U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

44–393 PDF 2008

THE STATE OF INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS ALONG THE TEXAS BORDER 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

Serial No. 110–94 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

AL GREEN, Texas 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

JESSICA HERRERA-FLANIGAN, Staff Director & General Counsel 

TODD GEE, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, 

AND RESPONSE 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

CRAIG SHARMAN, Director 

NICHOLE FRANCIS, Counsel 

BRIAN TURBYFILL, Clerk 

HEATHER HOGG, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 

Preparedness, and Response ............................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 

Communications, Preparedness, and Response ................................................. 3 

WITNESSES

Mr. Chris Essid, Director, Office of Emergency Communications, Office of 

Cybersecurity and Communications, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Mr. Steve E. Landin, Deputy Chief, Emergency Management Coordinator, 

Laredo, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

Mr. Alfonso Olvera Ledezma, Director of City Security, Nuevo Laredo, 

Tamaulipas, Mexico: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Mr. Joe M. Peters, Director, Technology Assistance Division, Sheriffs’ Association of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

Mr. Michael Simpson, State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan Coordinator and Technology Advisor, Texas Radio Coalition: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

FOR THE RECORD

Hector F. Gonzalez, MD, MPH, Director of Health, City of Laredo Health 

Department, Laredo, Texas: 

Statement ............................................................................................................. 7 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar ............................................................ 55 

(1) 

THE STATE OF INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS ALONG THE TEXAS BORDER 

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE, 

Laredo, TX. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 116 

of the Western Hemispheric Trade Center, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, the Hon. Henry Cuellar [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cuellar, Dent, and Souder. 

Also present: Representative McCaul. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mayor, thank you again very, very much. The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response will now come to order. The subcommittee meeting today is 

to receive testimony regarding the state of interoperable emergency 

communications along the Texas border. The Chair would like to 

acknowledge that a Member of the committee who does not sit on 

the subcommittee assembled today, Mr. McCaul, has asked to participate in today’s hearing. As you know, he is a Member of Homeland Security, a Chairman of one of the subcommittees recently, 

and consistent with the rules and the practices of the committee, 

we’re pleased to honor his request, and I now ask unanimous consent to allow Congressman McCaul to sit and question the witnesses at today’s hearing. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Again, good morning to all of you all. On behalf of the Members 

of the subcommittee, let me first welcome our panel of witnesses 

that we have here today who’ll work everyday to make sure that 

their community and our country are prepared for any and all 

threats. We applaud your efforts and we’re glad that you are here 

today. Also, I would like to thank the Ranking Member of this 

Chair, Charlie Dent, from Pennsylvania. Both Charlie and Mr. 

Souder also came a long way, Michael from the Austin/Houston 

area. Souder is from Indiana and then we’ve got somebody from 

Pennsylvania, so welcome to our warm weather down here in south 

Texas, and, actually, it’s cool today. I just want you to know it’s 

cool today. I know that—I know that Charlie and Michael have 

been—I think this is their second or third visit for both of them, 

and, again, for Souder, again, welcome here today. 
2 

I also want to say to all the Members, thank you. As you know, 

we’re in Washington. This week we’re off here in the districts and, 

again, for them to take time away from Indiana, from Pennsylvania, from the Houston/Austin area to come down here to spend 

some time on an issue that’s important not only for the southern 

border, but for the northern border. We certainly want to say thank 

you. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the continuing challenges and highlights, successful practices toward achieving interoperability. As you know, along our Nation’s borders that is an 

issue that’s very, very difficult because—again, because of the 

multi-dimensional issues that we have. It’s not only on the U.S. 

side working with State, local and Federal partners, but on the borders you got to work with our partners across the river which is 

again very important. Specifically we will assess the cross-border 

emergency communications capabilities in south Texas as well as 

the coordination and planning between Federal, State and local 

governments. The United States shares nearly 6,000 miles of border with both Canada and Mexico. The communities along those 

borders face very unique challenges. For instance, Laredo, which is 

the largest inland port in the United States, sees thousands of 

shipments of hazardous materials pass through this port everyday. 

