[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ENSURING COORDINATION AND COOPERATION: A REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS OFFICES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-625 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Billy Long, Missouri Janice Hahn, California
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida, Chairman
Joe Walsh, Illinois Laura Richardson, California
Scott Rigell, Virginia Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, Vice Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Chair Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Blake Farenthold, Texas (Ex Officio)
Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Officio)
Kerry A. Kinirons, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Curtis Brown, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications..................... 1
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 2
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Witnesses
Mr. Chris Essid, Director, Office of Emergency Communications,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 9
Mr. John O'Connor, Manager, National Coordinating Center for
Communications, National Protection and Programs Directorate,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 9
Mr. Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity
Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 19
Mr. Eric Edwards, Director, Disaster Emergency Communications
Division, Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 21
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 19
Ms. Linda K. Moore, Specialist in Telecommunications and Spectrum
Policy, Congressional Research Service:
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
ENSURING COORDINATION AND COOPERATION: A REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS OFFICES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Thursday, November 17, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bilirakis, Marino, Turner,
Richardson, Clarke, and Thompson (ex officio).
Mr. Bilirakis. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
functions of the various offices within the Department of
Homeland Security with responsibility for emergency
communications.
First off, I would like to welcome Mr. Turner from the
great State of New York onto the committee. So would you like
to say a couple words?
Mr. Turner. It is just very nice to be here. I know we are
pressed for time.
Mr. Bilirakis. It is great to have you, sir. I appreciate
it.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement. I am
pleased that our witnesses are here today to discuss efforts to
coordinate emergency communications within the Department of
Homeland Security. There are at least 10 offices within the DHS
with responsibility over these functions. We will hear from
representatives of some of those offices this afternoon. In
this difficult budgetary climate, we must ensure that offices
and programs are coordinating and working as efficiently as
possible. There is no room for duplication of efforts.
In 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security designated the
Office of Emergency Communications as the leader for
departmental communication efforts. As such, the OEC is
responsible for policy development and leads the One DHS
Communications Committee, which is tasked with maximizing the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department's emergency
communications activities. I hope that our witnesses will
address how this structure works in practice and how the
committee works to ensure that policies, operations, and
technology procurement are consistent across the Department.
In addition to hearing how the various offices work with
one another, I would also like to hear about the coordination
of engagement with State and local partners. For instance, OEC
has assisted States with the development of State-wide
communications interoperability plans, while FEMA's Disaster
Emergency Communications Division, DEC, works with States to
develop operational communication plans. What is being done to
prevent confusion among States as to which office to provide
information? It is so important.
As these plans require updating, how are OEC and DEC
working together to ensure that there is no further confusion,
and reporting requirements are not duplicative? Are there ways
to streamline different communications planning requirements
for States? A robust alert and warning system is a vital part
of emergency communications. This hearing is particularly
timely in light of the first-ever National test of the
Emergency Alert System that was conducted last week.
I am pleased to have Administrator Penn back before the
subcommittee. I look forward to hearing about any successes and
gaps identified by last week's test, and any steps that are
necessary to further enhance the system going forward, and
address any identified weaknesses.
I am also interested in the progress of the implementation
of the Personal Localized Alerting Network, the PLAN, the new
public safety system to enable text alert messages during
emergency situations. Is PLAN on track for deployment in New
York City and Washington, DC by the end of this year? Then
Nation-wide, is it on track to be implemented by April next
year? As you work with other Federal entities, States, and
localities, and the private sector to deploy the technology,
are you continuing to educate the public on how this system
works and taking steps to ensure that privacy is protected? So
important.
We also share the goal of enhancing emergency
communications capabilities. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses about how they work with one another and other DHS
component offices, other Federal agencies and departments, and
State and local partners.
The Chairman will now recognize, and I know we don't have a
lot of time, so we will probably have to break after our
Minority Member gives her statement, but I recognize Ms.
Richardson for as long as she would like for an opening
statement.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to
all of you, and thank you for convening this hearing focusing
on ensuring coordination amongst DHS' several emergency
communication offices. I would also like to thank our witnesses
that are with us for serving our country, as all of you have
done, and for your continued willingness to support this
committee as well.
Emergency communications broadly encompasses interoperable
communications, alerts, and warnings, and building resilient
networks. The Nation has faced several disasters this year and
in the past that requires us to reaffirm our commitment to
improving emergency communications. Hurricanes, earthquakes,
wildfires, and tornadoes have ravaged communities across this
country. We even saw some disasters as late as last night.
Throughout all of these disasters, first responders needed
reliable and resilient emergency communications to conduct
their lifesaving missions.
Additionally, citizens need to be alerted as soon as
possible in order to evacuate, put shelter in place, and take
other actions recommended by our emergency officials that are
determined through communications. Simply put, resilient and
interoperable communications is required to save lives and to
initiate recovery.
Unfortunately, gaps still do exist despite our progress
over the last decade. I hope to learn what steps can we
continue to take to move forward to resolve these gaps in
anticipation of future emergencies. Unfortunately, the Office
of Emergency Communication's role with the Department appears
to be sometimes muted and based upon working groups lacking the
ultimate authority to get the job done. Eliminating silos,
maximizing assets, and streamlining policies requires strong
authority, as intended by Congress.
The introduction of broadband provides an advanced and
innovative tool for first responders. Building a Nation-wide
interoperable emergency communications network is critical to
our ability to successfully conduct a multi-jurisdictional
response operation. I would say that last week in the district,
I had an opportunity to visit the Beverly Hills Police
Department that has the ICIS system, and to talk to some of the
members of RICS as well. As an original cosponsor of the
Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011, I am proud to
support this bipartisan legislation that addresses this long
overdue need.
I am interested in hearing what role DHS will play in
support of President Obama's commitment to develop and deploy a
Nation-wide interoperable wireless network for public safety. I
am interested also in learning more about the results of the
test that we recently had, and what interim steps FEMA will
take to enhance that system.
Finally, as Congress continues to discuss the Nation's
fiscal future, we should recognize the importance of building
and sustaining preparedness capabilities. Draconian cuts
authorized in the fiscal year 2012 DHS appropriations bill puts
emergency communication capabilities gained over the last
decade in jeopardy.
I would say, for those of you who weren't here earlier for
the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, we heard that very fact by
Under Secretary O'Toole. I hope that you would just be as frank
with us as she was. We need to learn what capabilities have
been supported by these grant programs and the effects on the
first responders' response operations if they are to be
eliminated.
Again, I thank you all for being here today, and we look
forward to your testimony as we probably return.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the Ranking Member.
[The statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Laura Richardson
November 17, 2011
Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Bilirakis for
convening this hearing focusing on ensuring coordination amongst DHS's
several emergency communications offices.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for their service to the
country and participation in today's hearing.
Emergency communications broadly encompasses: Interoperable
communications, alerts, and warnings, and building resilient networks.
The Nation has faced several disasters this year that requires for
us to reaffirm our commitment to improving emergency communications.
Hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and tornadoes have ravaged
communities across the country.
Throughout all of these disasters, first responders needed reliable
and resilient emergency communications to conduct their life-saving
missions.
Additionally, citizens need to be alerted as soon as possible in
order to evacuate, shelter in place, or take other actions recommended
by emergency officials.
Simply put, resilient and interoperable communications is required
to save lives and initiate recovery.
Unfortunately, gaps still exists despite progress over the last
decade. I hope to learn what steps we can take moving forward to
resolve these gaps in anticipation of future emergencies.
As a result of the failed Hurricane Katrina response, Congress
established the Office of Emergency Communications to take a critical
leadership role working to improve State and local interoperability and
efforts within the Department.
Unfortunately, the Office of Emergency Communication's role with
the Department appears to be muted and based on working groups lacking
any ultimate authority.
Eliminating silos, maximizing assets, and streamlining policies
requires strong authority, as intended by Congress.
The introduction of broadband provides an advanced and innovative
tool for first responders.
Building a Nation-wide Interoperable Emergency Communications
Network is critical to our ability to successfully conduct a multi-
jurisdictional response operation.
I am a proud supporter of bipartisan legislation to addresses this
long-overdue need.
I am interested in hearing what role DHS will play in support of
President Obama's commitment to develop and deploy a Nation-wide,
interoperable wireless network for public safety.
This committee has had particular interest in the importance of
emergency alerts and warning. FEMA and the FCC conducted a
comprehensive outreach campaign to announce last week's inaugural
Emergency Alert System test.
Unfortunately, the initial lessons learned indicate that the
current Emergency Alert System is unable to successfully provide a
Nation-wide alert.
This gap in our alert and warning capabilities must be resolved in
order to ensure that we are ready to provide citizens in every corner
of the Nation with timely information, if a catastrophic event occurs.
I am interested in learning more about the results of the test and
what interim steps FEMA will take to enhance the System.
Finally, as Congress continues to discuss the Nation's fiscal
future we should recognize the importance of building and sustaining
preparedness capabilities.
Draconian cuts authorized in the fiscal year 2012 DHS
Appropriations bill puts emergency communication capabilities gained
over the last decade in jeopardy.
We need to learn what capabilities have been supported by these
grant programs and the effects on first responder response operations
if they are eliminated.
Again, I thank you all for being here today and I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Bilirakis. What we will do is we will break for--we
have three votes, and we will be back in approximately a half
hour. Thank you for your patience.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much for your patience. I
really appreciate it. I think we can get this hearing in,
hopefully. I know we have other votes expected roughly 3:45, 4
o'clock. So we will do the best we can.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
November 17, 2011
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on coordination
of emergency communications within the Department of Homeland Security.
According to the Congressional Research Service, over the last 10
years, Congress has appropriated over $13 billion dollars to States and
local communities to improve emergency communications.
Despite this funding, interoperability remains a concern for State
and local homeland security directors, public safety officials, and
first responders.
As a former volunteer firefighter, I know that interoperable
communications can save lives.
While it appears that much progress has been made, anecdotal
evidence indicates that many first responders still are unable to
communicate with each other.
Communications problems continue between fire and police
departments within the same county; between police departments in
neighboring counties; and between fire departments in adjacent towns.
These communication problems are not new.
The events of September 11 exposed huge gaps in the
interoperability of emergency communications equipment within the first
responder community.
Four years later, Hurricane Katrina reminded the Nation that the
gaps exposed by 9/11 remained.
Congress responded with legislation. We passed the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA).
In addition to providing grant funding, PKEMRA created the Office
of Emergency Communication (OEC) within the Department of Homeland
Security.
OEC was given the responsibility of assuring that interoperability
challenges would be addressed.
A DHS policy memorandum signed by Secretary Napolitano in 2009
underscored OEC's responsibility in leading ``DHS efforts to advance
interoperable emergency communications''.
Yet I am told that despite this memo, OEC's ability to coordinate
other DHS agencies is hampered by reorganization within NPPD.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this hearing can help us determine whether
this office has the authority it needs to address this Nation's
continuing interoperability challenge.
I look forward to hearing about the staffing and support of this
office and how it is administered under the new NPPD organizational
structure.
But while I have concerns about the authority of OEC and its
ability to reach our interoperability goals, I must also mention that
the budget cuts to grant funding approved by this House will make it
virtually impossible for this office or any office to address this
Nation's continuing interoperability challenge.
Let me be clear. For fiscal year 2012, the proposed $1 billion
dollars in funding for first responders is less than half of the fiscal
year 2010 appropriation.
In addition to this overall reduction, the bill defunded the
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant program (IECGP), which is
specifically designated to address these problems.
In essence, this budget will likely spell the end of our
interoperability efforts.
Having lived through 9/11 and Katrina, we know what happens when
fire fighters, police officers, and EMTs cannot talk to each other.
Congressional hearings and Presidential Commissions confirmed the
lives lost due to the lack of interoperable radios.
Despite this evidence and our own memories, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle created a budget that asks each of us to ignore
and forget. We have to forget the first responders of 9/11 and Katrina.
We have to ignore the likelihood of natural disasters. But mostly, we
have to forget that interoperable radios save lives.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot forget and I cannot resolve to do nothing.
My only hope is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
reconsider.
I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Now I would like to welcome our witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Chris Essid. I hope I pronounced that
right. Mr. Essid is the director of the Office of Emergency
Communications, a position he assumed in December 2007. In this
capacity, he is responsible for leading efforts to obtain
operable and interoperable emergency communications among
public safety agencies across Federal, State, local, and Tribal
governments. Prior to joining the Department, Mr. Essid served
as the first interoperable coordinator for the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Mr. Essid served as a member of the United States
Military Police from 2003 to 2008. He holds a master's of
public administration from the University of Oklahoma, and a
bachelor's degree in history from the University of Kentucky.
Following Mr. Essid, we will hear from Mr. John O'Connor.
Mr. O'Connor is the acting director of the National
Communications and Cybersecurity Integration Center, and the
manager of the National Coordinating Center for
Telecommunications. Mr. O'Connor has been with the National
Communications System for 20 years, and served previous roles
involving emergency operations and information technology. Mr.
O'Connor served as the National Communications System
representative to FEMA's National Response Coordination Center
during September 11, during the attacks, and also played a
response role during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Our next witness is Mr. Damon Penn. Mr. Penn is the
assistant administrator of the National Continuity Programs
Directorate with FEMA. He is currently overseeing the
development of FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System, known as IPAWS. Mr. Penn joined FEMA in 2004 as a
defense coordinating officer in Florida. He also served as the
DCO the following year in support of Mississippi's efforts
during Hurricane Katrina. Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Penn
served more than 30 years with the U.S. Army, holding numerous
leadership positions. Mr. Penn studied at the U.S. Naval War
College, earning a master's of arts in national security and
strategy studies. He also earned a master's of science in
administration from Central Michigan University in 1993, and a
bachelor's of science degree in criminal justice from UNC-
Charlotte.
Following Mr. Penn, we will receive testimony from Mr. Eric
Edwards. Mr. Edwards is FEMA's Executive Director for Disaster
Emergency Communications and the Multiple Emergency Response
Support Program Manager in the Response Directorate. In this
position, he is responsible for coordinating the development
and execution of emergency communications doctrine, operational
plans, policies, and procedures for disaster response
operations, and leading the MERS detachment during Presidential
disasters, emergency declarations, National security special
events, and other incidents of National significance. Prior to
joining FEMA in August 2004, Mr. Edwards served as an officer
in the U.S. Army Signal Corps for 2,000 years--I mean for 23
years. He also has a bachelor's of science degree in journalism
and communication from my alma mater, the University of
Florida--go Gators--and a master's degree in financial
management from Johns Hopkins University. His military
education includes Air Command and Staff College, U.S. Army
Command, and General Staff College, Army Management Staff
College, and Signal Officer basic and advanced courses.
