications Commission.
Working together will enable every top-tiered city to gain
the necessary funding and flexibility that is required to build
a multilayered interoperable communications system, ultimately
allowing first responders to communicate more reliably and save
many more lives.
The city of New York's public safety agencies are available
to discuss this extremely important grant program upon your
request.
And in conclusion, I would like to reiterate the importance
of this funding to the city of New York and the need for
flexibility in both how it is allocated and spent.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important
issues. I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The statement of Chief Dowd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deputy Chief Charles F. Dowd
Good morning Chairman Cuellar and members of the Committee. I am
Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, the Commanding Officer of the New York City
Police Department Communications Division. On behalf of Police
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, I am
pleased to be here today to provide you with some areas of concern with
regards to The Interoperable Communications Grant Program. Let me begin
by commending the House Homeland Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness and Response and the Department of
Commerce for your ongoing efforts to address our concerns with regards
to the one billion dollar Public Safety Interoperability Grant Program.
New York City has a growing population of more than 8 million
residents. Our emergency 911 system received approximately 11 million
calls for service in 2006 and dispatched Police, Fire and Medical
responders to over 6.4 million 911 calls. Our CITY'S population is so
large that it exceeds the populations of 39 STATES. I mention these
figures so you can more clearly understand that any major public safety
technology changes have the potential to place an incredible financial
burden on the city.
Scored as one of the top tiered cities involving threats of
terrorism, New York City has been diligently working on its
Interoperable Communications program since September 11, 2001 and has
invested more than $1 billion in our own public safety infrastructure.
This includes a commitment of well over one half billion dollars to
upgrade our interoperable voice and data networks.
The City of New York believes that the funding received from this
grant should be directly allocated to the local municipalities that
understand the needs and technologies that are required for first
responders. Unfortunately under the existing plan the funding will be
shifted away from high-risk terrorist targets such as New York City and
designated elsewhere. Furthermore, the requirement that funds be
distributed to states only ensures that the communications needs of
state agencies will be given preference over the needs of local
municipal agencies, which are in fact the first responders to all urban
emergencies.
Fulfilling the communications needs of public safety first
responders should be the goal. In order to fully understand the actual
needs for interoperable communication it is crucial that you listen to
the first responders that use the technology at these incidents and to
avoid, what experience has shown us is the tendency for communications
technology to become vendor driven.
We believe our challenge is to look at how we can leverage the
power and redundancy of existing (and costly) infrastructures. With
prioritization for emergencies and multi network access, we can exploit
the potential of these multiple existing networks and their cutting
edge technology, for the benefit of public safety communications. We
need to avoid ``stove pipe'' solutions that don't easily integrate with
other systems, have limited capability, are not ``future proof'', and
have closed standards.
We need to ensure that public safety is afforded the flexibility to
explore new technologies such as I.P. (Internet Protocol) for
interoperable solutions through existing voice and data public safety
networks and commercial systems, as well as cutting edge communications
technologies for high rise buildings and subways, both prime terrorist
targets.
New York City is currently exploring how to expand its
communication systems to include multiple communications layers with
the use of both public safety and commercial systems. To attain the
highest standard of public safety, it is critical that agencies such as
NYPD and FDNY not be restricted in how we use grant funding.
In the mid--90's the Federal Communications Commission granted the
city the license rights to channel 16, which we utilized to build out a
substantial interoperable infrastructure. At the beginning of this
grant process the City was faced with the restriction of using grant
funding for a 700 MHz system which would have cost hundreds of millions
of dollars and been absolutely unnecessary. It is gratifying to note
that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce
have taken action to allow interoperable funds to be used for other
than 700 MHz solutions. We have and will continue improving our
interoperability capabilities with state and federal public safety
agencies.
It is the hope of the City of New York that we see continued
coordination of effort taking place between the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications
Commission. Working together will enable every top tiered city to gain
the necessary funding and flexibility that is required to build a
multi-layered interoperable communication system ultimately allowing
first responders to communicate more reliably and save many more lives.
The City of New York's Public safety agencies are available to
discuss this extremely important grant program upon your request. In
conclusion I would like to reiterate the importance of this funding to
the City of New York and the need for flexibility in both how it is
allocated and spent. Thank you for the opportunity to address these
important issues; I will be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Chief, for being here with us.
And again, I thank all the witnesses for being here with us
and, again, for providing us the testimony.
At this point, members how have an opportunity to ask
witnesses questions. I will remind each member that he or she
will have 5 minutes each for questions.
I will now recognize myself for questions.
The first question will go to Mr. Gruber. Your testimony
states that $2.9 billion has been obligated to state and local
governments to improve interoperability equipment and other
projects.
Are millions really ``stuck'' in the pipeline as some have
argued? Or is funding sent to the states really obligated to a
recipient and factors such as equipment back orders lead to a
delayed expenditure of funds?
And I guess, you know, the thrust of the question is how do
we get the dollars from Washington down to New York City, or
somewhere in Pennsylvania, or Mississippi, New York, North
Carolina. How do we get those dollars down there as soon as
possible?
Because it is an issue that we know exists, but how do we
get it moving as soon as possible?
Mr. Gruber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excellent question.
You know that we have been looking at this issue for quite
some time. There was a funding task force that Secretary Ridge,
during his tenure, had commissioned to help us look at this.
And in general, there is a distinction between--we often
hear a term, draw-down. About 88 percent of the total monies
awarded in grants have been, we believe, obligated.
The challenge oftentimes, as you alluded to, is if they are
for perhaps specialized equipment, and there are perhaps delays
on behalf of a vendor. Or in other instances where state
legislatures or county meet episodically or periodically, and
they have to meet to approve or endorse a budget, those often
times contribute to those delays.
But we are confident--because we have daily contact with
our grantees, we do annual monitoring, we have reporting
consistently over the course of the year--that we are very
carefully tracking this, and again, we think about 88 percent
of the total money has been obligated. But there are
challenges, as you noted.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
Mr. Kneuer, you are familiar with the interoperability
continuum brochure that is produced by SAFECOM.
Mr. Kneuer. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Are you aware of the fact that it is the
blueprint by which statewide interoperability plans are
designed?
Mr. Kneuer. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. And you are familiar with the five
pillars of the continuum and their meaning?
Mr. Kneuer. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. --which is governance standards for operating
procedures, technology, training and exercises, and usage.
Are you also aware that the interoperability continuum
brochure was a key measuring tool for the baseline study as
well as the scorecard that was produced by the Department of
Homeland Security?
Mr. Kneuer. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Now, for the record, it is your
understanding that the grantees under this interoperability
grant program can use dollars pursuant to each of the columns
that are a basis for an effective interoperability system?
Mr. Kneuer. Actually, no.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
Mr. Kneuer. There are several?
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, okay. If you can give us an explanation
of why not.
Mr. Kneuer. Sure. Because there are explicit limits in the
statute on what these monies can be spent for, and so clearly,
the interoperable communications plans, the scorecards, the
various planning activities absolutely must take into account
all of the lanes of the continuum, whether it is governance,
training, protocols.
Technology is just a piece, and communications equipment is
just a piece, but it is, in fact, a critical piece. There are
other existing--as Assistant Secretary Gruber referred to,
there has already been $2.9 billion devoted. There will be
continuing access to funds for those other components.
This statute and these monies are focused on the technology
coms piece of it, which is why it is very, very important for
us to be working as closely as we are so that we can integrate
this program into the ongoing programs to make sure that the
states and localities and cities are making all the progress
across all of the lanes of the continuum.