In addition, the large amount of contraband that flows across the 

border and the violence associated requires a coordinated local, 

State, Federal and international effort. The ability to communicate 

during an emergency is key to that part of coordination, not only 

for the law enforcement, but also for health and environmental reasons also. The challenges to achieve this interoperability are not— 

it’s not a new phenomena. I think if you look at the history just 

a few years ago, firefighters, police and other emergency responders had trouble talking at the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 

or during the Hurricane Katrina. So it’s something that we have 

seen, but we need to make sure that we take the actions so we 

don’t see this in the future. This is why Congress after the Hurricane Katrina created the Office the Emergency Communications at 

the Department of Homeland Security to centralize and to coordinate emergency communications work at the Department and 

make sure that public safety systems at all level of government are 

able to communicate. 

After a few—after a slow start, I’m hopeful that this office can 

finally take the leadership role that many of us in Congress have 

visioned. I know we have a new leader here. We appreciate Mr. 

Essid, your work here. We’re going to get an update from Mr. 

Essid, the new director of the Office of Emergency Communications 

at the Department, and we certainly all of us want to make sure 

that we work with you. I also look forward to having Steve Landin, 

Laredo’s department of—deputy fire chief and emergency management coordinator to discuss personnel equipment, other resources, 

challenges that face the border community like we have here and 

also the other border communities that we have up and down the 

river. 

I also look forward to hearing from a witness from Nuevo Laredo, 

Mr. Ledezma, the director of city security. Thank you. [Spanish.] 

Who’ll give us a unique insight to the cross-border of communica-
3 

tions. Finally, we have two individuals, Mr. Peters and Mr. Simpson, who are here to talk about the State-wide efforts to make sure 

that we connect the—you know, the planning, the governing structure that’s present throughout the State of Texas. 

As you know, the State of Texas does—as you know, the Federal 

Government Homeland does provide moneys—this is important to 

note. Gives money not only to the individual entities at the local 

level, but if you look at the numbers, the Homeland Security gives 

million and millions and millions and millions of dollars to the 

State to make sure that they then distribute those dollars down 

whether it’s our local areas or whether it’s emergency or whether 

it’s volunteers or other areas to make sure that we get our job 

done. So the Federal dollars come two ways. One is directly to the 

cities and the counties and the other way to the State so the State 

can then distribute this out. Certainly I can tell you on behalf of 

the Federal Government we certainly want to work with the State 

to make sure that we have the best distribution system in place. 

The second hearing that we’re having also—this is a second hearing, should I say, that our subcommittee has been looking into 

emergency preparedness issues along the border. So, again, it’s not 

the first time we’re doing this. It’s the second time we want to 

make sure that we understand the border and it is our intention 

to continue raising this issue, shine lights on any challenges or difficulties that we might have to look at and give credit to those who 

have made good steps toward ensuring that the first responders 

have operable and an interoperable emergency communication system. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses again for their testimony. 

The Chair now will recognize—what I’m going to do is—usually 

what we do is we just recognize the Ranking Member, but I will 

recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Charlie 

Dent, and then I’m going to ask Mr. Souder and Mr. McCaul if 

they want to add testimony—I mean have an opening statement. 

So, again, Charlie, again, welcome back to Laredo again. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar. It’s good to be here 

again in Laredo. I was here in August 2006 and I really enjoyed 

that experience, and, again, Mayor Salinas, thank you for your 

wonderful hospitality. Hopefully you’ll make it to eastern Pennsylvania one of these days. Our greeting in Pennsylvania Dutch is 

‘‘willkommen’’ and we’ll also give you shoo-fly pie just to add to 

your cardiac problems. Very good just the same. 

Also, this community—I’ve often heard down here that this is 

one community separated by a river. I live in eastern Pennsylvania 

and we border the State of New Jersey, and for the longest time 

my State slogan was ‘‘America starts here’’. It was just a slap at 

New Jersey, and I hope that the—I want to get a good sense today 

of the state of interoperable communications not just within Texas, 

but also across the border. I’m curious to see if your efforts are better than what we have between our two States. But before I get 

into my remarks, I’d like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mike 

Simpson replace Mr. Peter Collins on our panel of witnesses. Mr. 