Finally, we will hear from Ms. Linda Moore. Ms. Moore is a
specialist in telecommunications and spectrum policy at the
Congressional Research Service. Ms. Moore joined Congressional
Research Service in July 2001. At CRS, her current areas of
expertise include radio frequency spectrum policy, commercial
wireless communications, and emergency communications,
including 9-1-1 of course, the Emergency Alert System, and
radio communications for first responders. Prior to joining
CRS, Ms. Moore spent more than 20 years in the banking
industry, where she specialized in new technology and networks
for electronic banking. Ms. Moore has a B.A. in economics from
Columbia University and an M.B.A. from Columbia University's
graduate school of business, where she also pursued
postgraduate studies in economic theory and public policy.
Welcome to all the witnesses. Your entire written testimony
will appear in the record. I ask that you each summarize your
testimony for 5 minutes.
We will begin with Mr. Essid. Mr. Essid, you are now
recognized. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Essid. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member
Richardson, and distinguished Members of the committee. It is a
pleasure to be here to discuss the Department's collaborative
efforts to improve communications.
Public safety must have reliable communications at all
times to effectively coordinate response and recovery
operations. The Department recognizes the importance of
communications is not solely a technology problem to be solved
with just the right equipment or right technology. Successful
interoperable solutions also include governance, standard
operating procedures, training, and exercises, and daily use of
whatever equipment they are using.
For example, I have been in neighboring jurisdictions where
they use the same coded language in one jurisdiction for
officer needs immediate assistance, and right next door it is
officer is just taking a break. You can imagine the confusion
this causes when these two jurisdictions work together. This
has nothing do with technology. It is clearly a problem that
can't be solved by purchasing the same radios.
We have solved hundreds of situations like this by working
together and increasing the coordination with public safety.
Each of the DHS witnesses at the table today has unique but
essential roles in the National effort to ensure emergency
communications both day-to-day and during an emergency.
I will discuss how the Office of Emergency Communications,
or OEC, works to ensure that public safety officials at all
levels of government can communicate effectively through this
increased coordination. OEC was established in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina as part of the Congressional response to the
communications challenges faced both during that disaster and
on September 11, 2001. This subcommittee and the full House
Homeland Security Committee felt it essential to have an office
to coordinate the numerous programs and efforts across all
levels of government.
Since being created, OEC has worked to improve
interoperable emergency communications, and we have seen
significant progress in several key areas. A critical part of
this has been the development and the on-going implementation
of the National Emergency Communications Plan. Since 2008, OEC
has been driving implementation of the National plan, and we
are seeing measurable improvements in building capabilities and
closing gaps identified in the plan for governance, training,
and operational procedures.
A few examples include the creation of State-wide plans,
State-wide coordinators, and State-wide governance. This has
improved coordination at the State level, and resulted in
public safety working together as a community. Through our
technical assistance program we have provided over 750 on-site
visits to States and localities to make improvements. OEC has
trained more than 3,500 police, firefighters, EMS officials
throughout the Nation to set up communications in a
standardized way so they do it the same way in California as
they do it in Florida. The progress made at the State and local
level has been tremendous.
Through the implementation of the National plan, we have
been working to measure the capabilities of public safety
across the Nation. Last year we achieved Goal 1. The 60 largest
urban areas showed that they could achieve interoperability
during a large-scale event. Last week, we released a report on
the findings from Goal 1. Our office is more than happy to
provide additional information to Members of the committee on
the results.
Currently, OEC is working with States and territories to
measure Goal 2. This includes collecting data on capabilities
and performance for more than 3,000 counties Nation-wide. We
are going to be leveraging the results to better target our
limited resources. In these challenging budget times, it is
more important than ever that we align these resources to
provide the greatest possible impact.
We are also collaborating efforts to increase coordination
between the DHS offices and other Federal agencies. For
example, OEC administers the Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center to coordinate policy and planning across
the 14 Federal departments and agencies. One of the biggest
accomplishments is the development of recommendations for
common grant guidance to standardize priorities across more
than 40 separate grant programs. As a former State-wide
coordinator, I can tell you it is very confusing and
frustrating when you get a lot of Federal grants and they all
have different guidance. Common guidance is going to make it
clear and easier for States to submit grants and understand the
priorities up front. So we have made significant progress so
public safety can communicate when needed. Again, it is not
simply a technology problem. Technologies are going to come and
go. But by working together to ensure public safety is trained
on how to use these new technologies, ensure that they have
standard operating procedures, and ensure that governance is in
place so that they can coordinate in the community, we have
increased the ability for public safety to communicate.
We appreciate the committee's support, and thank you again
for this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer
your questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Essid and Mr. O'Connor
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Chris Essid and John O'Connor
November 17, 2011
introduction
Thank you Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and
distinguished Members of the committee. It is a pleasure to discuss the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) collaborative efforts to
improve communications for emergency response providers and Government
officials. Ten years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, there is
no shortage of reminders of the need for an effective and efficient
emergency response framework to manage incidents and restore essential
services in the aftermath of a disaster.
A top priority for DHS is improving the communications capabilities
of those who are often the first to arrive at the scene of a disaster
site--the Nation's emergency responders. Public safety personnel must
have access to reliable and instantaneous communications at all times
to effectively coordinate response and recovery operations. The
Department recognizes that establishing emergency communications is not
solely a technology problem that can be solved with just the ``right''
equipment or the ``right'' communications system. All of the critical
factors for a successful interoperability solution--governance,
standard operating procedures, training and exercises, and integration
of systems into daily operations as well as technology--must and are
being addressed through the collective work of our programs.
Further, DHS believes that effective emergency communications
requires continued partnering with the millions of emergency responders
that are the first to arrive on the scene of an incident, as well as
the communications industry, non-Governmental organizations, the
general public, and citizens of affected communities. We look forward
to discussing our respective efforts and key accomplishments to make
the Nation more prepared in an all-hazards environment.
emergency communications responsibilities
Within the National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD)
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) are two organizations
that focus on different but converging areas of telecommunications in
support of emergency operations: The Office of Emergency Communications
(OEC) and the National Communications System (NCS). OEC and NCS are
critical to shaping National policy and both work with other DHS
Components, Federal departments and agencies, multiple levels of
government, and the private communications sector to improve
capabilities and achieve mission requirements.
OEC was established as part of the Congressional response to the
communications challenges faced during the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. OEC coordinates policy
and assists in the development and implementation of operable and
interoperable emergency communications capabilities for emergency
responders at all levels of government, including Federal, State,
local, Tribal, and territorial. OEC also led the development of the
first National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP).
The NCS, transferred from the Department of Defense to DHS in 2003,
was created by Executive Order under President Kennedy to support the
telecommunications functions of the Executive Office of the President
and all Federal departments and agencies for Continuity of Government,
Enduring Constitutional Government, and Continuity of Operations.
Today, the NCS is an interagency system comprised of the
telecommunications assets of 24 Federal departments and agencies, each
with significant operational, policy, regulatory, and enforcement
responsibilities. The NCS coordinates telecommunications preparedness,
response, and restoration activities across its 24 member agencies
through the NCS Committee of Principals, which consists of senior
Government officials from each of the 24 member agencies, ensuring a
diverse representation across the NCS that includes the full range of
Federal telecommunications assets. The NCS also coordinates responses
with stakeholders through the National Security Telecommunications
Advisory Committee (NSTAC) and the National Coordination Center.
office of emergency communications
The creation of OEC was an important step toward improving the
communication capabilities of those who are often the first to arrive
at the scene of an incident--the Nation's emergency responders.
Inadequate emergency communications have been a critical gap in our
Nation's preparedness, and previous efforts to address this issue were
hampered by the lack of a strong partnership between the Federal
Government and the public safety community. In addition, the Nation
lacked an overarching strategy to guide emergency communications
planning and build capabilities at all levels of government.
In the last 4 years, OEC has worked to fill many of these and other
gaps, and we are seeing progress in several key areas that enable
emergency responders to interoperate in an all-hazards environment. As
part of its mission, OEC led a comprehensive Nation-wide planning
effort with more than 150 stakeholders from the emergency response
community to develop the NECP. This included significant feedback and
coordination with the SAFECOM Executive Committee, the SAFECOM
Emergency Response Council, and the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council. The SAFECOM Executive Committee and
Emergency Response Council are comprised of National public safety
association members, State and local emergency responders, and
representatives within Federal agencies. These stakeholder groups
represent the interests of millions of emergency responders, as well as
the State and local governments that public safety communications
serves. Involving these groups from the beginning ensured that the plan
took stakeholders' input into account and would be widely accepted in
the public safety community.
In the 3 years since it was released, the NECP has been
instrumental in defining communication priorities for public safety
personnel at all levels of government. OEC has been driving
implementation of the NECP in coordination with its Federal, State, and
local partners, and we are seeing measurable improvements with building
capabilities and closing gaps identified in the plan for governance,
training, operating procedures, and others, including:
Enhanced State-wide Coordination.--The creation of State-
wide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs), State-wide
Interoperability Coordinators (SWICs) and State-wide
Interoperability Governing Bodies (SIGBs) has improved
coordination of emergency communications activities and
investments throughout all 56 States and territories. Through
the SCIP development and updating process, the SWICs, in
collaboration with their SIGBs, have been effective in helping
States define their communications needs and future investments
and ensuring that Federal funding is directed where it is
needed most. In addition, OEC has conducted over 135 workshops
during the past 3 years to assist States as they implement and
update their SCIPs.
Common Plans, Protocols, and Procedures.--The use of
standardized plans and procedures is driving improved command,
control, and communications among emergency responder agencies
in the field. To facilitate this, OEC and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) have worked with more than 140
jurisdictions, including Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
regions, to develop Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans
that document formalized interoperability governance groups,
standardized policies and procedures, and emergency
communications equipment inventories. States continue to
develop these communications plans to cover additional regions.
Targeted Technical Assistance.--OEC has implemented a
technical assistance strategy to ensure that all States and
territories can request and receive its targeted, on-site
emergency communications assistance, while also focusing
support on the States and urban areas most in need. These
offerings are tailored to support the priorities in each
State's or territory's SCIP and the objectives of the NECP.
Since 2008, the 56 States and territories have combined to
request more than 750 individual technical assistance services
from OEC for support with the development of governance
structures, tactical and strategic planning, and a variety of
engineering services.
Increased Training Opportunities.--OEC has developed
Communications Unit Leader (COML) and Communications Technician
(COMT) courses to improve emergency responders' proficiency
with communications equipment and to assist them with
coordinating roles and responsibilities during an incident or
event. The COML program has been embraced by emergency
responders Nation-wide, and OEC has trained more than 3,500
responders, technicians, and planners to lead communications at
incidents across the Nation, including local floods, blizzards,
and wildfires. Trained COMLs have also contributed to recovery
efforts throughout the United States, including the recent
outbreak of tornados and massive flooding in the Midwest and
Southeast.
Enhanced Border Communications and Coordination.--OEC has
been actively working with our international partners at the
Northern and Southern Borders to improve cross-border
interoperable communications planning, policy development, and
operations communications. DHS recently awarded $25 million in
grant funding to States and local communities under the Border
Interoperability Demonstration Project--a one-time competitive
grant program focused on developing innovative solutions to
strengthen interoperable emergency communications along the
U.S. borders with our partners in Canada and Mexico.
Improved Governance and Coordination.--OEC is working with
Federal, regional, State, and local agencies to increase
coordination, information sharing, and oversight of
interoperability through formal governance structures and
partnerships. For example:
SIGBs have been created in every State and territory and
include representatives from all levels of government to
coordinate and support State-wide interoperability. The
State of Indiana, for example, has implemented an effective
governance process for emergency communications through the
State-wide Interoperability Executive Committee, which also
serves as an advisory group to the State's Integrated
Public Safety Commission. Many States have also implemented
Regional Interoperability Committees to provide insight
into the State-wide strategy from an operational
perspective.
OEC continues to receive insightful feedback and input
from responders, associations, and emergency communications
professionals through the SAFECOM Executive Committee,
SAFECOM Emergency Response Council, and the newly-chartered
National Council of State-wide Interoperability
Coordinators.
OEC recently instituted a Regional Coordination Program to
strengthen collaboration and knowledge sharing with our
stakeholders. OEC has established a Regional Coordinator in
each of the 10 FEMA Regions, and they regularly participate
in the SIGBs, the UASI interoperability meetings and their
respective FEMA Regional Emergency Communications
Coordination Working Groups.
By focusing on these core capabilities--planning, governance,
training, interagency coordination, and technology support--emergency
response agencies are becoming more equipped to establish and maintain
interoperable communications during response and recovery activities.
collaboration with federal partners
In addition to the extensive progress made to improve emergency
communications at the State, local, and Tribal level, the Department,
through OEC, is coordinating efforts to improve emergency
communications among DHS Component offices and other Federal agencies.
OEC operates the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center
(ECPC) to coordinate policy, planning, and administration of emergency
communications across 14 Federal departments and agencies. The ECPC
provides an inter-departmental mechanism to coordinate common
solutions, streamline development of policy and plans, and jointly
engage State, local, and Tribal partners. The ECPC has achieved early
successes through defining a strategic agenda that reflects shared
member priorities and establishes issue-specific focus groups to drive
immediate action. Key accomplishments include: (1) Coordinated inputs
on National policy, such as Federal agency comments on the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) National Broadband Plan; (2)
developed and published recommendations for common Federal grant
guidance to synchronize emergency communications spending across more
than 40 grant programs; (3) initiated efforts to drive capability and
resource sharing through mapping and analyzing existing Federal
communications resources; and (4) implemented a clearinghouse
capability and data repository to yield improved information sharing
and coordination.
OEC also administers the One DHS Emergency Communications
Committee, which aims to improve internal coordination of policy and
planning across DHS Components with emergency communications missions.
This committee provides a vital mechanism for maximizing the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Department's emergency communications
investments and activities. The One DHS Committee reached its most
significant milestone in June 2011 with the creation of the unified One
DHS Emergency Communications Strategy. The Strategy establishes a
common vision ``to ensure access to and exchange of mission-critical
information across the Homeland Security Enterprise anywhere, anytime,
through unified capabilities.'' It also sets goals for coordinating and
improving emergency communications architecture, investment,
governance, and operations.