This program, however, is focused on the one lane.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
Mr. Gruber, if I can just ask you, does this deviate from
the practice that has been under the basis of the grant
application under UASI in the state homeland security grant
program?
Mr. Gruber. We certainly have followed the guidance of the
SAFECOM grant guidance and all the aspects of the continuum, so
the other grant programs, all of which, with the exception of
one, allow or have allowable costs for interoperable
communications, are complementary to this effort.
Just one example is that all states are asked to have a
multiyear exercise and training plan, so in the course of that
plan we would like to make sure that when they are testing
interoperable communications that they are a key component of
that exercise plan.
So we think there is a high complementary effort here
between all the programs. But as we write the guidance and the
application kits, we are going to make sure that we haven't
left any aspect of the continuum out.
Mr. Cuellar. For both gentlemen, do we need to do anything
to help you all on this? Because I want to make sure that we
are all marching in the same direction on this, and if there is
a different interpretation of the statute, I just want to make
sure that we are all marching in the right direction.
Is there anything we can do to help you?
Mr. Kneuer. I think, you know, given the time constraints
that we have under the Call Home Act, we are moving forward
very rapidly. We are going to have our grant guidance out and
have the monies awarded this year.
The gaps that have been identified in the UASI scorecards,
the gaps that will be identified under the state plans, will
include gaps that go beyond communications equipment. These
monies will be devoted toward filling in the communications
equipment gaps. There are other monies that are available to
fill in the other gaps.
We just need to make sure that everybody understands how
they can leverage these two programs to meet the one objective.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Could I ask both gentlemen, will you
please tell your staff to be in contact with our staff here to
just keep us informed? If there is any gaps or anything that we
can help you with, just let us know so we are not surprised a
year from now. We certainly just want to work with you.
Last question, to the chief: Chief, have both departments
reached out to you, the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Commerce, seeking your input in the
administration of this public safety interoperability
communications grant program?
I mean, do we need to do anything else to work with you?
Because you know, having served in the state legislature for 14
years and understanding the local basis, we just want to make
sure that we provide each other the input so we can work
together with you.
Chief Dowd. Yes, absolutely. And as Mr. Kneuer pointed out
earlier in his testimony, he did come up to New York and he
spent an entire day with us going through the--that is the kind
of thing that, you know, quite frankly, goes a long way on the
local level, even in a city the size of New York, you know,
when you have people listening and understanding what your
specific issues are.
You know, and again, we have made substantial
infrastructure investments over the last 10 years because of
the concerns over our radio spectrum, and we were given Channel
16 in the 400 UHF range, which was a great thing for us. I
mean, we built out a tremendous infrastructure on that. So one
of the concerns, obviously, that came up was when we started
reading the requirements on this grant money, we kept seeing
700 megahertz, 700 megahertz.
Well, you know, we invited Mr. Kneuer up, and he was
gracious enough to come up and speak to us and listen to the
fact that, you know, there is no reason for us to be ripping
out, you know, $2 billion worth of infrastructure to put in
another $2 billion worth of infrastructure.
Mr. Cuellar. Good.
Chief Dowd. You know, there are other ways to skin that
cat. If we need to be interoperable with people that build 800
systems, or have VHF systems, or are building, you know, 700
systems--which is a great thing. Don't get me wrong. To free up
spectrum for public safety is a great thing.
It is just that, you know, we don't want to be told you
have to use this spectrum. You know, that is not going to help
us.
Mr. Cuellar. Good. Well, thank you.
And I appreciate all three gentlemen--you know,
departments. Make sure that you all continue working together.
Mr. Gruber. Sir, if I might just add--
Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
Mr. Gruber. --we will be up on Friday all day talking about
all of our grant programs, but we will have an opportunity to
meet with the city and the state as well that is coming down
for a session on Friday.
Mr. Cuellar. Good. Well, that relationship between the
state and the federal and the local is so important, so thank
you for--both of you all continue doing that. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for
questions.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to follow up, Mr. Kneuer, on what was just stated by
Mr. Dowd, I wanted to point out something to you. It would
probably go a long way, too, in Pennsylvania if somebody came
up and sat down with our State Police and put on that same show
that you did with New York City.
And I think if I understood you correctly that states like
Pennsylvania that are using 800 megahertz or New York City that
is using something other than 700 megahertz--that these
communities are not going to be penalized in any way, is that
correct?
Mr. Kneuer. That is clearly our intention.
Mr. Dent. Okay, because that is very important to us, and I
would appreciate if you would perform a similar program for the
Pennsylvania State Police.
Mr. Kneuer. Yes, I would be happy to travel to Pennsylvania
and meet a--in fact, in a prior life--I don't know if Don
Appleby is still in the state police in Pennsylvania who had
responsibility for these systems.
We worked with the--in my prior life, I worked closely with
the state of Pennsylvania in allocating and coordinating those
800 megahertz frequencies to build out that statewide system,
so I am very familiar with what they are doing in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dent. Good. Well, that goes a long way. And the grant
program--I guess the other question was how will the grant
program leverage interoperability investments that have already
been made or that are underway across the country?
In other words, I want to make sure that we are not going
to have to rip out the hundreds of millions of dollars in
investments that New York has made or Pennsylvania has made. We
just want to make sure that everything is compatible and
dovetails nicely.
Mr. Kneuer. Absolutely. I think the value that we bring
from the Department of Commerce, our experience with our
laboratories in Boulder, the work we have done with federal
public safety entities and agencies--our experience and our
expertise in communications technologies writ large.
It is enormously valuable to go and see what they do in New
York, and likewise to travel to Pennsylvania, because you get
an appreciation that there are different existing
communications infrastructures in different cities, in
different states, in different localities, and a one-size
federal solution is not going to be effective to solving this
problem.
They need to have the flexibility to take advantage of the
infrastructure they have on the ground and pursue effective,
efficient timely solutions to the interoperability problem
based on the existing communications systems they have.
So we want to incentivize and enable them to make the best
investments that are most suited to their particular existing
situation.
Mr. Dent. Good. I will take that as that--you are
absolutely giving us an assurance that these areas that are not
utilizing 700-megahertz systems or these interoperable
communications systems at 700 megahertz--those areas will be
eligible for funding.
Mr. Kneuer. That is right.
Mr. Dent. Okay.
Mr. Kneuer. The linkage that I do draw there, though, is
that as you are pursuing interoperable solutions for your
existing infrastructure, that solution shouldn't wall you off
from a future 700 system.
As you are fixing your current problem, keep mindful that
there are going to be new spectra available at 700 to make sure
that you can link up in the future with those systems should
they be deployed.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Thank you.
And one other thing, too, to Mr. Gruber. It is my
understanding that the Department plans to improve the real-
time tracking of homeland security grant funds.
Could you please discuss the steps the Department is taking
to better track, manage, and oversee grant funds once they are
allocated and distributed?
Mr. Gruber. Of course, sir. We have a rigorous program
under way. One of the things that we have done recently that I
am sure you are familiar with is we have established an office
of grant operations which is very key to make sure that
financially we are tracking that.
That is linked very closely with our program staff to make
sure that we understand all the financial aspects of those
grants as well as that they are meeting the objectives and
goals of state strategies, statewide interoperable plans.
We do annual monitoring. We have a series of reporting
requirements, quarterly fiscal requirements. We do visits with
our monitoring staff. We have preparedness officers that are
out communicating with our grantees.