Collins is unable to be here due to an emergency, but his deputy, 

Mr. Simpson, is equally knowledgeable, so I’m pleased he is here 

with us this morning. I’d just like to make that statement. 
4 

I’m also pleased to be here in Laredo today with Chairman 

Cuellar to examine the critical issue of interoperable emergency 

communications. First responders and public safety officials across 

the country face critical challenges in achieving interoperable communications everyday. We certainly learned this lesson very hard 

after 9/11. For those on the border communities such as Laredo the 

challenges can be that much more acute due to additional international factors. For instance, police and firefighters may encounter interference in their radio communications because Mexico does 

not regulate and enforce the use of radio frequencies the same way 

we do. The increased demand for interoperable emergency communications may also be particularly challenging due to Laredo’s status as the largest land border port of entry. 

I’m pleased we have with us today Mr. Chris Essid from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Emergency Communications. Mr. Essid is the first director of this new office that was created by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 

2006. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Essid on how his office 

is reaching out to State and local officials to help them address 

their interoperability challenges. I also look forward to discussing 

with him how the Federal Government is working to develop the 

National Emergency Communications Plan that will help guide future spending on interoperable communications. 

Also with us today are State and local officials representing the 

emergency management, law enforcement, and information technology communities. I also look forward to hearing their views regarding the challenges to achieving interoperability, the transition 

to the use of the 700 megahertz frequency, and overall coordination 

throughout the State. It’s my understanding that the entire State 

of Texas was involved in drafting the State’s interoperable communications plan and that the latest application for grant funding was 

also coordinated across all jurisdictions. It’s certainly a tremendous 

achievement to bring everyone to the table to discuss critical communications issues. I look forward to hearing more about how this 

was achieved and also look forward to hearing about the state of 

interoperable communications across the river. 

So, again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today 

and for sharing your expertise with us on this important issue. I 

really thank you, Chairman Cuellar, for inviting me back. It’s just 

great to be here again. This is a wonderful tight-knit community, 

very hospitable and I thank the mayor again for all the courtesies 

he’s extended to me each time I have been here. It’s good to know 

more about this wonderful community. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thanks very much. Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. I appreciate also the opportunity to be here. It was just really great that you got the Hotel 

Posada to get remodeled so that we have a wonderful place to stay. 

In addition to my interests in this subcommittee and in communications in general, my hometown, Fort Wayne, Indiana, is the 

center of defense and Homeland Security communications for the 

SINCGARS radio and a lot of the interoperable systems through 

General Dynamics and others that are so important, not only between trying to connect local police and fire to Federal systems, but 
5 

also looking at how we connect people in the forest fires when we 

have them out West. Often they can’t talk to each other when they 

get in. As we look at these emergency communications, it becomes 

especially critical, and it’s also critical to the employers in my district, as we build many of these communication systems, so I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

My primary responsibility in Homeland Security is I’m their Republican leader on the border security and global counterterrorism 

subcommittee, and I apologize for being late. I was actually out on 

the river with the Border Patrol this morning, seeing some of the 

challenges of not being able to see the water as you are walking 

along the border trails there and some of the challenges that we 

face in those areas. 

I’m also co-chair and founder of the drug policy caucus in Congress and have spent much of my career as the narcotics chairman 

in Congress working in much of our—the narcotics that flow in Indiana come across the border between here and McAllen, and so it 

is a huge issue on mobile fronts in addition to the ability to respond to emergencies. I’m taking the rest of this week and will be 

going up to Eagle Pass and Del Rio, then on to Big Bend, Marfa, 

and over to El Paso in this section of the border. I spent much of 

my career on the north and south borders, but Texas, particularly 

that zone from here over to El Paso is—becomes more wild as it 

goes. In fact at the Academy Awards this week, two of the nominated movies were filmed over in Big Bend because it’s so abandoned over there. 