OEC has worked closely with FEMA through the Disaster Emergency
Communications Division to ensure State and local agencies have the
capability to communicate during disaster response. OEC has supported
the Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups
(RECCWGs) for the past 4 years. OEC's Regional Coordinators participate
on the RECCWGs and bring together Federal, State, and local governments
in their region.
OEC also collaborates with FEMA GPD to ensure that grant funding is
aligned with applicable National and State strategies.
OEC works closely with NCS on several initiatives such as the
Government Emergency Telecommunication System (GETS) and Wireless
Priority Services (WPS) and provides support to the National
Coordinating Center for Telecommunications (NCC) during emergencies. In
addition, OEC provides support during a Federally-declared disaster
when Emergency Support Function (ESF) No. 2 is activated. ESF No. 2 is
the support function to restore commercial telecommunications and
provide tactical communications support during incidents. OEC Regional
Coordinators are deployed either to the FEMA Regional Response
Coordination Center or to an Incident Management Action Team (IMAT) in
the affected area.
Recently, OEC partnered with both NCS and FEMA to support the
response to Hurricane Irene. Four of OEC's Regional Coordinators were
deployed to support ESF No. 2. The Regional Coordinators supported many
tasks throughout the Hurricane response, but the most valuable role
they served was using their strong intergovernmental relationships and
a localized knowledge base of the Regions in which they work. Because
the Regional Coordinators work with stakeholders every day, they have
an in-depth understanding of the needs of different communities across
their Regions. Counterparts at FEMA noted the importance of these
relationships during the response and recommended the Regional
Coordinators work directly with the States as a government liaison
across multiple levels of government. Collaboration with stakeholder
partners at all level of government is essential to carrying out OEC's
mission and the impact of this collaboration was demonstrated during
the Hurricane Irene response. OEC will continue to support NCS and FEMA
in future ESF No. 2 responses.
necp goal assessments
Implementation of the NECP has been a key driver behind much of our
progress in improving interoperability. More than 85 percent of the
NECP milestones have been achieved to date and progress is evident in
all of the NECP priority areas, such as governance, training, and
coordination.
To move the Nation closer to allowing all emergency responders to
communicate as needed, OEC is engaged in a comprehensive, Nation-wide
assessment of emergency communications capabilities as it implements
the NECP Goals. When complete, this assessment will provide a detailed
view of capabilities at the county or county-equivalent level in all 56
States and territories. This detailed look at emergency
communications--the first of its kind--will generate valuable data for
both DHS and the States to use to more effectively and efficiently
focus future resources and improvement activities.
OEC recently completed the measurement of Goal 1 of the NECP, which
focused on emergency communications capabilities in the Nation's
largest cities. To measure NECP Goal 1, OEC worked with the UASI
regions to assess their ability to demonstrate response-level emergency
communications during a real-world event in each region. This approach
enabled OEC to evaluate their use of emergency communications in real-
world settings and in an economically efficient manner.
The results of this evaluation have been encouraging. Based on the
capabilities documented at each Goal 1 event, UASIs were able to
demonstrate the ability to establish response-level emergency
communications in accordance with NECP Goal 1. This illustrated how the
significant organizational and technical investments made by the UASIs
have improved their emergency communications capabilities in recent
years. In fact, OEC saw measurable improvements over key gaps
identified in the previous DHS assessment of these urban areas in 2007,
the Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards report. Some of
these areas of progress were the result of DHS programs and funding,
including the following:
Grants.--The NECP Goal 1 results showed an increase in the
number of UASI regions using Project 25 (P25) digital radio
standards-based systems, which are designed to allow
interoperability regardless of equipment vendor. The
implementation of P25 systems has been a provision in DHS grant
guidance for several years, including the SAFECOM grant
guidance and the Public Safety Interoperable Communications
Grant Program.
Training and Technical Assistance.--As previously discussed,
OEC offers a COML training program that has trained more than
3,500 responders, technicians, and planners to lead
communications at incidents across the Nation. This program
began in part as a response to gaps identified in the 2007 DHS
Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans Tactical
Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP) Scorecard assessment,
specifically the lack of trained COMLs. During the NECP Goal 1
events, OEC found that a large majority of the UASI regions had
assigned DHS-trained COMLs to handle planning and implementing
multi-system communications for the event.
Exercises.--Almost all UASI regions reported that agencies
within their regions are now holding communication-specific
exercises, and approximately half of them reported that the
agencies are holding these exercises on a regular basis. This
represents significant progress over similar findings from the
DHS TICP report in 2007, which concluded that ``almost no
[UASI] region had completed a communications-focused exercise
before the TICP validation exercise.''
OEC is currently in the process of implementing a Goal 2
measurement, which calls for an assessment of emergency communications
performance and capabilities at the county-level (or county-equivalent
level, such as parishes in Louisiana). This is a large undertaking, as
there are more than 3,000 counties in the United States. OEC is working
closely with the States and territories to complete this assessment by
the end of this year and will be following up with them on how to use
the results to update their SCIPs and more effectively utilize
resources. From a DHS perspective, we believe the NECP Goals assessment
will generate much-needed capability data to more strategically direct
Federal and State emergency communications resources--including grant
funds and technical assistance support--to where they are needed most.
public safety broadband network
Over the last decade, our Nation has made critical strides in
strengthening overall security and National preparedness. The public
safety community also has made significant progress improving emergency
communications capabilities through enhanced coordination, planning,
training, and equipment.
However, we have been limited by wireless technologies that were
introduced decades ago. To fully achieve the vision of the 9/11
Commission, emergency responders must have an advanced, Nation-wide,
interoperable, public safety communications network. Recent
developments in high-speed, wireless communications technology
represent a new opportunity for emergency responders to have
significantly greater operability, interoperability, and capability.
These broadband advancements can provide emergency responders with
access to information that will improve their ability to safely and
efficiently manage their daily activities and respond to all levels of
emergency situations. For example, as President Obama stated in his
State of the Union Address, these advancements can enable a firefighter
to use a handheld device to download the design of a building before
arriving at the scene of an emergency. These types of capabilities have
the potential to save countless lives. That is why the administration
has been coordinating with the public safety community, the private
sector, and Congress to promote initiatives for the deployment and
development of a Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network.
Earlier this year, President Obama outlined his commitment to the
development and deployment of such a network for public safety, a key
recommendation from the 9/11 Commission Report. The administration's
program in support of such a network is a component of its Wireless
Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative, which was outlined in its
fiscal year 2012 budget. The public safety elements of the Initiative
include an accounting for the foregone auction revenues resulting from
reallocation of the D Block for use in the public safety broadband
network; $7 billion in direct financial support for network deployment;
$500 million for development and testing of broadband public safety
requirements, standards, and software applications (to be administered
through the National Institute of Standards and Technology); and $5
billion for support to rural broadband services, including public
safety services.
The administration is fully committed to working with Congress to
ensure the passage of legislation that meets the critical National need
of establishing a public safety broadband network. We appreciate the
bipartisan Congressional leadership on this issue that crosses
committees of jurisdiction, including Chairman King and Ranking Member
Thompson. We are confident that through continued cooperation with
Congress, we can deliver a network that meets the needs of America's
first responders whom all Americans rely upon.
OEC has been extremely active in support of the President's
Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative and helping prepare
the Nation's responders for the deployment of broadband. OEC has worked
closely with its Federal partners at the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, as well as the FCC, to help set the broad policy framework for
the planned network, and has coordinated with its State and local
partners to ensure the public safety community's requirements are fully
represented in network broadband planning and implementation efforts.
More specific examples include the following OEC broadband-focused
programs and activities:
Policy and Planning.--OEC is preparing an addendum to the
NECP for release later this year that will identify key
broadband challenges and recommend near-term actions to foster
the integration of broadband technologies and data
capabilities. This addendum also will propose further measures
to support current interoperability efforts and to maintain
existing Land Mobile Radio communications capabilities until
broadband technologies can support mission-critical
communications for first responders.
Outreach and Coordination.--OEC is working with all of its
stakeholder groups--including the SAFECOM Executive Committee
and Emergency Response Council, National Council of State-wide
Interoperability Coordinators, ECPC, and the One DHS Committee
on Emergency Communications Committee--to ensure the views and
requirements of the public safety community are fully
represented in broadband planning and implementation efforts.
OEC supports outreach efforts related to the development
and deployment of a Nation-wide public safety broadband
network to include operational requirements, funding,
standards, spectrum requirements, and governance. This
includes support for an Innovation Roundtable with
representatives from Government, associations, public
safety, and industry. OEC is also supporting a committee of
jurisdictions that received FCC waivers for early
deployment of 700 MHz broadband systems as they begin their
efforts to build networks. Through these efforts, OEC is
continuing to emphasize the need for planning and good
governance, since these elements of emergency
communications have yielded progress to date.
OEC continues to coordinate with the emergency response
community, preparing wireless broadband guidance documents
for SWICs, urban area and regional interoperability
coordinators, public officials and executives, and
emergency responders to support current NECP initiatives on
interoperability planning. OEC also continues to provide
emergency response stakeholders up-to-date and
comprehensive information about wireless broadband in the
emergency response environment. In addition, OEC is working
with States and jurisdictions to incorporate broadband
initiatives into the SCIPs.
To increase coordination of Federal efforts for broadband
implementation, the ECPC is working to identify Federal
broadband requirements, preparing a consolidated view of
emergency communications assets, addressing associated
legal and regulatory barriers, developing Departmental
positions on pending broadband regulatory matters and
rulemakings, and establishing standardized grant guidance
and processes. The ECPC has identified the development of
broadband standards and research and development as one of
its strategic priorities for the coming year.
Concurrently, the One DHS Emergency Communications
Committee is providing consolidated Departmental input into
Federal interagency efforts, as well as developing
strategies for broadband technology migration (i.e.,
transition from current land mobile radio technology).
Under the strategy and policy direction of the One DHS
Emergency Communications Committee, DHS has initiated a
joint program management office to capture and implement
Department-wide broadband requirements to develop a next
generation tactical communications mobile platform for
voice, data, and video. This approach will align with both
commercial broadband technologies and public safety
roadmaps to ensure cost efficiency and interoperability
with Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners.
Grants.--OEC's current SAFECOM grant guidance, which
includes input from State, local, territorial, and Tribal
responders, contains a number of key provisions pertaining to
broadband deployment. Further, the ECPC Recommendations for
Federal Agencies: Financial Assistance for Emergency
Communications, a document for Federal emergency communications
grant programs, includes updated guidance concerning the
deployment of the Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network.
Technical Assistance.--OEC has developed a wireless
broadband technical assistance offering for 2011 to assist
State, local, territorial, Tribal, and regional users develop
and improve their use of broadband technology in line with the
vision of a Nationally interoperable network. The offering is
tailored for each jurisdiction and provides informational
briefings, governance models and standard operating procedures,
project planning, and engineering support.
In addition, NCS provides technical advice to OEC regarding
communications standards to ensure the proposed public safety network
is interoperable with the commercial communications networks. NCS also
ensures that the priority functions for National security emergency
preparedness function seamlessly as they operate between the networks.
national communications system
Since its inception, NCS has developed programs and services to
address the unique communications challenges associated with
communications divestiture, deregulation, and communication resilience
against all hazards.
As the coordinator for Emergency Support Function No. 2 (ESF-2)--
Communications, under the National Response Framework, NCS coordinates
Government and industry during planning for and response to disasters
and major outages. The operational arm for communications activities is
the 24/7 National Coordinating Center (NCC) for Communications. It
coordinates emergency response and recovery operations supporting the
National Response Framework by coordinating with the 26 departments and
agencies as members of the NCS and with 56 private communications
companies who are members of the NCC. The NCC is, and has been, a
consistent coordinating mechanism for coordinating efficient
communications restoration and recovery activity for more than 25
years. The NCC also coordinates the communications assets of the NCS
members to provide communications assistance during disasters (man-made
or natural). During a response, the NCC also provides requirement
priorities to industry partners. NCS also manages Government-industry
partnerships to assist decision-makers in understanding the risks to
the Communications Sector. NCS is the Sector-Specific Agency for the
Communications Sector and coordinates Government and industry partners
under the Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Committee Act to
reduce communications sector risk. NCS also manages the President's
NSTAC, which currently comprises 27 Chief Executive Officer-level
members from communications, information technology, and defense
corporations. Most recently, the NSTAC examined four scenarios designed
to stress future 2015-level networks, and provided the President with
recommendations for technology enhancements and Government investments
that would provide the best network resilience and recovery.
NCS capabilities include the following:
Operational Activities.--NCS develops and maintains National
security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications
priority services programs, such as GETS and WPS, which provide
users with priority on commercial networks. The GETS program is
a White House-directed emergency telecommunications service
managed by NCS. GETS supports over 274,000 Federal, State,
local, and Tribal government, industry, and non-governmental
organization personnel in performing their NS/EP communications
missions by providing a robust mechanism to complete calls
during network congestion from anywhere in the United States.
Specifically, GETS provides 90 percent or more call completion
rates when network call volume is up to eight times greater-
than-normal capacity. For example, approximately 10,000 GETS
calls were made with a 95 percent success rate during the 9/11
attacks, and 1,231 GETS calls were made with a 90 percent or
more success rate during the 2003 Blackout.
WPS is a Nation-wide program that provides priority NS/EP
telecommunications via selected commercial wireless carriers. This
program enhances the ability of 108,000 NS/EP subscribers to complete
calls through a degraded public switched telephone network during a
crisis or emergency situation. WPS calls receive the next available
radio channel during times of wireless congestion and helps to ensure
that key NS/EP personnel can complete critical calls by providing
priority access for key leaders and supporting first responders. WPS
service provides authorized cellular users with the ability to have
priority within the public switched telephone network as well as access
to priority channels.
The Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program authorizes
and provides priority treatment of NS/EP telecommunications services.
The TSP Program provides service providers with an FCC mandate for
prioritizing service requests by identifying those services critical to
NS/EP. For example, a telecommunications service with a TSP assignment
will receive priority by the service vendor before a non-TSP service.
The TSP Program has two components: Restoration and provisioning. A
restoration priority applies to telecommunications services to ensure
restoration before any other services. A provisioning priority is
obtained to facilitate priority installation of new telecommunications
services in response to an emergency. In addition to daily operations,
TSP Program Office personnel are notified of Presidentially-declared
disasters; activation of the National Response Framework, ESF-2; and
Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government (COOP/COG) plans.