We have just started a process where we are out physically
visiting with each of the tier one urban area security
initiatives, again to talk about how we can be more transparent
in that process.
And I am going to talk to Bud Larson in the Office of
Management and Budget in New York City and others to help us
understand how we can better do that.
Mr. Dent. And to Mr. Kneuer, in your response to Chairman
Cuellar's questions on standards and the use of funds, it
sounds as if there are going to be two standards that guide the
use of grant funds for interoperability. Is that correct?
Mr. Kneuer. I didn't mean to create that impression, no.
Mr. Dent. Oh, okay, because our concern was that that would
appear to be contrary to existing requirements that all grant
funds adhere to the SAFECOM guidance.
Mr. Kneuer. Absolutely.
Mr. Dent. Okay.
Mr. Kneuer. We want to do nothing that is inconsistent with
the SAFECOM guidance.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Well, thank you.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is up.
Mr. Gruber. Sir, if I might add, in March, March 21st
through the 23rd, SAFECOM has a conference in Los Angeles which
we will all be participating in that is looking specifically at
the criteria for the statewide planning process.
And they will have, I think, stakeholders from every state
and the urban areas there as well.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Well, thank you.
And I see my time is up. I will yield back now.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
At this time, the chair recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for
questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Dowd, it is almost like our testimony mirrored each
other. I am concerned about vendors. I am concerned about
training. I am concerned that we target resources where the
greatest risk happened to be.
Congressman Lowey over here has been a champion of this
whole notion of interoperability on this committee and has
taken any a number of steps, including filing freestanding
legislation to force Congress to do that.
And I am happy to see this MOU put together. But the one
thing I want to try to clear up is this notion that it is only
limited to technology. Is that the interpretation of the MOU,
that, you know, it is only limited to technology?
Mr. Gruber. Well, sir, I can--the budget specifically has
amounts allotted in there for technical assistance and for the
management and administrative functions, development of grant
guidance and the supporting and associated documentation.
So there is a component of the budget that supports
technical assistance, but it is obviously in our interest to
leverage the resources that we have across all our grant
programs to make sure they are complementary.
So the budget--and I think John put the memorandum of
understanding with his testimony--spells out in the program
plan in the budget that there is some money, a limited amount
of money, for technical assistance.
Mr. Kneuer. The issue is the statute. The statute defines
what the money can be spent on, and the language is,
``acquisition of, deployment of or training for the use of
interoperable communications systems that can utilize or enable
interoperability with reallocated public safety spectrum in the
700 megahertz band for radio communication.'' So the statute
explicitly defines what the monies can be spent on.
Now, we are interpreting the language ``enable
communications with future 700'' expansively so that we do not
make the error of separating this money from existing
infrastructure that is in place.
But the plain language of the statute makes it fairly clear
that the other lanes of the continuum--all these other
activities that are going on that are critical and inseparable
components of interoperable public safety systems--they are
fundable from the other programs, but this is a separate
program that has explicit limitations in the statute that
focuses it on radio communications systems.
Mr. Thompson. But I guess the definition of how you see
technology versus somebody else might be our conflict here,
because as I understood what you just read, it actually goes a
little further than just technology, the statute.
But are you saying to us the interpretation by the
department is that it will solely be limited to technology?
Mr. Kneuer. That is the reading of our lawyers in the
department, is that the limitations on this program are for
interoperable communications systems, and, in fact, radio
systems--writ largely, whether or not the overall components of
those radio systems include other things.
But I don't believe we have the flexibility to use these
funds for things like governance plans and the other lines of
the continuum that aren't technology related.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I think what we should do is
probably after the hearing get the department together with our
committee staff to make sure that we all are on the same page.
There is a little difference of opinion.
And I want to make sure we leave with a general
understanding as to what the funds can be used for, because a
lot of communities will be coming to us saying, ``I see we have
this $1 billion pot over there.'' Of course, New York wouldn't
come, but maybe somebody else.
But we need to clear it up, and so I would think at some
point we would need to do that.
I, too, went to New York--wonderful facility. The
leadership that Commissioner Kelly and others have taken, not
just in communication but in the whole homeland security
field--you are to be complimented.
And to some degree, we kind of copy what you do and take
credit for it, but you know, such is Washington.
But we do appreciate the good job that you do.
Chief Dowd. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we will go ahead and follow up with the department,
because I believe there was a meeting where the staff had said
something a little different, is that correct--on what day?
February 22nd, I think, staff had said something a little
different, so certainly we will follow up on that, just so we
can all get on the same page. And that is what we are trying to
do.
Mr. Kneuer. We are happy to do that, and we will make--I
will be available and the rest of our lawyers, both NTIA and
the department, to get a sense--to make sure that we
understand--
Mr. Cuellar. Do we need lawyers on this one? Oh, yes, I am
just kidding. Just kidding.
Mr. Kneuer. Unavoidable.
Mr. Cuellar. I am an attorney, so it is unavoidable. All
right. We will do that.
We will go ahead, Mr. Chairman, and do that.
The chair will now recognize other members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses, and again, in accordance
with our committee rules and practices, I will recognize
members who were present at the start of the hearing based on
the seniority on the subcommittee, alternating between majority
and minority.
And we have got only Charlie here, so, Charlie, we are
going to go with some of the members over here. And then those
members coming in later will be recognized in the order of
their arrival.
The chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, for questions at this time.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me continue to follow up on the $1 billion that
Chairman Thompson talked about, because that is money that was
allocated in 2007. And it is obvious some of that will be moved
forward.
But my question is a little different, I think, than the
chairman's was, because we really are--when we talk about
interoperability or we talk about operability, we really--at
the end of the day, we have got all the bells and whistles and
all the equipment, but if we don't take care of the men and
women who are doing the job, we don't get the job done. It
really is about the people on the front line.
And the very people working on the technology for
interoperability have told me this as well, because in Katrina
we saw what happened. We lost all the basic--there was no
communication. All the operability was gone. So if you lose
your operability, it is kind of hard to have interoperability.
You don't have the basic needs.
And we have a lot of departments across this country--fire
departments, police departments, emergency medical response
teams--that are still struggling just to have the basics,
depending on where they are in this country.
So my question, Mr. Gruber, is this. And it ties somewhat
into what the chairman said, because we get caught up up here
and forget that people really do live down here. We need
interoperability, but we have got to have the other stuff.
So my question is what is being done to ensure that the
basic needs for infrastructure are met in the face of the cuts
of the infrastructure grants, because they are being cut in the
budget, because we talk about the numbers, but we are talking
about rolling dollars forward, and they are cut.
And secondly, is it possible to use these grants to target
the development of operable communication grants?
Mr. Gruber. Thank you, sir. I think you are exactly right.
The way we characterize this program and many is it is really--
the sequence is people, product, process and then technology.
We have got to have people with the right training and the
operating procedures and governance structures to support all
these systems that we are talking about here to be effective.
And so we work very hard over the course of all the years
of our grant programs looking at--again, with that investment
we have made over six or more years, to look at ensuring that,
again, across the whole spectrum--the interoperability
continuum and all the other things that we do in terms of
planning, training and exercising, to make sure we are
proficient in all our critical tasks.
All of those contribute to getting to where I think you
want us to be, which is to make sure we have that basic
operability, the processes, the products, and then the
technology and systems we need to support that.