So I look forward to this time in Texas. I’m sorry I didn’t bring 

a big load of Indianapolis Colts things. I think a banner would 

have been great down here and would have outrun the supply. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much. At this time I’ll recognize— 

the Chair will recognize Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mayor, thank you 

for all your hospitality, as always. I look forward to seeing you in 

Washington. I think in a week or two from now, I think, and let 

me give an advance congratulations to Chairman Cuellar and his 

designation as Mr. South Texas in the Washington Day Parade. 

Sorry I won’t be there to celebrate with you. Let me just—if I could 

comment on the Chairman. He has been a real leader in the Congress on these issues and I am very proud to work with him. We’ve 

been very focused on border-related issues recently coming back 

from Mexico City where we met with President Calderon for a very 

long period of time and the Mexican Attorney General about drug 

cartels and security issues that we have at the border. I sense that 

there’s a real sincerity with the Mexican Government to work with 

us, and there’s an opportunity—a unique one for real partnership 

between the two countries, and I know that’s a passion that the 

Chairman shares and that I share with him, and I know that we’ll 

be working hard in the Congress to facilitate that. 

This is an important issue and I want to thank the panel for 

being here. Our ability to communicate was identified after 9/11 by 

the 9/11 Commission as one of the weaknesses, and we didn’t have 

adequate communications between Federal, State, and local officials. We didn’t—we had silos. We had turf battles. I was in the 
6 

Justice Department for a while, as was the Mayor, and I’m sure 

he can tell you that the turf battles were counterproductive. The 

communication didn’t flow. We were not able to connect the dots 

and that actually, ultimately, led to the events of 9/11 in my view. 

I think that our ability to communicate more effectively in today’s 

world is absolutely paramount to protecting the American people 

from not only a man-made disaster, but a natural disaster, as we 

have seen not only with 9/11 but also with Katrina and Rita. 

I will say that the—it’s really important—this is such an unique 

area. I went out with a rancher yesterday to look at his stretch of 

the ranch on the river. He really—I encourage Members to come 

down and see it because you can’t really have an appreciation and 

an understanding for the border until you’ve been down here to 

witness it and to talk to the people that live here. It’s a very 

unique area. It’s important because the amount of cross-border 

trade and the fact that such an event, whether it be man-made or 

natural, could affect citizens on both sides of the river. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 required the development of 

a National Emergency Communication Plan, and in 2006 the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act established the Office 

of Emergency Communications, or the OEC, of the Department of 

Homeland Security. The OEC is the principal Federal office in 

charge of strengthening emergency communications Nation-wide by 

coordinating with Federal, State, and local governments, and I look 

forward to hearing Director Essid’s testimony about the progress 

that his office has been making. The Federal Government has also 

been helping State and local authorities by providing funding 

through the Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant 

program. 

I’m pleased to say that Texas has been ahead of the curve as 

usual, a real leader in developing their own State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan, and was one of the largest recipients of the grant funding. Much of this is due to the work, in my 

judgment, of the Texas Radio Coalition, an organization that I’ve 

been personally very involved with and look forward to hearing 

from Mr. Simpson and his testimony about the work that the coalition has done and the challenges that you have. 

Finally, I look forward to hearing from Deputy Chief Landin, 

who is the emergency management coordinator here in Laredo, Director Ledezma, as well as Director Peters from the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas about what challenges you have in communicating 

and coordinating and what funding you need from the Congress to 

better do your job. So with that I’ll go back to Mr. Chairman and 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much, Mr. McCaul. The Chair 

now asks the unanimous consent to allow testimony from Dr. Hector Gonzalez, the Director of Health from the city of Laredo Health 

Department to be inserted for the record, and without objection, his 

testimony—thank you very much, Hector, for your testimony. 

[The statement of Dr. Gonzalez follows:] 
7 

STATEMENT OF HECTOR F. GONZALEZ, MD, MPH, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, CITY OF

LAREDO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, LAREDO, TEXAS

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

A. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Hector F. Gonzalez, Director of 

Health for the city of Laredo. Today Chief Steve Landin of our Fire Department and 

who is also our Emergency Management Coordinator will address you on the importance of interoperable communication especially as it impacts the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition he will share some of our successes and best practices such as the 

newly activated critical first responder and emergency management interoperable 

communication-800 megahertz trunking radio system, which now needs to be enhanced for public health interoperable communication. 