TSP Program Office personnel are on call 24/7. TSP can save days to
weeks on the time required to return wireline voice/data services, and
there are more than 200,000 active TSP circuit assignments in support
of NS/EP communications.
NCS continues to integrate GETS and WPS services across evolving
networks. NCS works with industry to enhance and assure these priority
programs are compatible with Next Generation Network (NGN) technology.
The Modeling, Analysis, and Technology Assessments team provides
expertise in modeling and analyzing current and future protocols,
algorithms, network designs, and capabilities that will impact priority
service communications in legacy and NGNs. The modeling team also
maintains a suite of specialized infrastructure analysis tools to
provide critical infrastructure risk assessments for the communications
sector in the event of a man-made or natural disaster. The assessments
consist of the following:
Providing technical analysis of current and next generation
communications systems, new technologies, physical and logical
architectures, and products related to communications network
infrastructures.
Determining new and emerging communications technologies
under various congestion and failure conditions to identify
vulnerabilities and predict performance of existing and next
generation networks.
Developing products to be used for COOP/COG functions during
disaster response related to Federal, State, local, and Tribal
governments.
Standards Activities.--The NCS Standards Team is an active
leader and contributor to various National and international
standards-developing organizations, ensuring industry-wide
adoption of non-proprietary solutions for NS/EP preparedness
telecommunications requirements.
The Team provides leadership and representation in standards bodies
to recommend standards that, when implemented in Internet
Protocol-based networks, will provide capabilities to ensure
National, State, and local leaderships' ability to communicate
during times of crisis. The Third Generation Partnership
Project is focused on the technical aspects associated with
provisioning priority services in Long-Term Evolution networks
and is being pursued under the enhanced Multimedia Priority
Service project. In cooperation with the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), NCS is developing
an End-to-End Next Generation Network GETS Service Call Flow
Standard that specifies end-to-end call flows. ATIS is also
developing the baseline text for an Emergency
Telecommunications Service wireline access requirements
standard, which details the network element requirements for
access in support of Digital Subscriber Line, Cable, Fiber, and
Metro Ethernet.
National Response Planning.--NCS is working with Federal,
regional, State, and local agencies to increase communications
coordination, information sharing, and oversight of emergency
preparedness activities to improve response to man-made and
natural disasters. NCS works with these entities to ensure a
coordinated response through formal governance structures and
partnerships.
conclusion
The Department appreciates the committee's support for our
interoperable emergency communications activities. Thank you again for
this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer your
questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Now we will hear from Mr. O'Connor for 5
minutes. You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN O'CONNOR, MANAGER, NATIONAL COORDINATING
CENTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS
DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. O'Connor. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member
Richardson, and Members of the committee. I am happy to be here
today to represent my organization, the National Communication
System, and discuss how we work with our colleagues here at the
table, those across Government, and industry partners to
provide emergency communications.
As Chris mentioned, our respective organizations bring a
unique set of capabilities to ensure communications,
particularly during time of an emergency. The main functions of
the National Communications System are coordination and
prioritization. In our coordination role, we work with
Government partners and private-sector owner and operators to
determine what may be damaged and how best to fix and recover
during a disaster. As you know, this infrastructure is the
infrastructure used by the general public to call
9-1-1 and also to dial loved ones. It is also the same
infrastructure that is utilized by emergency responders and
Government leaders to coordinate response activities.
Regarding our prioritization role, the NCS develops and
manages technical enhancements to the public network which
allow key leaders to place prioritized phone calls during times
of congestion that are often experienced after disasters. As
the coordination focal point, the NCS provides 24 by 7
vigilance via our operational arm, the National Coordinating
Center, to respond, restore, and reconstitute National
emergency and preparedness communications services and
facilities.
The NCS is also the focal point for the NCS executing its
responsibilities for Emergency Support Function No. 2 under the
National response framework when activated by FEMA. Today, 24
Federal departments and agencies and 55 private-sector entities
come together at the NCC to coordinate response, minimize the
loss of life, and mitigate potential cascading effects across
the United States public network.
This Government and industry partnership is the framework
the NCS has utilized for over 25 years, and was the same
framework that was successfully leveraged by USAID in response
to the earthquake in Haiti. During 2010 and 2011, the NCS and
its partners have resolved communications congestion, outages,
and restoration issues for a number of natural disasters.
Specifically, we have been involved with the Japan earthquake
and tsunami, flooding in the Mississippi and Red River Valleys,
tornadoes across the Midwest and the East, wildfires, and
Hurricane Irene.
As a recent success story that demonstrates the
collaboration and expertise by my DHS partners here at the
table, I would like to go into a little detail about the
response that we provided most recently to Connecticut during
the winter storm. FEMA, through its Disaster Emergency
Communications representative, provided on-scene initial
assessment and regional interaction with Connecticut officials.
Based on this assessment and interaction, they determined it
was necessary to activate the NCS in its ESF-2 role. The NCS in
this function reached out to our industry partners to begin to
gauge an assessment of what was happening in the public
networks, and also activated a representative from Chris' shop
to go and stand guard and duty at the State of Connecticut's
Emergency Operations Center. From these actions, the Federal
team was able to satisfy Connecticut's desire to understand the
impact on the wireless networks. Also, we were able to impart
to them the lack of fuel as a limiting factor for continuing to
maintain the wireless networks. Based on this coordination, a
plan was brokered that allowed a private sector entity to use
the fuel depots in the State of Connecticut, thereby supporting
the Governor's desire to maintain the wireless networks and to
host 9-1-1 services for his population.
Some information on our priority programs: In addition to
ensuring that a baseline infrastructure exists, the NCS has
instituted programs that allow for prioritizing traffic across
the infrastructure. The need for this functionality was
demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when President
Kennedy had difficulty reaching his Cabinet members and other
key Government officials. My organization was subsequently
created to ensure that future Presidents do not face the same
challenge.
Two programs developed and managed by the NCS include the
Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, or GETS, which
provides priority calling on wireline networks, and the
Wireless Priority Service complement, which provides priority
calling on wireless networks. Both programs enhance the
probability of call completion during times of congestion. The
programs are available to Federal, State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments, as well as industry partners and non-
Governmental emergency response organizations. GETS currently
has in excess of 274,000 users, and the Wireless Priority
Service has 100,000-plus users.
In conclusion, while we realize there is always room for
improvement. In my 21 years of experience with the NCS, and as
evidenced by our response in Connecticut, collaboration across
the Government and industry has never been stronger.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
and I am happy to answer any of your questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I also want to tell the presenters, I appreciate you
keeping within the 5-minute rule as well. You have.
Now we will recognize Administrator Penn. You are
recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAMON PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Ranking
Member Richardson, good afternoon to you, ma'am, and Members of
the subcommittee.
It is a real honor to be here today before you on behalf of
FEMA to discuss our emergency communications capabilities and
our collaboration with our partners. FEMA is continuously
working with its partners at DHS, private industry, other
Federal agencies, our State, local, and tribal governments to
improve the capabilities and interoperability of emergency
communications. This whole community effort also includes
innovations in the way we send and receive information to and
from the public before, during, and in the wake of disasters.
In our testimony today, Mr. Edwards will discuss the
activities of FEMA's Disaster Emergency Communications Division
and its work with our Federal and State partners, and I will
provide some recent developments and key updates in the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, or IPAWS, and our
National Emergency Alert System test that we conducted last
week. I will also share how we use social media tools and
transform the way we communicate with the American public, and
how FEMA is dedicated to employing cutting-edge technology and
leveraging the whole community to increase our effectiveness
and emergency communications.
So at this time I will turn this over to Disaster Emergency
Communications with Mr. Edwards.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Penn and Mr. Edwards
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Damon Penn and Eric Edwards
November 17, 2011
introduction
Good morning Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I am Damon Penn, Assistant
Administrator for National Continuity Programs of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). With me today is Eric Edwards, Director of
FEMA's of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster
Emergency Communications Division. It is an honor to appear before you
on behalf of FEMA to discuss our emergency communication capabilities
and collaboration with Federal partners.
FEMA is continuously working with its partners at DHS, private
industry, other Federal agencies, State, local, and Tribal governments
to improve the capability and interoperability of emergency
communications. This Whole Community effort also includes innovations
in the way we send and receive information to the public before,
during, and in the wake of disasters.
In our testimony today, Eric will describe the activities of FEMA's
Disaster Emergency Communications Division (DECD) and its work with
other Federal and State partners. I will provide recent developments
and key updates in the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) program and our National Emergency Alert System (EAS) test. I
will also share how our use of social media is transforming the way we
communicate with the American public. FEMA is dedicated to employing
cutting-edge technology and leveraging the Whole Community to increase
the effectiveness of emergency communications.
disaster emergency communications division (decd)
Since its inception in 2008, FEMA's Disaster Emergency
Communications (DEC) Division, part of the Office of Response and
Recovery's Response Directorate, has worked to build an effective
disaster emergency communications program to improve tactical
communications capabilities and interoperability during disaster
response. To fortify this effort, the DEC Division works closely with
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Emergency
Communications (OEC). As outlined by Secretary Napolitano's policy, OEC
has the leadership role within the Department for coordinating
strategic interoperability efforts. OEC's leadership role is supported
by all the DHS components through the ``One DHS Communications
Committee.''
An important part of the DEC Division's mission is to improve the
effectiveness and interoperability of Federal response level
communications throughout the country. The DEC Division serves this
mission by delivering Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS)
capabilities to Federal, regional, State, Tribal, and local agencies in
various disaster situations. In this role, the Division works closely
with DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD)
National Communications System (NCS)--Primary Coordinator of Emergency
Support Function No. 2 (Communications). The Division, through its MERS
detachments, assists NCS in evaluating and supporting post-disaster
communications restoration needs. These capabilities provide voice,
video, and data communications through deployable emergency
communications units, often delivered in austere environments. The
Division also works with FEMA regions to deliver temporary mission-
critical communications for Joint Field Offices (JFO) during a Federal
disaster declaration. JFOs support the communications needs of the
Federal Coordinating Officer, National response teams, and other
emergency responders.
For example, in preparing for and responding to Hurricane Irene,
FEMA pre-positioned a number of National response teams along the East
Coast of the United States and Puerto Rico, to coordinate with State,
Tribal, and local officials. MERS assets were strategically located
throughout the disaster-affected areas to support emergency response
communications needs. The essential pre-positioning of MERS assets
resulted in the rapid delivery of Federal communications services in
the wake of Hurricane Irene.
In addition, the DEC Division provides expertise to various
agencies regarding communications technologies, especially during
mission-critical disaster response. The Division possesses a thorough
understanding of current communication capabilities and a roadmap to
adapt to future technologies at the National, regional, State, local,
and Tribal level which enables it to effectively aid various agencies.
In the past decade, new policies and new modes of communications have
significantly transformed the tools used by responders during
disasters. MERS assets provide effective support to agencies by
offering a blend of current and widely used technologies with new and
innovative ones. For example, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has undertaken a number of efforts to assist public safety by
modifying spectrum allocations in order to support the use of other
services such as data and video applications that increasingly demand
higher capacity channels. These efforts have included narrow-banding of
land mobile radio (LMR) systems and allocation of radio frequency
spectrum for broadband use by public safety services. In addition,
commercial products used by public safety are transitioning toward more
Internet Protocol (IP)-based devices that improve interoperability and
increase spectrum efficiency.
Beyond incident response support, the DEC Division works across
Government and industry to increase emergency communications
capabilities, performance, resiliency, and standards. The DEC Division
recognizes that constant technology innovations, such as social
networking and next-generation wireless broadband communications,
rapidly transform and change communications technology. Because of the
rapid evolution of technology, the DEC Division must continuously
modernize its communications assets to ensure the operational
effectiveness of DEC activities and MERS capabilities by updating its
communications equipment.
As a result, the DEC Division has developed the DEC Technology
Roadmap. This Roadmap identifies how the Division can maintain and
enhance current assets, incorporate new and emerging technologies, and
assess which technologies FEMA should invest in. Furthermore, the DEC
Technology Roadmap makes every effort to comply and align with the DHS
Technology Roadmap to ensure operability and interoperability with
future DHS joint program office tactical communications initiatives
while also supporting FEMA's unique emergency communications support
role. A robust disaster emergency communications architecture enhances
reliability, resiliency, survivability, redundancy, and security based
on a unified IP platform and compatibility with all users in the first
responder community. It begins with a snapshot of current capabilities
and carefully considers FEMA's future preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery mission requirements, as well as the agency's
current capabilities. The DEC Division is committed to enhancing FEMA's
response and recovery capabilities by creating a modernized,
interoperable communications infrastructure supporting voice, video,
and data.
Additionally, DEC Division works with each FEMA region, supporting
the establishment of State-specific emergency communications plans that
identify current communication resources and gaps, and enhance
communications interoperability by facilitating the coordination of
Federal, State, Tribal, and local communications during an incident. To
date, the Regions have delivered 39 State and three territory
communications plans with DEC Division support; and plans to deliver
six additional State plans and two Regional plans by the end of fiscal
year 2012.
The DEC Division has supported the establishment of Regional
Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups (RECCWG) in all of
FEMA's 10 regions. These RECCWGs are comprised of Federal, State,
Tribal, and local organizations and work closely with the DHS--OEC and
the FCC to evaluate inter- and intra-State interoperability programs,
share best practices, and advise FEMA Regional Administrators on the
state of regional emergency communications capabilities. In a short
amount of time, the DEC Division has made great strides in improving
local, Tribal, State, regional, and National emergency communications
capabilities and will continue its efforts into the future.
new innovations in communications with the public
FEMA is committed to improving and updating the means by which we
communicate with the public in the wake of disasters. The Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is a modernization and
integration of the Nation's alert and warning infrastructure. The
current Emergency Alert System (EAS) is built on technology that is
more than 5 decades old. FEMA created IPAWS to modernize the EAS and
expand the Primary Entry Point (PEP) station system. The PEP system is
a Nation-wide network of broadcast stations and other entities that is
used to distribute a message from the President or designated National
authorities in the event of a National emergency.
The National EAS Test, which occurred on November 9, 2011, was an
essential step toward improving the EAS. This was the first time that
an EAS test was coordinated Nation-wide, testing the capability to
communicate emergency information simultaneously across the United
States, and served as an opportunity for us to discover the true
limitations of the EAS on a National level. We discovered some
shortcomings and were surprised at the extent of success in other
areas. The next steps are reviewing the data, analyzing trends,
developing action plans and metrics, executing those plans, measuring
the outcomes, and reassessing our progress. An important focus is
making the EAS fully accessible. We are working closely with the
disability community to accomplish this goal.