Mr. Etheridge. All right. Let me follow that up, because in
your prepared testimony you spoke of how the PSIG is designed
to complement other programs.
So my question is this. Do other homeland security grants
allow for this type of expenditure? You know, are you penalized
if you make the other grants? And would applicants be able to
link together these different types of grants to meet their
unique special needs across the country?
Because obviously, if you are in New Mexico, it may not be
the same thing it is, obviously, in New York or North Carolina.
Mr. Gruber. Yes, sir. That is an excellent question, and
yes, the other grant programs do provide allowable costs for
interoperable communications, I think with the exception of the
Metropolitan Medical Response System.
So we very much have said from the start of this process we
want to make sure all those programs are complementary. That is
obviously in the best interest of the urban areas and the
states.
The state planning process, working with urban area working
groups to make sure that the programs--all the efforts, as I
mentioned in my oral testimony--all the efforts are already
under way--are synchronized with what we are doing--
Mr. Etheridge. To make it work.
Mr. Gruber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. All right. Let me finally, before my time
runs out--let me ask one other question, because as I talk to
first responders across North Carolina, whether they be fire
fighters, police officer, emergency personnel, in a lot of
cases it is not a technological issue, it is a jurisdictional
issue. And you are aware of what I am talking about.
So my question is this. How do we address it? Because these
are the people in the front line of our public safety across
this country. They aren't going to call Washington. You know,
if you are in New York, you are going to call 911 and it is
just going to ring downtown, and the same is true across
America.
So my question is, how will you address this issue in the
structure of requests for proposals and awarding of grants? And
is the availability of new technology going to be enough to
help these different groups with unique hierarchies so they can
work together and communicate?
And I think that is really what we are trying to get to.
Mr. Gruber. Sir, you identified exactly what we found when
we did the technical interoperable communications planning
effort with the 75 urban areas. One of the things that we
found--and it wasn't, obviously, news to the urban areas and
the states, because they work with this every day--but that it
really is that cross-jurisdictional, regional effort here that
is important to this process.
One of the things that Secretary Chertoff has said is we
have to build the baseline interoperability that can be scaled
from a localized event all the way up to a multijurisdictional
national-scale response, and that has to work seamlessly.
So we are very cognizant of that issue about how we build
the system that can be scaled up to support catastrophic events
but also have applicability day to day and get the usage day to
day that we want those people to have.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge.
At this time, I will go ahead and recognize the gentlewoman
from New York, Ms. Lowey, for 5 minutes of questions.
And it was good seeing you late last night. We were both
working late last night.
Mrs. Lowey. With your lovely sandwich.
Mr. Cuellar. Eleven o'clock at night, working late.
Mrs. Lowey. Like every night.
Well, I thank the chairman for your leadership and the big
chairman, who left the room, for acknowledging all the years of
work we have put in on interoperability.
And I am glad to see and hear the witnesses' presentation.
I am very pleased that NTIA and the Department of Homeland
Security are interpreting the Deficit Reduction Act such that
those who already are outside the 700 megahertz span will be
eligible.
But because I wanted to be sure--and as you know, I have
been working with Mayor Bloomberg on this issue. I anticipate,
because it is not totally public yet--I anticipate that the
supplemental will include language that I requested to allow
for public safety agencies that are currently operating on
existing systems to be eligible for funds.
So, Chief, we appreciate that you interpret it that way,
but for those of us who have been here a while, we want to see
it in print.
Chief Dowd. Thank you for your help with that.
Mrs. Lowey. So I anticipate it will be included. It is not
all public as yet. And I thank you for the work you have done.
We have had many hearings with the mayor and Ray Kelly, and
we can really be proud of our police department in New York.
And I know that my colleagues from around the country will
acknowledge that.
And with great respect to the department and all those who
have been working on this issue, when there have been some
differences of opinion, most of us will say if it is good
enough for Ray Kelly, it is good enough for all of us. So thank
you very much for the work that you have all done.
As you know, the chairman referenced my focus on
interoperability as a New Yorker. It is a massive challenge,
and it can't be resolved in a year or even 2 years. It requires
federal, state, local and private sector cooperation.
But most of all, it requires a serious commitment and a
willingness to invest the necessary resources to get the job
done. Yesterday I sat down with SAFECOM director Dr. Boyd, who
is very helpful and knowledgeable on this issue.
And when he went through a good deal of his information
with me, he mentioned that it could take 8 years from the time
a local public safety agency solicits stakeholder input,
secures the funding, plans a system, builds infrastructure,
acquires the equipment, trains first responders, tests until it
has a fully operational interoperability system.
So PSIC, in my judgment, is not a solution. It is simply a
first step toward providing our first responders with the tools
they need to do their jobs.
So my first question, gentlemen, is do you expect that
these grants will significantly improve the scorecards issued
from the tactical interoperability communications initiative?
And if the program proves to be successful, would you join
me in supporting an ongoing dedicated grant program so people
can really predict the future with their investments?
Mr. Kneuer. I certainly believe that this program and these
resources will go a long way toward filling the gaps identified
in the tactical interoperable coms scorecards and the plans.
I think one of the challenges we have had in addressing
this problem, which is clearly identified--every time we have a
major event, you can identify the lack of communications--but
we hadn't very accurately measured the extent of that problem.
What are the capabilities in various localities and
regions? What are the gaps that need to be filled? The work of
DHS has now gone a very, very long way to identifying existing
capabilities and identifying the gaps where we can devote
resources to fill in those identified gaps.
I think this program, as it is designed--the grant guidance
coming out conditioned upon a showing that the state plans are
in place, that the state plans feed into the tactical plans,
that the state plans take into account everything that has been
going on in the cities, and that these monies are driven down
to the cities and localities where the actual needs are--I am
confident at the end of this program, we will have
significantly raised the level of tactical communications
across the country.
But I likewise agree with you that that will move us
forward on one arm of the continuum. The continuum moves out
into the future. And as there are future deployments, and in
the ordinary life cycle we do new things, and based on our
better understanding, this is an ongoing process for us.
Mrs. Lowey. Yes.
Mr. Gruber. Ma'am, if I might add, first of all, we
completed the scorecards at the end of last year, and I know,
because we hear every day, how much work is going on. It didn't
stop, obviously, when we went out and visited and did the
scorecards.
There is tremendous improvements that are already taking
place, so this will complement and build on that. And that was
our intent.
As I mentioned before, really 28 percent, roughly, of our
grant monies are spent on interoperable communications. This is
our largest expenditure.
And so we think that the best way to serve those needs is
to make sure the grant programs are integrated, much like we
are trying to do here, as opposed to a separate and dedicated
program, because as we just talked about with Mr. Etheridge,
all of those aspects--governance, SOPs, the planning process--
we want to see that as a fully integrated effort. So that would
be our perspective on that issue.
Mrs. Lowey. And would you support an ongoing grant program?
Mr. Gruber. Well, we obviously have ongoing grant programs
that cover interoperable communications, almost all of them,
and so we--I don't think, based certainly on what Dave Boyd
told you, that we are going to, you know, get to the finish
line here.
We are trying to get to that minimum baseline that our
secretary has talked about, to have that command level voice
capability. But because of the complexities you alluded to, you
know how much of a challenge this is.
I think we all acknowledge it is going to be a multiyear
endeavor.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
And my time may be up. Let me just say that I see a greater
focus on this than ever before, so I am much more optimistic.
New York shows it can be done, and we learned the hard way that
it had to be done.