In addition to modernizing the EAS, IPAWS has:
Built on the development work done by the cellular industry
and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and deployed
the Open Platform for Emergency Networks, or IPAWS-OPEN, which
can be used at no cost by State, local, territorial, and Tribal
public safety partners to share and disseminate emergency
alerts.
Adapted the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), the CAP Profile,
and the C-interface, which improve interoperability by
establishing data exchange language standards and will continue
to work with industry and S&T to develop new standards and
seamlessly integrate current and future technologies into
IPAWS;
Expanded traditional alerting and warning communication
pathways; and
Continued to work with the Department of Commerce and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
deliver alerts through All Hazards NOAA Weather Radio.
Looking forward to fiscal year 2012, FEMA's goals are to expand
IPAWS' interface standards for new social media dissemination and
communications networks; add redundancy in the dissemination network,
which allows one message to travel disparate paths; and ensure at least
90 percent of U.S. residents are covered by at least one means of
communication by the end of the fiscal year.
In addition to modernizing the EAS, FEMA is developing PLAN
(Personal Localized Alerting Network), also referred to as the CMAS
(Commercial Mobile Alerting System), to allow individuals with an
enabled mobile device to receive geographically targeted messages
alerting them of imminent threats, AMBER alerts, or emergency messages
from the President. CMAS/PLAN leverages extensive work done by the
cellular industry and S&T to deliver these messages avoiding the delays
commonly found in text-message based systems. This is a critical
capability given the recent delays this region saw in disseminating
text message alerts after the earthquake this past August.
CMAS/PLAN is scheduled to become operational in New York City and
Washington, DC by the end of this year, with Nation-wide roll-out of
operational capability beginning in April 2012. FEMA is working with
the cellular industry and S&T to conduct test and pilots of this
capability over the next several months to ensure its success.
conclusion
The ability to effectively communicate during and immediately
following a disaster is essential to fulfilling our mission. For that
reason we have completely overhauled the way we communicate with each
other and with the public in a disaster environment. We are leveraging
cutting-edge technology as well as important social media tools to
reach even more U.S. residents. We will continue to work with our
Federal partners to ensure that emergency communications are as up-to-
date and wide-reaching as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. Eric and I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. You are recognized, sir. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ERIC EDWARDS, DIRECTOR, DISASTER EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION, RESPONSE DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Edwards. Good afternoon, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking
Member Richardson, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. I am Eric Edwards, the director of FEMA's
Disaster Emergency Communications Division. It is an honor to
appear before you on behalf of FEMA to discuss our emergency
communications capabilities and collaboration with Federal
partners.
Since its creation in 2008, FEMA's Disaster Emergency
Communications, or DEC Division, has worked to improve tactical
communications capabilities and interoperability during
disaster response. To fortify this effort, the DEC Division
works closely with the Department of Homeland Security's Office
of Emergency Communications, or OEC. As outlined by Secretary
Napolitano's policy, OEC has the leadership role within the
Department for coordinating strategic interoperability efforts.
OEC's leadership role is supported by all the DHS components
through the One DHS Emergency Communications Committee. The DEC
Division supports the interoperability of emergency
communications by delivering Mobile Emergency Response Support,
or MERS, capabilities to Federal, regional, State, Tribal, and
local agencies in various disaster situations. In this role,
the division works closely with DHS' National Protection and
Programs Directorate's National Communication System, or NCS.
The division, through the MERS detachments, assists NCS in
evaluating and supporting post-disaster restoration needs.
The division also works with FEMA's regions to deliver
temporary mission-critical communications for Joint Field
Offices, or JFOs, during a disaster or Federal declaration.
JFOs support the communications needs of the Federal
Coordinating Officer, National response teams, and other
emergency responders.
In preparing for and responding to Hurricane Irene, FEMA
prepositioned a number of National response teams along the
East Coast of the United States and Puerto Rico to coordinate
with State, Tribal, and local officials. MERS assets were
strategically located throughout the disaster-affected areas to
support emergency response communication needs. The essential
prepositioning of MERS assets resulted in rapid delivery of
Federal communications services in the wake of Hurricane Irene.
Beyond incident support, the DEC Division works across
Government and industry to increase emergency communications
capabilities, performance, resiliency, and standards. The
Division possesses a thorough understanding of current
communications capabilities and ways to adopt future
technologies at the National, regional, State, Tribal, and
local level, which enables it to effectively aid various
agencies.
Because of the rapid evolution of technology, the DEC
Division must continuously modernize its communication assets.
As a result, we have developed a DEC Technology Roadmap. This
roadmap identifies how the division can maintain and enhance
current assets, incorporate new and emerging technologies, and
assess which technologies FEMA should invest in.
Furthermore, the DEC Technology Roadmap makes every effort
to comply and align with the DHS Technology Roadmap to ensure
interoperability with future joint wireless program office
tactical communications initiatives, while also supporting
FEMA's unique communications support role. A robust Disaster
Emergency Communications architecture enhances reliability,
resiliency, survivability, redundancy, and security based on
compatibility with users in the first responder community.
Outside of headquarters, the DEC Division supports the
establishment of Regional Emergency Communications Coordination
Working Groups with all of FEMA's 10 regions. These working
groups are comprised of Federal, State, Tribal, and local
organizations, and work closely with DHS's OEC and the Federal
Communications Commission to evaluation inter- and intrastate
interoperability programs, share best practices, and advise
FEMA Regional Administrators on the state of communications.
The DEC Division works with each FEMA region to support the
establishment of State-specific emergency communications plans.
In a short amount of time, the DEC Division has made great
strides in improving National, regional, State, Tribal, and
local emergency communications capabilities, and will continue
its efforts in the future.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.
Now I will recognize Ms. Moore for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LINDA K. MOORE, SPECIALIST IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND SPECTRUM POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Ms. Moore. Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson,
Members of the committee, my name is Linda Moore, and I am
honored to be here today to testify before you on behalf of the
Congressional Research Service. You have asked me to provide an
overview of key provisions in legislation passed since
September 11, 2001, that have addressed radio communications
interoperability and operability for public safety agencies.
In particular, I have considered how lack of coordination
and collaboration may have diluted efforts to meet
Congressional mandates for planning and funding. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 included requirements that provided a
basis for Federal leadership to address public safety
communications needs going forward. These responsibilities were
split among newly created directorates. Among the identified
needs were planning and interagency cooperation. Planning
mechanisms are key to fostering coordination and cooperation.
The Secretary of Homeland Security set up the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility, and gave it the
responsibility of preparing a National strategy for
communications interoperability, an organizational move that
was later ratified by Congress in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This act included several
sections regarding improvements in communications capacity
based in part on recommendations made in 2004 by the 9/11
Commission. The Commission's analysis of communications
difficulties on September 11 included a recommendation to
establish Signal Corps units to ensure communications
connectivity. The 9/11 Commission appeared to point the way
toward a network solution along the lines of what was in place
for military use.
Building on the concept of using the Army Signal Corps as a
model, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the
Secretary of Defense in the development of network protocols,
including standards, equipment, and--I meant to say projects,
network projects. If such a consultation occurred, it did not
apparently result in cooperation or collaboration.
In 2005, the destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita once again brought home the need for providing
interoperable, interchangeable communications systems for
public safety. Testimony at numerous hearings following the
hurricanes suggested that DHS had not fully responded to
Congressional mandates for action. Congress therefore raised
the bar and added more specific requirements for actions that
DHS was to take to improve emergency communications.
In the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007,
Congress addressed public safety communications in Title 6,
subtitle (d), the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of
2006. This act created the Office of Emergency Communications.
As described in the legislation, the purpose of the OEC was
to marshal the efforts of DHS agencies and to work with other
agencies and departments in developing effective solutions for
emergency communications. The OEC was required to work with the
National Communications System in the establishment of a
National response capability. The OEC was also to prepare a
National Emergency Communications Plan, intended to ensure,
accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency communications
Nation-wide. The three major laws that established requirements
for DHS to address emergency communications encouraged or
required planning and collaboration within the Department and
with other Federal agencies or departments. Many would argue
that shortcomings in the collaboration of programs across
agencies and departments have undermined leadership and diluted
the effectiveness of some programs.
For example, last year there were over 40 active Federal
grant programs for emergency communications administered by
nine different departments and multiple agencies within those
departments. Based on CRS research, there does not appear to be
any planning within the Department of Homeland Security or
among the various grant programs for funding specific
infrastructure goals that would contribute to the development
of an interoperable network connectivity Nation-wide.
Planning for interoperability at the Federal level has been
primarily through goal-setting, such as those goals established
by the National Emergency Communications Plan, not through
direct leadership. This approach would appear to fit with the
DHS policy that planning for emergency communications should be
from the bottom up, evolving along a development continuum
provided by the agency. In April 2011, the President's National
Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee published a
report on communications resiliency that included
recommendations for immediate action and a study of what types
of networks would be in place 5 to 10 years in the future.
These trends might be addressed in a future version of the
National Emergency Communications Plan, and could have been
included in the plan published in 2008, as all the identified
trends were already well established by public dialogues about
communications technology. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda K. Moore
November 17, 2011
Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and Members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to be testifying before you today on behalf
of the Congressional Research Service. My name is Linda Moore and for
the past 10 years my responsibilities at CRS have included providing
Congress with information and analysis regarding emergency
communications, including 9-1-1, the Emergency Alert System, and radio
communications for first responders. My testimony today provides an
overview of key provisions in legislation passed since September 11,
2001 that have addressed radio communications interoperability and
operability for public safety agencies. This testimony is based on CRS
reports and memoranda written during the period 2002 through 2011.
Prior to September 11, 2001, meeting the communications needs of
first responders was primarily a local or State responsibility. The
Federal Government provided some assistance and support. For example,
in 1997, Congress instructed the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to assign additional radio frequency spectrum capacity for public
safety, based on recommendations by the Federally-sponsored Public
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee.
the homeland security act of 2002
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) included some
requirements that provided the basis for Federal leadership to address
public safety communications needs. Title I of the Homeland Security
Act created the executive Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
position of Chief Information Officer.\1\ The Chief Information Office
was responsible for coordinating information sharing Nation-wide and
for meeting other communications needs within DHS, throughout the
Federal Government, and for State and local first responders. Within
DHS, several other initiatives were established to support emergency
communications, especially as regards interoperability for first
responders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 103(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title II created the Directorate for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP), and established an Office of Science
and Technology within the directorate. Duties of the Office of Science
and Technology included research and development support for law
enforcement agencies for ``wire and wireless interoperable
communications technologies.''\2\ Among the duties of the IAIP was the
``preparation of a comprehensive national plan for securing the key
resources and critical infrastructure'' including `` . . . emergency
preparedness communications systems, and the physical and technological
assets that support such systems.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 232(b)(6)(E).
\3\ Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 201(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Communications System (NCS) was made responsible for
telecommunications under the IAIP.\4\ NCS was originally established at
the Department of Defense by Executive Order in 1984 to assist the
President, the National Security Council, the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget in the exercise of the telecommunications
functions and responsibilities, and the coordination of the planning
for and provision of National security and emergency preparedness
communications. NCS consults with the President's National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC), among others, on issues
related to National security and emergency preparedness for
telecommunications. The primary focus of its programs is to assure
communications links in times of crisis. Close cooperation with the
telecommunications industry is also among NCS's responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 201(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibilities of the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and
Response (Title V) covered ``comprehensive programs for developing
interoperative communications technology, and helping to ensure that
emergency response providers acquire such technology.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 502(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS originally assigned primary responsibility for interoperable
communications projects to the Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable
COMmunications Program--called Project SAFECOM, which was placed within
the Science and Technology Directorate.\6\ Project SAFECOM had been
authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as one of 24
electronic Government (e-government) initiatives. Responsibility for
SAFECOM had been assigned by the OMB to the Wireless Directorate of the
Department of the Treasury. At the recommendation of the Chief
Information Officers of several Federal agencies, including the
Departments of Treasury, Commerce and Justice, Project SAFECOM was
transferred to FEMA and followed it to DHS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Homeland Security Starting Over with SAFECOM,'' Government
Computer News, June 9, 2003.
\7\ ``FEMA Takes Lead for Broader Public Safety Wireless Program,''
Communications Daily, June 10, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary of Homeland Security assigned the responsibility of
preparing a National strategy for communications interoperability to
the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), which DHS
created, an organizational move that was later ratified by Congress in
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. SAFECOM
operated as an entity within the OIC, which assumed the leadership
role.
In 2003, a CRS Report \8\ discussed the evolving role of the
Department of Homeland Security in providing support for public safety
communications. At that time, concerns were expressed by public safety
experts regarding the fragmented nature of the public safety
information and communications network and the absence of a network
overlay that could assure end-to-end communications across the country.
Other concerns included the absence of redundancy in public safety
networks and the lack of back-up locations for emergency
communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CRS Report RL31375, Emergency Communications: Meeting Public
Safety Spectrum Needs, last updated July 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004
Acting on recommendations made in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission,
Congress included several sections regarding improvements in
communications capacity--including clarifications to the Homeland
Security Act--in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458).
The Commission's analysis of communications difficulties on
September 11, 2001, was summarized in the following recommendation.
``Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the
expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety
purposes. Furthermore, high-risk urban areas such as New York City and
Washington, DC, should establish signal corps units to ensure
communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities,
local first responders, and the National Guard. Federal funding of such
units should be given high priority by Congress.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Washington:
GPO, 2004, p. 397.
Congress addressed both the context and the specifics of the
recommendation for signal corps capabilities. The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 amended the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 to specify that DHS give priority to the rapid establishment of
interoperable capacity in urban and other areas determined to be at
high risk from terrorist attack. The law provided a statutory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
definition of interoperable communications as:
``the ability of emergency response providers and relevant Federal,
State, and local government agencies to communicate with each other as
necessary, through a dedicated public safety network utilizing
information technology systems and radio communications systems, and to
exchange voice, data, or video with one another on demand, in real
time, as necessary.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303, 118 STAT
3846.
The Secretary of Homeland Security was required to work with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Secretary of Defense, and
the appropriate State and local authorities to provide technical
guidance, training, and other assistance as appropriate to achieve the
goals established by the act. Minimum capabilities were to be
established for ``all levels of government agencies,'' first
responders, and others, including the ability to communicate with each
other.\11\ The act further required the Secretary of Homeland Security
to establish at least two trial programs in high-threat areas. The
process of development for these programs was to contribute to the
creation and implementation of a National model strategic plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Pub. L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303, 118 STAT.
3843 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress also raised the bar for performance and accountability,
setting program goals for the Department of Homeland Security. Briefly,
the goals were to:
Establish a comprehensive, National approach for achieving
interoperability;
Coordinate with other Federal agencies;
Develop appropriate minimum capabilities for
interoperability;
Accelerate development of voluntary standards;
Encourage open architecture and commercial products;
Assist other agencies with research and development;
Prioritize, within DHS, research, development, testing, and
related programs;
Establish coordinated guidance for Federal grant programs;
Provide technical assistance; and
Develop and disseminate best practices.
The act included a requirement that any request for funding from
DHS for interoperable communications ``for emergency response
providers'' be accompanied by an Interoperable Communications Plan,
approved by the Secretary. Criteria for the plan were also provided in
the act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pub. L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 118 STAT.
3843 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The act also provided a sense of Congress that the next Congress--
the 109th--should pass legislation supporting the Commission's
recommendation to expedite the release of spectrum for public safety
use. This was addressed in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L.
109-171).
The 9/11 Commission appeared to point the way toward a network
solution along the lines of what was in place for military use. Its
recommendation to use signal corps to assure connectivity in high-risk
areas is apparently a reference to the Army Signal Corps. In testimony
before Congress, Commissioner John F. Lehman commented on the lack of
connectivity for first responders and referred to the ``tremendous
expertise'' of the Department of Defense (DOD) and its capabilities in
procurement, technology, and research and development. Referring
specifically to the Army Signal Corps, Mr. Lehman suggested that the
DOD should have responsibility to provide ``that kind of support to the
first responders in the high-target, high-risk cities like New
York.''\13\ Building on the concept of using the Army Signal Corps as a
model, the law directed the Secretary to consult with the Secretary of
Defense in the development of the test projects, including review of
standards, equipment, and protocols.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Testimony of Commissioner John F. Lehrnan, National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Hearing, House of
Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, ``Moving from `Need to
Know' to `Need to Share','' August 3, 2004.
\14\ Pub. L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304, 118 STAT.
3847-3848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the homeland security appropriations act, 2007
The destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August-
September 2005 reinforced recognition of the need for providing
interoperable, interchangeable communications systems for public safety
and also revealed the potential weaknesses in existing systems to
withstand or recover from catastrophic events. Testimony at numerous
hearings following the hurricanes suggested that DHS was responding
minimally to Congressional mandates for action, most notably as
expressed in the language of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004. Bills subsequently introduced in both the House
and the Senate proposed strengthening emergency communications
leadership and expanding the scope of the efforts for improvement. Some
of these proposals were included in Title VI of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007 (Pub. L. 109-295). Title VI--the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006--which reorganized the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), gave the agency new powers, and
clarified its functions and authorities within DHS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Information on the FEMA reorganization is provided in CRS
Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy Changes After
Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, coordinated by
Keith Bea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the 21st century emergency communications act of 2006 and the office of
emergency communications
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 also addressed
public safety communications in Title VI, Subtitle D--the 21st Century
Emergency Communications Act of 2006. This section created an Office of
Emergency Communications (OEC) and the position of Director, reporting
to the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications. As
described in the legislation, the purpose of the OEC was to marshal the
efforts of DHS agencies and to work with other agencies and departments
in developing effective solutions for emergency communications. The
Director was required to take numerous steps to coordinate emergency
communications planning, preparedness, and response, particularly at
the State and regional level. The Director was also required to work
with the National Communications System in the establishment of a
``National response capability with initial and on-going planning,
implementation, and training for the deployment of communications
equipment for relevant State, local, and Tribal governments and
emergency response providers in the event of a catastrophic loss of
local and regional emergency communications services.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Pub. L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), Title XVIII, Sec.
1801(c)(9), 120 STAT. 1434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other responsibilities assigned to the Director included conducting
outreach programs, providing technical assistance, coordinating
regional working groups, promoting the development of standard
operating procedures and best practices, establishing nonproprietary
standards for interoperability, developing a National Emergency
Communications Plan, working to assure operability and interoperability
of communications systems for emergency response, and reviewing grants.
The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) was to ``(1)
support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and
relevant government officials to continue to communicate in the event
of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters;
and ``(2) ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency
communications nationwide.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Pub. L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), Title XVIII, Sec.
1802(a)(1) and (2), 120 STAT. 1436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required elements of the plan included establishing requirements
for assessments and reports, and an evaluation of the feasibility of
developing a mobile communications capability modeled on the Army
Signal Corps. The feasibility study was to be done by DHS on its own or
in cooperation with the Department of Defense. Congress also required
assessments of emergency communications capabilities, including an
inventory that identified radio frequencies used by Federal departments
and agencies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Pub. L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), Title XVIII, Sec.
1803, 120 STAT. 1437-1438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning efforts were to include coordination with Regional
Administrators appointed by the FEMA Administrator to head ten Regional
Offices. To assist these efforts, Congress required the creation of
Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC) Working
Groups.\19\ These groups were to provide a platform for coordinating
emergency communications plans among States and were intended to
include representatives from many sectors with responsibility for
public safety and security. The formation of the regional working
groups, the RECCs, responded in part to requests from the public safety
community to expand interoperable communications planning to include
the second tier of emergency workers. Non-Federal members of the RECC
were to include first responders, State and local officials and
emergency managers, and public safety answering points (9-1-1 call
centers). Additionally, RECC working groups were to coordinate with a
variety of communications providers (such as wireless carriers and
cable operators), hospitals, utilities, emergency evacuation transit
services, ambulance services, amateur radio operators, and others as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pub. L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), Title XVIII, Sec.
1805, 120 STAT. 1439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dhs and other federal agencies
Federal legislative requirements for actions by the Department of
Homeland Security in support of public safety communications has, from
the first law that created the Department, assigned similar
responsibilities to multiple agencies within DHS. Furthermore,
legislation has required that DHS initiatives for public safety be
coordinated with other agencies. Many would argue that shortcomings in
the coordination of programs across agencies and departments have
undermined leadership and diluted the effectiveness of some programs.
Congress has separately and specifically given authority to DHS and
to the FCC to act on behalf of public safety. In the case of DHS,
authority includes planning and implementing public safety
communications solutions and setting requirements to coordinate and
support specific goals, such as interoperability and a National
communications capability.
By 2006, three Federal agencies were proposing different approaches
to provide communications interoperability for public safety.\20\ The
FCC was moving forward with a proposal for a public-private partnership
to build a Nation-wide network,\21\ and later included a similar plan
for building the network in its National Broadband Plan.\22\ The
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
established a Spectrum Advisory Committee whose objectives included
developing spectrum-efficient recommendations for a National network of
networks.\23\ Within DHS, the focus was on gateways--also known as
bridges, or as cross-talk or cross-patch systems, among other terms.
The gateway is a ``black box'' that can accept wireless transmissions
on one frequency standard and resend them on other frequency standards.
As a result, they are inefficient users of spectrum, since a single
message is using two or more frequency assignments. Gateways are the
technology centerpiece of efforts by DHS to achieve situational
interoperability.\24\ Situational interoperability and ``response-level
emergency communications'' remains an important goal for DHS and the
OEC, according to recently reported findings and recommendations.\25\
For the purposes of the NECP, response-level communications is ``the
capacity of individuals with primary operational leadership
responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an
incident.'' The Office of Emergency Communications has advocated
emergency communications planning from the bottom up, encouraging
stakeholders to find their own solutions within frameworks established
within DHS, evolving along a development continuum provided by the
agency.\26\ A primary activity of the OEC is to manage State-wide
planning and coordination for interoperable communications and
administer compliance with the National Emergency Communications Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Described in CRS Report RL33838, Emergency Communications:
Policy Options at a Crossroads, by Linda K. Moore, last updated January
30, 2007.
\21\ Congressionally-mandated obligations of the FCC include to
``promote safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communication,'' (47 U.S.C. 151) and requirements regarding the
assignment of radio frequencies for public safety use. The FCC created
a Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau in 2006 to consolidate its
many programs oriented toward public safety.
\22\ FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, 2010.
\23\ The NTIA manages radio frequency spectrum allocated for
Federal use and advises the administration on spectrum issues and new
wireless technologies, among other responsibilities.
\24\ See, for example Department of Homeland Security Press
Conference on Assessment of Interoperable Communications, January 3,
2007 (transcript provided by Federal News Service), and Homeland
Security Press release, ``Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff at the Tactical Interoperable Communications
Conference,'' May 8, 2006.
\25\ Department of Homeland Security, National Emergency
Communications Plan: Urban Area Communications Key Findings and
Recommendations, 2011.
\26\ The continuum diagram is at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/
?SAFECOM/?Tools/?Continuum/?continuum.htm; additional descriptions at
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/?SAFECOM/?oecguidancedocuments/
?continuum/?default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to testimony in 2008, neither the FCC nor the OEC
undertook to incorporate each other's goals in their specific planning
processes.\27\ In 2009, the Government Accountability Office confirmed
the lack of coordination and cooperation between DHS and the FCC.\28\
In April, 2010, the FCC established the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC).\29\ ERIC has been tasked with
implementing standards for National interoperability and developing
technical and operational procedures for the public safety wireless
broadband network. DHS is to participate in public safety outreach and
technical assistance, as well as best practices development, through
its Office of Emergency Communications. It is intended for ERIC to work
closely with the Public Safety Communications Research program, jointly
managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and the NTIA, to develop and test the technological solutions needed
for public safety broadband communications.\30\ ERIC has, in part,
become the forum for cooperation among three agencies with different
visions of the future and competing claims to provide leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Oral and written testimony before the House Committee on
Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response, ``Interoperability in the Next
Administration: Assessing the Derailed 700 MHz D Block Public Safety
Auction,'' September 16, 2008.
\28\ GAO, Emergency Communications: Vulnerabilities Remain and
Limited Collaboration and Monitoring Hamper Federal Efforts, GAO-09-
604, June 26, 2009.
\29\ FCC, Order, PS Docket No. 06-229, released April 23, 2010 at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/?edocs_public/?attachmatch/?FCC-10-67A1.pdf.
\30\ NIST, ``Demonstration Network Planned for Public Safety 700
MHz Broadband,'' December 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
president's national security telecommunications advisory committee
In January 2010, the President's National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) received an Executive
Order requiring a report on communications resiliency, that would
include recommendations for immediate action and a study of what types
of networks would be in place 5 to 10 years in the future.\31\ One of
the recommendations was to encourage DHS to file comments with the FCC
in support of continuing efforts to work closely with industry ``as it
builds the Nation-wide interoperable public safety mobile broadband
network . . . ''.\32\ The Report's scenario for the ``Public Safety
Communications in Network 2015'' assessed the current status of public
safety communications as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NSTAC Report to the President on Communications Resiliency,
April 19, 2011.
\32\ Report, page ES-2.
``While many state and local agencies have modernized and expanded
their mission-critical voice systems through initiatives such as
Federal grant programs, or are in the process of doing so, the
communications challenges for those operating on the front lines in
public safety have not been eliminated.''\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Report, page 12.
The key public safety communications trends in 2015 identified by
the report are: Public safety system consolidation; interoperability,
convergence, and roaming; future broadband wireless network; emerging
capabilities; specialized public and private devices; and emergency
alerting capabilities. These trends might be addressed in a future
version of the National Emergency Communications Plan and could have
been included in the plan published in 2008, as all of the identified
trends were already well-established by public dialogs about
communications technology.
funding interoperable communications
It was not until after September 11, 2001 that Federal agencies
began to give a high priority to programs that improved emergency
communications and interoperability, to direct grants specifically for
interoperable communications, and to provide totals for grants directed
to these types of programs. A number of Federal agencies have roles in
guiding and monitoring some decisions of States and localities through
grant administration, greatly diffusing Federal oversight and
leadership through grant governance. There are currently over 40 active
programs, administered by nine different departments and multiple
agencies within those departments, providing grants for funding
emergency communications.\34\ Within DHS, the Office of Emergency
Communications, the SAFECOM Program, and the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) are among the agencies that formulate
policies, plan exercises, provide guidelines, and establish
requirements.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Based on a summary of Federal programs provided by SAFECOM.
\35\ Links to relevant SAFECOM and FEMA grant program documents are
available at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/?SAFECOM/?grant/
?default.htm. Information on OEC grants is at http://www.dhs.gov/
?xopnbiz/?grants/?gc_1288707294166.shtm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the proliferation of grant programs and earmarks, and
because of varying levels of details in published information regarding
Federal grant programs, it seems difficult to prepare an accurate
accounting of what has been spent and how, and the Congressional
Research Service was unable to locate such an accounting.\36\ Based on
CRS research, there does not appear to be available information to
assess planning within the Department of Homeland Security for funding
specific infrastructure goals, such as radio tower construction, that
would contribute to the development of interoperable network
connectivity Nation-wide. This approach would appear to fit with the
DHS policy that planning for emergency communications should be from
the bottom up, evolving along a development continuum provided by the
agency.\37\ Planning for interoperability at the Federal level should
be primarily through goal-setting, such as those established in the
National Emergency Communications Plan,\38\ not through direct
leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ CRS, Congressional Distribution Memorandum, ``Federal Funding
of State and Local Emergency Communications Projects,'' updated June
10, 2011.
\37\ The continuum diagram is at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/
?SAFECOM/?Tools/?Continuum/?continuum.htm; additional descriptions at
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/?SAFECOM/?oecguidancedocuments/
?continuum/?default.htm.