I can remember when I first started talking about this, Mr.
Chairman, with Secretary Ridge, asking for standards. He said,
``Oh, we will have them for you in 6 months.'' Well, a couple
years went by. We still didn't have standards.
I am very concerned about--someone mentioned the vendor-
driven communications equipment and how we keep hold of that.
It seems to me we have to have clear standards in place. And
obviously, you are not going to recommend that everyone buy the
same cell phone.
But if it is coming from the bottom up, as you mentioned,
and Dr. Boyd mentioned that, too, we still have some--have to
have, I assume, some standards so that we can have real
interoperable communications.
So I thank you. And again, I salute New York City for your
leadership.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. And I thank the gentlewoman from
New York.
Members, if it is okay, we will go into a second round of
questions. And I will go ahead and recognize myself at this
time, and then recognize Mr. Dent, and then Mr. Etheridge, and
Ms. Lowey, if you have any further questions.
Mr. Gruber and, I guess, both of you all, according to the
PSIC grant program plan submitted to the committee, a grant
``will be awarded in fiscal year 2007 to public safety agencies
within all of the 56 states and territories, in coordination
with the urban and metropolitan areas therein.''
Can you explain to the committee what you mean by
``coordination with the urban areas''? And will states be
required to pass through specific amounts to the large
metropolitan areas? Or will each state determine how much
funding is allocated?
Mr. Gruber. I will be happy to start off addressing that.
And, sir, I know you know; you looked at the program plan--
that there is specific guidance in there in terms of the pass-
through, and of course we are still working out the details on
this, and we will have a focus group of stakeholders that will
help us make sure we meet the tenets that the chief has talked
about.
Mr. Cuellar. And by a focus group, you are talking about
local folks?
Mr. Gruber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay, good.
Mr. Gruber. In the program plan, we spelled out
specifically that we want to have a focus group to help us make
sure we get the guidance right.
But we did say in there that pass-through requirements had
to meet the PSIC guidance, had to make sure they got the level
of effectiveness we want, that they support the statewide plan,
but, more importantly, that they incorporate the scorecard
results that we found, because we have now very current and
very fresh information from 75 urban areas, so we have every
expectation, when we get those plans, and we get the investment
justifications, and we do the peer review of this, again with
stakeholders, that we will see that linkage to the urban areas
and the metropolitan areas.
Mr. Kneuer. I think Chief Dowd mentioned in his testimony
that they would have preferred that we deliver the grants
directly to the cities and localities.
Given the timing from the Call Home Act, and just
administrative efficiency, to get awards out in the time frame
that we are dictated, we get efficiencies by going to the state
administrative agencies.
That being said, we clearly recognize that the needs are in
the cities and the localities where the existing infrastructure
is, where all the work is. So we will condition those grants on
the state plans having a process to drive that money down where
it is needed, the cities and localities.
How precisely, what that formula may be--there is a formula
that was included, I guess, in legislation on the Senate side,
but our intention would be to work through it, share it with,
you know, a focus group of relevant stakeholders at the state
level and the city and local level, figure out how best we can
accomplish that.
But that will be part of the guidance and the conditions on
the grants actually being distributed.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you.
Chief?
Chief Dowd. Yes. And I have discussed this with Mr. Kneuer,
but you know, again, our position is pretty clear.
We would like to see the money come directly to the cities,
because our experience in the past in these types of things,
not just on the federal level but also on the state level, is
that certain monies that are--like, for example, in New York
State, for many years there has been a 911 surcharge on
telephone bills.
And you know, you would expect that, you know, an
appropriate percentage relative to population and workload of
that would end up in New York City, and you know, we found from
experience--this is just one example--that that wasn't the
case.
So again, you know, we would prefer to see that money come
directly to us. That is clear. The mayor has made that case on
a number of occasions. The police commissioner has as well.
If it doesn't happen, we are going to watch very carefully
just exactly what piece of that ends up, say, for example, in
New York City.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. As we go in and follow up on that, if
you can just, again, keep us--because I think we are all very
interested in this, how the money will get down to localities.
Let me just ask--and I will just follow up what Ms. Lowey
said a few minutes ago. And I think all the members have seen
this. I think the typical scenario would be something like
this. You will have a sheriff, or a policeman, or a state
trooper department. Federal agency said, ``Hey, we all need to
communicate with each other. Are we in agreement?'' ``Yes, we
need to do that.''
And then somebody runs off up there, and they know a
vendor, and the vendor will say, ``I have got you the right
equipment.'' And then they buy it, and they spend a whole bunch
of dollars, and then the city will say--or, you know, the
county will say, ``You know what, city, what you just bought
doesn't work with us, we have to do this,'' et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera.
I think that would be probably the typical almost vendor-
driven type of situation that Ms. Lowey, I think Mr. Thompson,
and I am sure Mr. Dent are all concerned about, that if we
don't set those guidelines--because keep in mind that if you
talk to a local sheriff or local police, they probably won't be
able to recite what your national plan or what your
coordination will be on that.
So I just ask you to just keep that typical scenario in
mind, because if that is happening in Laredo, Texas, I am sure
it is happening in Pennsylvania. I am sure it is happening in
other parts of the country. So I would just ask you to keep
that in mind, that those type of dynamics are happening every
single day as we are trying to develop this.
So as soon as you can get everything in order, let's try to
move on this, because that is a typical--I saw it in Laredo
last year, and they were talking. I was listening to them. And
you know, the city had bought something. The sheriff says,
``Well, that doesn't work for me.'' And then the state said the
same thing, and the federal government said the same thing.
So just keep that typical scenario that I am sure you are
very familiar with as you work focus groups and all that.
At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The draft grant guidance is due to the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation by March 31st. Given the Department
of Homeland Security's involvement in the administration of
these grant funds--the draft guidance should be given
simultaneously to the Committee on Homeland Security.
And I guess my question is to both Mr. Gruber and Mr.
Kneuer. Will you send that draft guidance to this Committee
when it is sent to other congressional committees?
Mr. Kneuer. Absolutely.
Mr. Dent. Okay, thank you.
And my next question, then, to you, Mr. Kneuer: The
memorandum of understanding states that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, will
retain approximately $11 million of the total of $1 billion in
grant funding for the program.
Why is this funding being withheld for administrative
purposes? And how much funding will be withheld by both
departments for administrative purposes? Is this typical in the
administration of a program such as this?
Mr. Kneuer. Those numbers are typical for a program of this
size. That being said, given the way we are planning on
operating the program--that we are going to be going to the
states, that we do have--it is going to be more formulaic than
it might have otherwise been had we done more of a competitive
program, which would have increased administrative costs--that
is a cap.
And I would expect that we will ultimately be delivering
more money into the grant pool. We have reserved that as sort
of a rough budgetary tool as we were planning this out. I don't
think--well, it is a contract--acquisition of our services.
I don't think they are going to spend $30 million either. I
think the total amount of monies that we have reserved for
administrative resources is a cap that was sort of in line with
overall administrative expenses of a grant program this size.
But I am reasonably confident at the end of the day of that
total $40 million, we will be putting a considerable amount of
that back into the grant pool.
Mr. Dent. Do you believe that the--
Mr. Gruber. I was just going to add to that we will
obviously carefully shepherd and husband those resources.
But that management administration cost is associated, of
course, with developing the program applications and guidance,
making sure we can do the focus groups, have the stakeholders
involved, all of those processes that we think are very
important to making sure this program is managed effectively
and delivers the outcome that you want to see.
Mr. Dent. Do you believe that the administrative costs
would be lower if only one department or agency were
responsible?
Mr. Kneuer. I don't know. I wouldn't necessarily think so.
The people on my team that I have working on this in our
offices here in Washington, in our laboratories in Boulder, are
bringing an enormous amount of value to this program.
The fact of the matter is before this program was in place,
our laboratories in Boulder did much of the technical work for
SAFECOM through the NIST OLIS offices.
So to come up with a program that is going to be mindful of
the power of technology to address this problem, to be mindful
of the broad experiences across the federal government, we
should be working together, and we are going to do it as
efficiently as possible.
But having it in these two places--we are not duplicating
effort. We have got complementary efforts going forward.
Mr. Dent. Okay. And I have a quick series of questions I
wanted to ask you both, Mr. Kneuer and Mr. Gruber.
The MOU that was signed last month by DHS and Congress lays
out certain roles and responsibilities but does not go into any
great detail on how the funds may be used or how they will be
distributed.
When do you anticipate that the grant guidance and
application kits are going to be released?
Mr. Kneuer. According to the work plan, the grant
guidance?I believe we are supposed to have that done by the end
of March time frame, and then, as I said, we will share that
with the Congress.
We will circulate that with the ultimate pool of grantees
and then later in the summer get the final grants out.
Mr. Dent. When will the applications be due, then? The
applications would be due when?
Mr. Gruber. We will put out the guidance in the July time
frame. At the end of September, you know, we would make the
allocations--at the end of September we are asking them to
submit preliminary statewide plans to help look at those, much
like we are doing now with our grant applications. We are
giving a midterm review of those.
And then on 1 November, the statewide plan and their
investment justifications are due to us.
Mr. Dent. And then when would the award notifications be
expected, then?
Mr. Gruber. Well, we will have a peer--well, the award
notifications are coming out prior to--we will make sure that
the September 30th date--
Mr. Dent. Okay, September 30th.
Mr. Gruber. --in the act--yes, sir.
Mr. Dent. All right. The MOU also indicates that up to 5
percent of the total available funds will be distributed in
fiscal year 2007. Will each state and territory receive funds
in fiscal year 2007, do you believe?
Mr. Kneuer. Yes.
Mr. Dent. Okay.
Mr. Kneuer. That 5 percent is intended to help them in
their statewide planning.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Etheridge, questions?
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gruber, the baseline assessment study that was released
in December of 2006 and the tactical interoperability scorecard
that was released in January of 2007 found that governance and
planning, similar to what I was talking about earlier, were the
biggest challenges for multijurisdictional units.
In fact, the studies and assessments for the Department of
Homeland Security's own understanding is that technology is not
the problem, as you indicated earlier.
So my question is this. Why, then, does NTIA think that the
$1 billion should be used for technology and not for core areas
that have been identified for needed improvement--mainly
governance and standard of operation?
Mr. Kneuer. I think it is the plain language of the statute
that established the PSIC program directs these funds toward
the interoperable communications equipment. I agree that the
challenge--the technology piece of the continuum is the easiest
understood.
That does not mean it is one that does not need additional
resources. So there are clearly a need for resources. I don't
think the chief would say, you know, ``Give us money for
guidance and planning--or governance and planning, we don't
need money for communications.''
The equipment side is the easiest understood and the
easiest to fulfill, but it still needs resources.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Gruber?
Mr. Gruber. Yes, sir. I might add, as I mentioned earlier,
we think, again, that is why we have the continuum, and why it
covers all those areas, and why for years our other grant
programs have addressed interoperable communications.
And I might also add that our national preparedness goal
now for the first time identifies interoperable communications
as a national priority and also regional collaboration, which
gets to the issue you brought up.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay. Let me follow that up. One more point
before I get to the chief.
Mr. Kneuer, you have stated that the attorneys at NTIA
think the problem is technology.
You made that in your statement. However, as I said
earlier, the Department of Homeland Security's baseline studies
and the tactical interoperable scorecard found that governance
and standard of operation are the biggest challenge.
So just share with us why and how the MOU was signed if
there are these fundamental misunderstandings of how we ought
to apply the grants.
Mr. Kneuer. Yes. No, I shouldn't have created the
misperception that our analysis of the limitations of the
statute is a judgment of the continuum or which of the parts of
the continuum are the most challenging, which are the most
difficult.
The legal analysis is one of statutory construction, not of
the constituent parts of the interoperable communications
problem. As a matter of the plain language of the statute, it
identifies what these funds can be spent on. And it is fairly
straightforward.
And our reading is that it would not include the funding of
large-scale plans?large-scale exercises that don't include a
communications component or the drafting of interagency,
interjurisdictional governance documents.
The statute says it is for the equipment that utilizes or
enables communication with.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay.
Mr. Kneuer. The statute is pretty straightforward.
Mr. Etheridge. Chief, earlier I asked a question and I
didn't give you a chance to respond as it related to the real
challenges facing our first responders--our police, our fire,
our medical personnel and emergency teams--that the issue is
really--obviously, there is a technological issue, and we
recognize that.
But it really is a bigger jurisdictional issue. I would be
interested in your comments on this issue, because you have a
unique situation. New York is different than probably any other
place in the country, even though we have other large cities,
as a special place. And I would be interested in your comments
on that.
Chief Dowd. You know, New York is not that dissimilar from
a lot of places. And you make a very good point, and it is a
point that I have spoken to at a number of conferences around
the country.
And when you talk about this, it is that technology is only
one component of the issue here. Just as big is the operational
side of things.
And one of the things that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly
has been adamant about over the last couple of years is
training and drills that utilize these tools so that
operational commanders, when faced with a situation, understand
what tools are available and what those tools will do for them.
They don't need to know whether it is 700 megahertz. They
don't need to know whether it is UHF or VHF. But they have to
know what the stuff can do. And the only way that happens is
through training and drilling. And that is not a one-shot
thing. That has to be an ongoing effort. And they have to be
tested on it.
You know, homeland security came to us recently--I know
Steve Hart from DUIT worked very hard on his tactical
interoperability plan. You know, these things need to be
tested. You know, we are not expecting money and then you not
expecting results from it. There have to be results from it.
So the only way you find out if you are doing it right is
by testing it. And I can tell you that, you know, from the
NYPD's perspective, the police commissioner leads that effort.
And that is, I think, where the effort has to come through.
It has to come from the executive in charge, you know,
whether it is a county executive, a police department
executive, a city executive. They have to be directly involved
with ensuring that those tools are getting used the right way.
Mr. Etheridge. I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman from
North Carolina.
At this time, I recognize the gentlewoman from New York,
Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we know, in its short history, DHS has made serious
mistakes when distributing grant funds, and this has been the
subject of several hearings. And in fact, Secretary Chertoff
has even admitted that the fiscal year 2006 allocation had
problems.
And I was delighted. I took this as a real welcome sign
that in the fiscal year 2007 allocation improvements would be
made. However, the fiscal year 2007 grant guidance inexplicably
limits urban area security initiative funding for the six most
high-risk cities to 55 percent of the total funds.
In fiscal year 2006, these six regions received
approximately 53 percent of total funds. I am concerned about
that. In my judgment, I am not thrilled to be a New Yorker and
be number one in every risk-based analysis.
But it seems to me it is imperative that areas that face
the highest risk of attack receive the much-needed funds.