\38\ DHS, National Emergency Communications Plan, July 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
After September 11, 2001, there was a shared sense in Congress and
throughout the Nation that the communications capabilities available to
first responders were inadequate and needed to be improved. The
problems were understood, but not the answers. In 2004, Congress had
identified specific actions to be taken by the Department of Homeland
Security in support of communications interoperability, which was
defined in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
as operating `` . . . through a dedicated public safety network
utilizing information technology systems and radio communications
systems, and to exchange voice, data, or video with one another on
demand, in real time, as necessary.'' Many policy advisers within the
public safety community were recommending some form of network to
provide an interoperable communications solution. By 2005, the
commercial wireless industry and the Department of Defense were
planning on how to utilize new network technologies based on the
Internet Protocol. In 2006, the FCC proposed a public-private
partnership to build a network for public safety that would use new
broadband technologies to provide voice, data, and video
communications. A consensus in favor of a network solution had
therefore begun to emerge. In recognition of the potential role of new
network technologies to provide interoperable, resilient, and effective
support for public safety communications, the 21st Century Emergency
Communications Act of 2006 created the Office of Emergency
Communications. The law required the OEC to develop a National plan
that was to ``ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency
communications Nation-wide,'' and provided DHS with new tools to
complete the plan. Still, consensus was not universal, and many
stakeholders within the public safety community in particular remained
uncommitted to the concept of using a Nation-wide network to meet their
primarily local needs. The debates about a network solution revealed
uncertainty among policymakers and stakeholders regarding the
appropriate role of the Federal Government. This debate appears to
remain unresolved: Bills that have been introduced in the 112th
Congress show a great deal of cohesion about the need for a Nation-wide
network and what type of support it should provide to public safety
agencies, but little agreement about the roles that different Federal
agencies would play in the deployment and operation of the network.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I appreciate it, Ms. Moore.
What we are going to do is I am going to start asking the
questions. I am going to recognize myself. But I want to make
sure everybody gets an opportunity. I know we are expecting
votes in the next few minutes. So more than likely I am not
going to use my entire 5 minutes.
Mr. Essid, I would like to begin with you. Can you talk to
me more about the One DHS Communications Committee and how OEC
is playing a leadership role in the development of
communications policies for DHS?
Again, it is my understanding that there are at least 10
communications-related offices within DHS. Is that accurate? I
want to know that.
Are you receiving sufficient cooperation and participation
from these DHS offices? Are the efforts of these offices well-
coordinated to ensure that there is no duplication, that there
is interoperability within DHS? If you can answer that
question, please.
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. The Office of Emergency Communications
does coordinate the One DHS communications working group, or
committee. A lot of the components, most of the components
within DHS participate in that. All of the ones that have
communications equities do. We use that group to coordinate as
a Department versus all the different components doing their
own thing.
We have seen considerable progress in the short time that
the committee has been working together, about 2 years. We have
got good participation. There are a lot of programs that have
communications equities on that group. FEMA is on the group,
the NCS is on the group, a lot of different--CBP is on the
group, we have got the Coast Guard on the group. We are
coordinating at a Departmental-level communications investments
and strategies. We have developed a strategy, a Departmental-
wide strategy for emergency communications moving forward. So
we are working together as a Department like never before
through this One DHS group. Everyone is participating in the
group. We have got a lot of great innovative things that the
group is working on. But the largest accomplishment so far is a
Departmental-wide strategy that Secretary Napolitano wanted the
group to develop.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
This question is for Mr. Penn. Mr. Penn, last week the
Emergency Alert System was tested for the first time. In your
testimony, you stated that FEMA discovered some shortcomings,
and I heard from my local district some of the emergency
management folks, but obviously there were some shortcomings,
and we were surprised at the extent of the success in other
areas. Your quote.
Could you please elaborate on some of the shortcomings that
you discovered as a result of the test, and could you also
describe some of the successes that were enjoyed? Now that the
test is complete, describe what is going to happen next.
Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Penn. The agency, the Department, FCC, and NOAA, all
agreed that the test was a success. The fact that we actually
conducted the test in itself was a success because we have got
equipment that is as old as 50 years that we never turned on
before. So what else do you have that is 50 years old that you
never turned on and ensured that it worked properly? So just
the conduct of the test went a long way towards our overall
applications of where we need to go next.
Some successes that I think we enjoyed from the information
that we received so far, and we have got a lot of information
yet to acquire and a lot of analysis to do, the broadcasters,
for instance, aren't required to turn in their actual reports
until 45 days after the test. So more is forthcoming.
But some general observations. Our message propagation
worked better than we thought it would. That is the message
originating from the White House, going all the way down
through individual broadcasters to individual homes. All 63 of
our primary entry-point stations received the alert, and 60
were able to rebroadcast the alert. In some States, we had over
90 percent coverage through the broadcasters and out through
their stations to their public that they were serving. We also
found it as a success that the public was not overly alarmed
that we were doing a Nation-wide test. We owe that a lot to the
broadcasters and the public service announcements that they put
out, and the extra effort they went to to provide a backdrop
and other things to make sure public knew we were doing the
test.
Then the homework that was done before the test occurred
went a long way, with the blogs we had and some workshops we
did with individual broadcasters and individual station owners
and their technicians to make sure that we put the best foot
forward when we started the test.
We found out some technical issues that we didn't know we
had, and were able to work through some of those, but have
another list that we still need to work on.
Finally, we were able to validate our theoretical coverage
models for where we thought the signal would go, and who would
be able to hear it and how it was propagated.
A few things that didn't go as well as we thought they
might, first of all, audio quality. The audio quality
throughout the test was sporadic, and in some cases didn't
exist at all. Initial findings show that part of the problem
was, and a large part of the problem, was some feedback that we
got from one of the primary entry-point stations. Their
encoder-decoder had a malfunction, and it actually started
rebroadcasting the message back up the line that it received
the message. So that made all the messages everyone else
received down line of that to be garbled. We also had some
points where we didn't receive a message at all. We broke the
transmission that the station was doing, but there was no
audio. So we need to work to find out what the causes of that
were and how we work better to put that together.
We also found out that the video--we knew going into the
test that the video message was too generic and inconsistent.
We got a lot of help from the deaf and hard-of-hearing
community to help us work on what the scroll should look like,
and how the scroll should work, and how it is best recognized
as it goes across the televisions. The scroll will never match
the audio. That is because the beauty of EAS is its simplicity,
and its biggest drawback is its simplicity. So the scroll is
intended to be a general alert that tells you that there is a
problem and you need to tune to your local authorities to get
information. That needs to be better, and we can do that. But
then the audio is where the President actually conveys his
message. That will be the text that he prepares.
So the simplicity is that we have to have something that
whoever is working the night shift the first day on the job can
initiate. That is why the scroll and the audio will not match.
But we need to do a much better job of what we use as a scroll.
Then mixed reports across from satellite providers, cable
providers, and the stations with specific issues that we need
to work through.
So our next steps are evaluate all the information that we
have, develop a plan with metrics on how we are going to
correct those, start our corrective action on the largest
groups and the largest problems that we have that are
collective, and work our way through. Then at some point when
we are ready to test, do another test to make sure that we are
on path and we continue to make the system better.
But what I will commit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
committee, is we will not turn this test analysis into a life's
work. We will work through and make sure we know what the
problems are and that we are solving the right problems, but we
won't let the test results become an entity of their own and
never make any progress.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
I am going to go ahead and yield to my Ranking Member. Ms.
Richardson, from the great State of California, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe my first
question is for Chris--how do I say your last name?
Mr. Essid. Essid.
Ms. Richardson. Essid?
Mr. Essid. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Essid. Okay. In your testimony, you
highlighted how important grant funding has been to building
emergency communication capabilities for first responders all
across the Nation. Unfortunately, however, cuts by Congress
could threaten the building and sustainability of these
capabilities. Based upon your communications with State and
local first responders, what capabilities have already been
lost or endangered because of the cuts in the grant programs
dedicated for emergency communications?
Mr. Essid. Well, traditionally a lot of grant funding goes
toward equipment and purchasing systems, and recently we have
made a lot of progress as a Nation because we have had specific
funds and enough grant funds to support coordination activities
like State-wide coordinators, getting State-wide governance
structures together where you get fire, police, EMS, State
officials, IT professionals, local elected officials together
to work the problem as a whole, and you have State-wide plans.
So a lot of those coordination activities also include training
and exercise.
Those are the types of things that I think with the limited
grant funding or reductions and limited funding just in general
in these tough economic times that will be in trouble.
One of the things we are doing to try to counter that is
using the information that we have collected from the National
plan Goal 1 and Goal 2 demonstrations to target our more
limited resources to hit the greatest things, the biggest gaps
out there throughout the Nation. Right now they really are
governance, training, and then really the technologies, trying
to come up with new technologies. Public safety right now is
migrating from what it has always used, land mobile radio, 50-
year-old technology, to these new broadband technologies.
Ms. Richardson. Sir, let me be maybe a little more
specific. Would you, if you don't have it with you today, could
you please supply to the committee specifically, based upon the
cuts that have already been proposed, how do you see them
impacting State and local governments?
So, for example, if you have been able to roll out to 20
percent of the country or 30 percent of the country, if you can
lay out for us approximately what has and what has not been
covered so we can anticipate where the shortfall might be.
Then if you could be specific with us. So instead of, you
know, just general, well, training will be impacted. Well, we
need a little more meat on the bones. So if you can tell us
specifically out of the amount of funds 20 percent goes to
training, and you have received requests for $20 million more
that you wouldn't be able to fund, those are the kinds of--that
is the kind of detail that we need. Because as we make these
very difficult decisions, we need to make them as thoughtful as
possible.
Building upon that, reflecting on the decreases in
available preparedness grant funding for the Interoperable
Emergency Communications Grant Program, IECGP, that was
defunded in fiscal year 2011. Has FEMA assessed the extent to
which the grantees used Homeland Security grant program funds
to continue to enhance their interoperability?
Mr. Edwards. Ranking Member Richardson, we do not have the
information on the grant funding at this point in time. We will
be happy to get back to you on that question.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Then Mr. Penn, it is good see you again, as always. I think
you gave a fair assessment of the National test and what
occurred. The only thing I didn't hear you say was how long you
thought it would take--well, I had two questions on it--No. 1,
how long you thought it would take us to be able to assess that
information. Then No. 2, do you feel that you really got an
accurate assessment of how that whole program rolled out across
the country? Do you think you got all of it?
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. I think we can provide an initial
assessment with a few more data points to you in another week
or 2 based on our initial conversations. The broadcasters have
45 days from the test to submit their detailed reports. It
should take the FCC and our staff another 60 days or so to put
together a more comprehensive report on what we found. From
there we can give you an idea of where we need to move forward
and what we need to do next. I think the test was comprehensive
enough to give us a good start on where we need to go. The
issues that I identified are not small issues to correct. So we
have plenty to work on.
Two things that we will have to defer to future testing
that we did not test during this test is a longer duration
message. There is a part of the system that will allow State
and locals to generate a message up to 2 minutes. There is not
a 2-minute requirement for the Presidential message. So at some
point we want to keep the system up for over 2 minutes so we
can ensure that the Presidential message does not get cut off
by the mechanism in the device.
The other thing we want to do is bring the system up longer
so we can ensure that the system will stay stable for an
extended period, so upwards of 2 or 3 minutes. We did not test
those two parts of the system because going into the test we
had some concern over the public mistaking the test as an
actual emergency. We didn't want to stress it too far when we
started. So those are two things that we need do with future
tests that are incomplete with what we did.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have one
more question. Can I ask it now?
Mr. Bilirakis. Go ahead.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, sir. This one is to Mr.
O'Connor. In 2008, the GAO recommended that the Department of
Homeland Security produce a strategic plan for the National
Communications System. In a follow-up report published in
August 2009, the GAO indicated that the strategic plan for the
NCS had yet not been finalized. Is there a strategic plan for
the NCS?
Mr. O'Connor. Currently, our strategic plan remains a
working document. It has been impacted in the development due
to some changes in methodologies and communications and
responses during disaster. Since the GAO report, however, we
have made incremental progress in pressing more programmatic
issues with that, and have implemented those into our action
plans. So we continue to focus on our future areas at this
point in time, and we coordinate disasters and the evolution of
communications. Our plan is still under development, and our
plan is to take that to the GAO upon completion.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Sir, for the record for this
committee, could you supply in writing what is the delay in
finalization and release of your strategic plan? What is the
NCS status of implementing the benchmark or goals outlined in
the plan? What specifically are your challenges in hindering
NCS' ability to implement the strategic plan? In what ways must
NCS coordinate its efforts with other Federal agencies to
achieve the objectives of a strategic plan?
Mr. O'Connor. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Marino for 5
minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, folks. In
a little over a week this committee is going to be having a
hearing in my district in central Pennsylvania, north central
and northeastern Pennsylvania. The primary objective is,
subsequent to the floods and the hurricanes that occurred there
last month, we just simply want to ask what would we have to do
to improve the services, the emergency services that we have
provided in those hurricanes and floods. It is not a situation
where we are pointing fingers.
So would you each take about 30 minutes, if you have not
already--I know Mr. Penn did to a certain extent--and let's
just set aside expense for now, but tell us what we would do
over again, what you would do over, and what we can do to make
the whole system more efficient and effective. Mr. Essid, would
you please start?
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. Well, one of the things we do is we
work with State and locals on their day-to-day capabilities, so
when those disasters take place they do have redundancy, they
have it very clear what you can do. A lot of the States have
tactical communications capabilities that they have bought with
previous grant funding that they can bring into an area to
restore communications. So we have got 10 regional
coordinators, one in each of the FEMA regions, and they
basically work with all the State and locals to try to bridge
any gaps they have got. So we have been working with FEMA and
NCS to support their efforts to restore communications when
those disasters do take place.
Mr. Marino. Thank you. Mr. O'Connor, please.
Mr. O'Connor. One of the most important things during
disasters is having existing relationships. Doing introductions
in a time of crisis is the wrong time to have that. So what I
encourage is that you take advantage of training events, and
also doing an outreach up and down your Governmental chain to
make sure that you understand there are partners here at FEMA
DEC, those at the NCS, making sure that the relationships are
in place. Once you have that, then you take a look at the
infrastructure, and are you taking advantage of the
prioritization programs. Do you have a GETS card? Do you have
WPS on your phone? Do you have a telecommunication service
priority, restoration priority on your existing circuits, so if
those are damaged they can be repaired first in order on the
repair list from the industry partners.
Again, you should also do an outreach to the industry
partners. They have made a huge investment in communications.
We want to take that infrastructure and leverage it to the best
of our capabilities to make sure there is diversity and
resilience, redundancy, built in so that communications is not
a limiting factor for getting response done.
Mr. Marino. Thank you. Mr. Penn, please.
Mr. Penn. Yes, Congressman Marino. As you know, the
Emergency Alert System is only part of a larger system, the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. We will start
fielding that system, which provides an alerting mechanism
through our wireless providers. We will begin fielding that
this December, next month, in New York City and Washington, DC.