We know what happened on September 11th. I don't have to
repeat that. New York remains the most likely target of a
terrorist attack. And New York and the other areas that are
likely to experience the most significant emergencies should be
the main beneficiaries of the grant program.
It shouldn't be distributed as pork. There are a lot of
other programs in the federal government that can address local
concerns throughout the country.
But if this was set up for the purpose of directing funds
to those communities that are high risk, it would seem that the
formula should reflect that.
So will the PSIC program place an artificial and
unnecessary limit on these metropolitan areas that need
interoperability the most? And, gentlemen, could you detail for
us your plan in allocating the grants?
Mr. Gruber. Well, ma'am, I will go ahead and start. And
thank you. And we certainly appreciate--we came up to talk to
the subcommittee about the fiscal year 2007 risk formulas, and
I know the secretary has talked about this a lot, and we have
had a high degree of leadership involvement in that fiscal year
2007 process.
There is a balance that needs to be struck in terms of
relative risk and ensuring that, again, we target those areas
with the highest risk but we also make sure that we are
striving to raise the baseline across the country. And that is
a delicate balance. And Congress has helped us a lot to
understand how to strike those balances.
I might mention that in this, we said that we would like to
use the current formula, but we understand--and when we came up
and talked with staff in the last several weeks--that we have
to be appreciative of the fact that there may be other
considerations that need to be integrated into the formula.
So right now we are having those discussions. Our staffs
have been meeting frequently. Again, we are going up to the
city on Friday. I am sure we will hear similar concerns from
them. So we are taking those all into account as we look to
strike the right balance in the methodology we will apply to
this program.
But again, we also have a time constraint, so we are trying
to do it as effectively as we can with the time we have
allotted.
Mr. Kneuer. That is right. We want to use the existing
formula as a starting point, but also take into account that
there are other issues. And this program is not intended to be
specifically focused on terror threats.
But it is, in fact, as Secretary Gruber pointed out,
intended to raise the level of baseline interoperable
communications across our country.
Mrs. Lowey. Chief, do you have any comment on this?
Chief Dowd. You have spoken with Mayor Bloomberg, I am
sure, on this subject, so you know our position.
We see this as an issue of ensuring that the money goes to
the place where the greatest threat is. I mean, you know, the
mayor has repeatedly made public statements, including
testimony down here in Washington.
We know there are other concerns around the city--I am
sorry, around the country. You know, Katrina was a tremendous
catastrophe. But you know, this interoperability issue was
driven by a terrorist event. And New York City is still and
obviously the number one terror target.
So our belief is that, you know, allocations of these funds
should be driven by that issue, terrorism.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, I
appreciate your holding this hearing. An I happen to feel, when
we are dealing with homeland security, the funds should be
focused on threat, risk, vulnerability.
And certainly billions of dollars have been directed toward
Katrina. And I am totally supportive. But there are times, as I
attend hearings and read reports on what is happening there, a
lot of it is just plain incompetency at all levels and not
necessarily the money that is being distributed.
We had a hearing just the other day, Mr. Chairman. I could
barely believe it. They are still figuring out what to do with
the excess trailers. In the meantime, we have a report that day
that 200,000 veterans are homeless.
Well, Mr. Farr and I, who were sitting next to each other
in the hearing, said, ``How come we figured this out in 5
minutes?'' Maybe they shouldn't be giving the trailers away at
40 percent of cost. Maybe they can give them to the 200,000
homeless veterans.
I have been in government for a very long time, and
sometimes there just isn't a connect. People follow their
pipeline responsibilities, and somehow we are not connecting at
all.
So Katrina should get every single thing they need. But
when it comes to interoperability, in my judgment, it should be
based on risk, threat, vulnerability.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. And I thank the gentlewoman from
New York.
And I know for you all it is difficult. You know, you have
got issues like New York, and then you have got issues like
Katrina, and then you have got folks like me from the border
where we have huge drug violence across the river.
And I know what is happening with the drug dealers?and of
course, our border folks want to make sure that they can
communicate with the state and the federal and the local folks
and all that.
So I appreciate the difficult times--you know, difficult
issues that you all have to look at, and we certainly want to
work with you to help address some of those issues.
So I want to thank you all, all three witnesses, for being
here, and thank the staff, both your staff and our staff, for
getting this meeting together for us. And I want to thank you
for your valuable testimony and the members for their
questions.
And the members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for you, and we ask that you respond to them as
expeditiously as possible in writing to those questions.
Hearing no further business, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X--A
----------
A P P E N D I X--B
----------
Additional Questions and Responses
Chief Charles F. Dowd Responses
Questions from Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
Question 1.: How do you think the Department of Homeland Security
and Commerce should allocate funding under the Public Safety
Interoperability Communications Grant program?
Response: The Department of Homeland and Commerce should allocate
Interoperability Communications Grant based upon the threat level that
exists within the applicant's jurisdiction.
Question 2.: Should each State get a minimum amount of funding?
Response: No, Department of Homeland Security and Department of
Commerce grant awards should be based upon the need to protect
strategic assets, the loss of which would have devastating
consequences. The historical record of past attacks and thwarted
attacks on these high value assets should also be considered. Grants
should be awarded directly to the cities at greatest risk.
Question 3.: Should small and mid sized cities be eligible for
funding?
Response: All cities should be eligible for grant funding, provided
that they demonstrate that major terrorist targets are located within
their jurisdiction or that there is a documented history of terrorist
activity.
Question 4.: What are the three main questions or concerns that you
and the New York City Police Department have regarding the Public
Safety Interoperable Communications Program?
Response: Our three major concerns are:
1. That grant funding not be restricted to the 700 MHz.
public safety frequency band but be awarded directly to
tier one cities regardless of which frequency band they
utilize for their public safety interoperable
communications.
2. New York City should be given an higher priority
when allocating grant funding, based upon the major
financial assets located within the City, and the
potential for a major disruption to the national
economy should these assets be attacked. (I.e. New York
Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, New York
Federal Reserve Bank). New York City has been, and
continues to be a major target for terrorism.
3. The FCC should finalize the rules for the 700 MHz.
Public Safety band as expeditiously as possible, so
that jurisdictions can better plan their Interoperable
Communications strategy. In this regard, the FCC, the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Commerce should bear in mind that data interoperability
depends more upon the use of common protocols and
software applications than the spectrum utilized to
transport these applications.
Question 5.: Would you please describe your interaction with the
Department of Homeland Security regarding interoperable emergency
communications?
Response: The New York City Police Department Communications
Division interacts directly with the NYPD Grants Unit and the U.S.
Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
office in implementing and monitoring the 2005 COPS grant awarded to
NYPD. The New York City Police Department in concert with other New
York City emergency responder agencies interacts with the Department of
Homeland Security both directly and through the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI) program.
Question 6.: How does your office interact with the Department of
Commerce regarding interoperable communications?
Response: The New York City Police department interacts with
Department of Commerce and the National Telecommunications and
Information Agency (NTIA) through visits by NYPD to Washington D.C. and
by visits of NTIA officials to New York City. These interactions have
been focused on explaining the NYPD operational and communications
requirements to senior NTIA staff.
Question 7.: Would you please describe efforts underway to insure
that City agencies are able to interoperate with regional and State
first responder agencies? What frequency range is being used to achieve
this level of interoperability?
Response: The New York City Police Department as well as other City
and regional first responder agencies use the six New York Metropolitan
Area Communications (NYMAC) interoperability channels. The New York
City Police Department has been awarded a 2005 COPS grant to expand the
use of these channels to surrounding jurisdictions. The NYMAC
Interoperability channels are on the 482--488 MHz. band.
In addition, the New York City Police Department has the capability
of enabling a patch (Gateway) to the Federal VHF interoperability
channel which will allow Federal agencies operating on VHF channels to
communicate with NYPD field units.
The New York City Department of Information and Telecommunications
operates an 800 MHz. radio system. Designated users of this radio
system have the capability of communicating on the National Public
Safety 800 MHz. Mutual Aid channels.
New York City DOITT is in the process of deploying a wireless
broadband data network which will operate on the band. The New York
City Police Department as well as other City agencies will utilize this
network to provide data interoperability once this network is installed
and accepted.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on
March 14, 2007, I considered it an honor.
Responses from Corey Gruber
Questions from Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
Question 1.: Will DHS use different risk methodology in allocating
funding under the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant
program than it does for its other homeland security grant programs?
Will the Department advocate a more regional and statewide approach
for these grants?
Response: The guidance for the PSIC Grant Program is currently
being developed jointly by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce and
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the funding allocation will
be announced in mid-July. The allocation methodology and any potential
changes to the current DHS formula for risk=threat x vulnerability x
consequence methodology are also being discussed.
DHS currently advocates both regional and statewide solutions to
promote interoperable communications. A priority in the National
Preparedness Goal--``Strengthen Interoperable Communication
Capabilities'' also promotes collaboration at the regional and State
level to improve communication capabilities. In addition, the FY 2006
and 2007 State Homeland Security Grant Program requires each State and
territory to submit a Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan by
November 2007. These plans will be peer reviewed, and investments for
the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program
will be tied to gaps in interoperable communications identified by the
statewide plan.
Questions from Hon. Peter T. King
Question 2: Would you please discuss the Department's findings from
the Tactical Interoperable Communications Program (TICP) scorecard
process?
Does the Department plan to repeat this assessment? If so when?
Will the scorecard results play a role in determining the grant
awards for the new Public Safety Interoperable Communications grants?
Response: Overall, the scorecard results show that areas have made
significant, measurable progress in improving their tactical
interoperable communications capabilities. The technology exists to
permit interoperable communications, but solutions are often not
available regionally and are far from seamless in many areas. Continued
training on available technical solutions and procedures for their use
is critical to operational success. Even in areas that have
demonstrated success at the tactical, command level of communications
interoperability, there is still work to be done. agency communications
have been addressed within many of these jurisdictions, but
regionalizing the existing communications strategies to identify longer
term interoperability goals across multiple jurisdictions and levels of
government still needs to be addressed.
The scorecard evaluation focuses on
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS)--For many of the urban
areas, the Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans (TICP)
developed through the Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program (ICTAP) provided the first formal, region-
wide communications interoperability Additional steps should be
taken to ensure that these procedures (as well as those
outlined in the National Incident Management System) are fully
instituted at the command and responder levels.
Usage--The proficiency in the use of communications
interoperability equipment and accompanying procedures varies
by the types of equipment used and is increasingly complex as
additional agencies are included in response efforts. In
addition, almost no region had completed a communications-
focused exercise before the TICP validation exercise, which
meant that the areas had no specific practice in testing and
evaluating their interoperable communications capabilities.
Governance--Areas with mature governance structures have advanced
in implementing shared that facilitate regional communications.
Regionalized strategic plans are largely not in place and should be
developed for communications interoperability with careful
consideration for how investments can be shared across the region.
At this time DHS has not determined if the scorecard process will
be repeated in the future. However, DHS is committed to using the
information identified in the scorecards as a contributor to the Public
Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program. Investment
justifications for the PSIC grant program will be based on the
Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans. Each statewide plan
must account for areas that participated in the Tactical
Interoperability Communication Scorecards process. Final program
guidance for the PSIC grant program is still being developed by NTIA
and the Department of Homeland Security; and, once completed will
further define how the and statewide plans will be incorporated into
the PSIC grant program and future potential requirements for
scorecards.
Question 3: If Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC)
funds will be distributed through the States, what requirements will
States have to ensure that the funds are passed to the urban areas in a
timely manner? How will this be enforced?
Will States and urban areas be able to use these grant funds to
support operability as well as interoperability?
What kinds of technologies and equipment will States and urban
areas receiving funds be able to purchase? Will the grant guidance
attempt to encourage the purchase of next generation technologies such
as IP-based systems?
Response: The guidance for the PSIC Grant Program is currently
being developed jointly by the NTIA and Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). Pass through procedures for urban areas are being discussed and
will be released as part of the guidance in mid-July 2007. Enforcement
of grant program guidance requirements will be conducted through robust
on-site monitoring, as well as detailed grantee reporting requirements.
NTIA and the Department of Homeland Security understand the need to
support emergency communications operability as well as
interoperability for our nation's first responders. While the obvious
focus of the PSIC program is to improve interoperability among Federal,
State and local public safety agencies, some interoperability solutions
may also improve the state of operability in some circumstances. NTIA
and DHS are committed to exploring the use of all available
technologies that advance overall public safety interoperability, as
long as those technologies will enable first responders to interoperabe
with the 700 MHz band in the future. NTIA and DHS are in the process of
drafting program guidance for the PSIC grant program which will further
define allowable costs.
Responses from John M.R. Kneuer
Questions from Hon. Henry Cuellar
Question: Interoperable data is as critical to first responders as
interoperable voice communications. In fact, software and hardware for
data communications currently being developed by the private sector
today may form the backbone of tomorrow's interoperable systems. Do you
foresee making these grants available for developing interoperable data
(as opposed to voice) communications?
Response: Section 3006 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.
L. No. 109-171, defines interoperable communications systems as
``communications systems which enable public safety agencies to share
information amongst local, state, federal, and tribal public safety
agencies in the same area via voice or data signals.'' In coordination
with DHS' Office of Grants and Training, the DOC'S National
Telecommunications and Information Administration will administer the
PSIC Program consistent with this definition and will allow for both
voice and data interoperability solutions for public safety.
Question: If Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC)
funds will bedistributed through the States, what requirements will
States have to ensurethat the funds are passed to the urban areas in a
timely manner? How will this be enforced?
Response: The guidance for the PSIC Grant Program is currently
being developed by the Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Pass through requirements are
currently being discussed and will be released as part of the grant
guidance. Enforcement of the grant program guidance will be conducted
through a robust on-site monitoring and detailed grantee reporting
requirements.
Question: Will States and urban areas be able to use these grant
funds to support operability as well as interoperability?
Response: NTIA understands the importance of operability, as well
as interoperability, for our nations' first responders. While the
obvious focus of the PSIC Program is to improve interoperability among
federal, state, and local public safety agencies, some interoperability
solutions may also improve the state of operability in some
circumstances. As stated previously, NTIA and DHS are in the process of
drafting program guidance which will further define allowable costs.
Question: What kinds of technologies and equipment will States and
urban areas receiving funds be able to purchase? Will the grant
guidance attempt to encourage the purchase of next generation
technologies such as IP-based systems?
Response: NTIA is committed to exploring the use of all available
technologies that advance overall public safety interoperability, as
long as those technologies will enable first responders to interoperate
with the 700 MHz bands in the future. NTIA and DHS are in the process
of drafting program guidance which will further define allowable costs,
including next generation technologies.