From there, starting in April, we will continue with the world-
wide--or Nation-wide distribution with the carriers and their
ability to field the systems and field the equipment.
So for Pennsylvania, as with the other States, one of the
things that we have to do is a training program for your alert
message originators. That will go on-line on the 1st of
December. That will provide the tools that they need to be able
to initiate an alert and warning that goes through the whole
IPAWS system and communicates with that backbone that we have
set up, to your citizens, as well as the other equipment and
other capabilities that some of your local and State emergency
managers have already.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, sir. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Congressman Marino, FEMA has principal
responsibility to establish and support regional emergency
communications working groups. But the focus and the direction
of the working groups are actually by the members and the
States. So I would encourage the State telecommunication
managers to actively participate within those working groups,
identify any of the gaps in the resources or the State planning
mechanisms, such as the State-wide communications
interoperability plans, or the tactical interoperability plans,
or our own Federal annex to the State plan, and with using
those documents, which Chris and I's office coordinates on, I
would use those to bring up any issues associated with the
resourcing of the disaster response.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, sir. Ms. Moore.
Ms. Moore. I have addressed some of these issues in my
reports for Congressional Research Service, but I deal with
policy for the future. So I don't have a response regarding an
immediate solution for Pennsylvania or what might have been
done.
But as you may have noticed, I am very interested in seeing
plans for a network move ahead more rapidly, a more
comprehensive network infrastructure to help carry emergency
communications for better response and recovery. I think we
need a better network to do that.
Mr. Marino. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Marino. I will recognize Mr.
Clarke from the great State of Michigan. You are recognized for
5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
question is more on how the elected Member of Congress can play
an effective role in alerting the public about how to best
prepare for a likely emergency, whether it is a terrorist
attack or some other natural disaster, and also what they
should do in the event of such a likely attack, as has already
occurred.
Let me give you an example. So I represent metropolitan
Detroit. In my opinion, that area is at high risk of an attack
because we have some high-profile targets. The Detroit-Canadian
border is the busiest international trade crossing in North
America. So our bridge, our international bridge, our
international tunnel could be a target. Our drinking water
system, since we have a large drinking water system, one of the
largest in the country, could be a target, let's say, of some
type of bioterrorism attack. We have the world headquarters of
General Motors, which is still one of the largest companies in
the world. So we have this 70-story structure right on the
riverfront. We have an international hub airport which was the
target of the Christmas day bomber. He attempted to blow up a
plane that was destined for that airport.
So if there is some type of effective, yet proper role,
public role, for a Member of Congress to play in their
district, especially those of us that are on this committee, we
are looked at for leadership in that sense in homeland
security, what type of role could we play to effectively alert
our people to prepare them better for an attack? Or, for
example, if such an attack actually occurred, whether it was
fully realized or not, like the attempted bombing of this
plane, we may be the ones that are contacted initially by the
media. Or we are looked to as the folks that give the public
guidance initially. If you have any thoughts on that, I welcome
that.
Mr. Penn. Sir, if I could try first, the first thing I
would ask you to do was to remind everyone that disasters are
local. Everything starts with the family taking care of the
family, community taking care of the community, up through the
county and the State. What we provide at FEMA at the National
level is to assist those emergency managers and first
responders in doing their jobs and working to take care of
their communities. So if you could remind everybody that they
have a part to play in emergency management, because emergency
management starts with them, I think that would be a good place
to go.
Also if you could refer them to Ready.gov, that has some
great information on what you need to put together an
individual preparedness kit, and what you need to have for your
family and at your workplace and those kinds of things. So if
you could help us carry the message that way, I think that
would go a long way to helping ensure we have individual
preparedness. Everything from there just gets larger and
broadens itself out.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Anyone else have any thoughts?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, Congressman. My name is Eric Edwards. My
focus normally is on response communications. But because of
that focus, I have a tendency to look at the continuity of
communications systems and other things that you can do to
ensure that on a very bad day you are able to communicate with
the public.
So the use of the social media and how the public is using
the social media and how it connects to the State and local
EOCs, I think it is a good time to look at all those
connectivities and all those issues so that we understand where
the critical points are, who provides the right messaging, the
right content. If for some reason one of those events were to
occur, we would know how to ask the Federal Government and any
other of our partners to come in and restore those
communication--broken lines of communication so that we can
best enable yourself and others to support your citizens and
restore the capabilities as fast as possible.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Essid. Congressman, for example, most citizens feel
that they can send a text message to 9-1-1. Most 9-1-1 centers
aren't set up to accept them. Those are the types of things I
think folks need to know as we continue to improve our
communications. In a disaster when you need assistance is not
the time to find that out.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. I want to thank you all for your
responses. If I could, I would like to set up a conference call
with all of you later on some day to go over these things.
Thank you for addressing these issues publicly.
Mr. Bilirakis. Does the Member yield back?
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Okay. I think we have time for
one more quick round, if that is okay with the Members. They
haven't called votes yet. So I will go ahead and begin. I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes. I understand that one of your
responsibilities--this question is for Mr. Edwards--one of your
responsibilities is to develop plans and lead Mobile Emergency
Response Support detachments deployed during National special
security events. What is your role in developing emergency
communication plans and procedures for the 2012 Democratic and
Republican National Conventions? Then I have a follow-up for
Mr. Essid after that.
Mr. Edwards. Chairman, we look at the planning process
between ourselves in FEMA, OEC, and NCS as inextricably linked.
We would get with the OEC and review the State's
interoperability plans, because those represent where the State
believes they have the critical communications capabilities and
where their resources are, where their priorities are.
We would then look at the tactical communication
interoperability plans to make sure we understand what the
local government believes are the most important pieces. We
would then take a look at our own Federal annexes to the State
plans to make sure that those plans are harmonized and in
synchronization with each other. We would use those plans as a
basis for identifying the capabilities within our own assets.
Of course, I have to point out that the Federal Government
resources are vast, and the National Communications System,
through their Emergency Support Function No. 2 capabilities
would be able to marshal any and all resources necessary to
support an event such as an NSSC. So it is not just FEMA, it is
actually the whole community coming together to determine the
right resources necessary to resource that event, whether or
not it is planned or a natural event.
So we would then identify those capabilities that were
necessary, and we would put those assets in place. We would use
our plans as a basis of operationalizing the capabilities. We
would look to FEMA's interagency planning process to make sure
that we had the right plan in place to respond to your
requirements.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you. Then Mr. Essid, if you
want to elaborate on OEC's role in the planning.
Mr. Essid. Mr. Chairman, one of the things, I think Mr.
Edwards hit it right on the head, but I would like to yield to
Mr. O'Connor, because he has got a lot of--we work with NCS and
FEMA on this, but they would have the lead on the technical
planning for an event like that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Certainly.
Mr. O'Connor. Thank you, Chairman. In fact, I just have a
member of my staff is coming back from Hawaii from the APEC,
which is an NSSC conference. He was out there standing watch at
the Multi-Agency Communications Center. Part of the efforts
that we take in that instance are, once it is identified and
declared by the Secretary that it is an NSSC, we begin to reach
out to the actual venue that is going to be hosting the event,
and we send a representative down there to have a discussion
about communications capabilities, walk the facility, talk
about the security that you need for it, and then also advise
who is providing that communications functionality to them. In
turn, we bring that to the industry partners to let them know
that this event is going to be happening in their backyard, and
that when you have an event like this, not only are you looking
at the security and ability to provide communications, but you
do set up some physical boundaries. Physical access and entry
to the area may impact communications assets that are
supporting the event or simply within that perimeter.
So we end up setting up a responsibility with the Secret
Service on being the focal point for the communications
industry to identify and credential their staff to get into
that perimeter, work in those facilities, and be able to ensure
that communications are being provided.
In addition, as we do our outreach to the industry, they
mobilize assets and bring those into the area so that we would
have additional cell coverage, as an example, for those
particular facilities. So it is a partnership that we do across
Government.
We also reach out to State and local. We do an analysis of
the area to identify the key assets. We provide that to local
law enforcements and other partners so that additional
resources can be put in place to observe and protect in the
lead-up to the event and the actual conducting of the event. So
across the board, we are working with our partners to advise
that we will be in the area, there may be limitations on how
the event is conducted. Please prepare for that. Bring in
additional resources, and be able to stand vigilant with us as
we go through the actual event.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
One last question for Mr. O'Connor. Maybe Mr. Edwards can
weigh in on this as well. Mr. O'Connor, in his testimony, Mr.
Edwards states that DEC, through its MERS detachments, assists
NCS in evaluating and supporting post-disaster communication
restoration needs. Could you please describe how DEC and NCS
work together to restore communications?
Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir, my pleasure.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. O'Connor. In the steady state we actually participate
and work together both in the planning and the exercise at a
National and regional level. So currently at the National level
we are in the process of reworking the emergency support
function to ConOps plan, if you will.
During an actual event, though, DEC has the advantage of
having geographic dispersion, usually being in proximity to the
event. So they do an initial outreach to the State, and start
to begin assessments at that point in time. Part of those
assessments include working with the State and locals to
understand what infrastructure is at risk or what has failed.
At this point, we collaboratively come together and make a
determination is it best to try and leverage the communications
industry to first restore that, or do we need to bring in
tactical gear, which is part of the MERS functionality and
assets at FEMA, to help the State bring back, for example, a
tail circuit that was providing connectivity for their land
mobile radio between an antenna and a switch? What is the most
effective way to do that?
That is the coordination function that we have between the
two entities. We do that during the disaster at a regional
level from the DEC person that is on the ground, and also a
predefined communications liaison from the NCS.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir. The DEC Division integrates the
mission-critical communications and provides a backbone during
the disaster response. Of course we have the Mobile Emergency
Response Support detachments. That is six detachments
geographically dispersed across the United States for that
reason. In the event that there is a disaster where the
Governor of the State has requested support, we would rapidly
respond to that Governor's request and put those assets down at
the incident site level.
Of course, we are then at that point in time trying to
stabilize the event in the first 12 hours, providing command
and control, communications, and coordination for those
emergency responders. We would be responding to police, fire,
EMS, anyone who had the need as defined by our Federal
Coordinating Official, in concert with the State's
requirements. We would report, provide situational awareness.
We would report that as the ESF No. 2 tactical lead on the
ground with the eyes and ears, back through the various
regional reporting nodes and then up to the National level. We
would interface with NCS on potential solutions for temporary
near-term restoration, as well as long-term restoration to
ensure the continuity of communications and operations going
forward.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
What I would like to do now is recognize Ms. Richardson for
a second round. They just called votes, but I think we can get
through this. I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three
questions. First of all to Mr. Essid, regarding coordinating
emergency communications within DHS, two questions. What is the
process for decision-making within these coordinating bodies of
OEC chairs? No. 2, additionally, does OEC have the authority to
ensure that other DHS components enforce interagency decisions
related to emergency communications?
Mr. Essid. Ranking Member Richardson, we basically have
been set up as a coordination entity. So the One DHS group I
talked about within DHS, and even the Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center that is 14 Federal departments and
agencies, OEC brings them together. They are consensus-based
bodies. We don't have any, you know, binding decision-making
authority. OEC was really created to increase coordination.
That is what we have been doing. So we have had a lot of
success that way, but there is a limit to what we can influence
outside of that collaboration and coordination, which I will
say has been successful.
Ms. Richardson. So your current coordination has been
planning meetings and passing information?
Mr. Essid. Developing products together within DHS, the
different components, developing a DHS-wide strategy. Another
good example would be through that Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center, Ms. Moore noted 40 Federal grants from
different agencies for communications. That ECPC developed
common grant language for all of those 40 separate grants, and
has now--so those 40 separate grants will be able to leverage
common grant guidance for communications for the first time
ever.
Ms. Richardson. So if something is pending or hasn't gotten
done, how do you go about getting it resolved if you don't have
any binding authority? If you could summarize in about 10
seconds, because I have got a couple of questions yet.
Mr. Essid. We work with the Members as best we can to bring
it to resolution, and we try to get it in front of the
decision-makers, the Secretaries and folks like that from the
different departments or different components within DHS.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Mr. Edwards, and I think I have
expressed an interest in this topic before, so hopefully you
are familiar, how do you work with the territories in
particular? Is there an emergency plan that you could share
with this committee of how we work with--I am sorry, the Tribal
areas and the territories?
Mr. Edwards. Ranking Member Richardson, I don't have the
specifics of how we are actually out there dealing with them,
but I believe it is the same as the way we built all 38 of our
State emergency communications plans. First we work through our
FEMA regions and the regional administrators. They have the
personnel and the lead for reaching out through the various
States and the various territories and Tribes in their area. We
normally have a kick-off meeting where we all sit down and
understand the scope of the effort. Then we are invited to go
down and understand their architectures, their concerns, their
priorities. All that is documented first within either the
State, the territory, or the Tribe. It rolls back up. We
prepare the reports, and then send them through the regional
administrators, who during these RECWG meetings, these Regional
Emergency Communications Working Group meetings, are able to
share that with the State leadership. Then ultimately they are
signed off on and go into force.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. If you could supply to this committee
those plans for both the territories and the Tribal areas. I
would venture to say they couldn't be exactly the same, because
Tribal areas are their own sovereign nations. So they, I
assume, are requiring to be addressed as such. So I would be
curious to see what plans we have in place with them.
Finally, Ms. Moore, I wanted to make sure you got a good
final question as well. If there was one greatest concern that
you have regarding communications, what would that be, within
DHS? What would be your strongest recommendation to us? I have
1 minute and 1 second.
Ms. Moore. All right. Congressional Research Service
doesn't give recommendations. We give options for Congress to
decide. But in my reports I mentioned in my testimony that
Congress has repeatedly asked for a plan, a strategic plan to
bring together a communications strategy for deploying a
network. Here in this 112th Congress we again have multiple
bills asking for a plan, asking for a network solution, in this
case only for first responders.
The failure to plan, to me, has been the biggest problem
for DHS. The 21st Century Communications Act definitely meant
for the OEC to work with the regional emergency coordinators to
develop a plan, a true plan for deploying communications using
technology. That has been neglected. As a technologist, of
course, that bothers me. But this has been stated in my CRS
reports.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I appreciate it. I am sure we are
going to have some additional questions to submit. You will be
willing to answer the questions, I assume.
Thank you very much. I want to thank the witnesses for
their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. I
would also would like to thank a great staff on both sides of
the aisle. The hearing record will be open for 10 days. Without
objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you again
for your patience.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