My colleagues and I are addressing you to provide testimony on best practices, 

our unique communication and emergency operations issues as well as resources to 

adequately protect not only our community but the entire Nation through our first 

responder system, emergency care services and all hazards public health response 

on the U.S.-Mexico border (and in particular in Laredo). I will specifically share 

with you our Laredo public health response experience and the need for critical 

interoperable communications. 

Mr. Chairman as you know border communities and in particular Laredo do not 

just respond to local disasters, incidents or public health threats (even though resources are only provided based on local need), the truth of the matter is that our 

role is both regional and national. 

B. NEW FIRST RESPONDER PARADIGM

Since 9/11, the first responder paradigm changed; no longer do we view first responders and public health preparedness in the same way. Nowhere is this more 

evident than in Laredo where the Chiefs of Police and Fire and myself work intimately close to respond to disasters and all hazard incidents: biological, chemical 

and radiological. Because of our model both the Fire Chief and I sit on the Governor’s Homeland Security Advisory Committee and I sit on the State Communications Plan Advisory Committee. Mr. Chairman, Laredo has developed resources and 

contributed more than its fair share as we have always recognized that it is our 

community but everyone’s border to protect. We maximize resources and manage all 

responses in a regional manner as resources have never been sufficient. Consequently we created our own response expertise especially for all public health 

threats. For us it is routine to respond locally, regionally and in our case internationally. We are the State and Federal responders as there is no one else to respond. 

C. POTENTIAL EMERGENCY INFECTIOUS DISEASE AND ALL HAZARDS RESPONSE REQUIRES

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION

Just over 4 months ago we got a call from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) Quarantine Station (QS) from El Paso about a Cuban refugee 

with probable Tuberculosis. Three days later we got a call again from the QS that 

3 Cuban families seeking political asylum had children sick with ‘‘smallpox’’. Both 

the Public Health Chief of Disease Control and Emergency Response and I did the 

actual work-up and investigation—ruling out ‘‘smallpox’’ but also assessing over 20 

additional refugees that could have gone undetected for any potential infectious 

problem and served as a threat not just to Laredo but to multiple communities 

along their route to Florida. If this had truly been ‘‘smallpox’’ it would have been 

a bioterrorist act that required immediate intervention of both FBI and CDC as well 

instant communication with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). At the present we 

would not have been able to radio emergency management preventive and triage orders. Definitely we would not have been able to communicate with Mexico. 

D. CHALLENGES TO INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION

Rapid and efficient communication in an all-hazards emergency response specifically for public health is critical, especially along the U.S.-Mexico Border, among all 

public health jurisdictions. In fact Public Health Data Communication Exchange 

takes into consideration all of the factors that influence the health of communities 

and individuals. There is a need to develop total public health data communication 

integrated and interoperable systems, also considered medical intelligence, in our 
8 

case border medical and public health intelligence. Some of the barriers that need 

to be addressed are: 

• Interference and dropped calls with cellular communications; 

• Local calls to Mexico are international and long distance in some cases; 

• Different bands, not enough communication relay towers; 

• Lack of rapid efficient radio communication with State and Federal partners as 

well with Mexico for public health response; 

• Not enough Binational Interoperable Communication Training; 

• Lack of interoperable communication with other public health departments 

along the U.S.-Mexico Border in the event of a public health disaster; 

• Lack of multi-agency interdisciplinary approach to provide the total disaster 

perspective and based on evidence; 

• More efficient data communication integrated links. At the present, an overwhelming vast amount of data is available, but we lack the ability to link different sources into one integrated cost-effective, rapid and efficient program 

with interoperable communication capacity. 

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Enhance Laredo’s 800 megahertz interoperable communication infrastructure 

system for Public Health emergencies. 

2. Purchase additional radios and develop special channel for interoperable 

emergency rapid communication with State and Federal partners as well with 

Mexico. 

3. Develop rapid interoperable communication with other public health departments from Brownsville to El Paso, Texas. 

4. Assure secure communication among public health responders. 

5. Develop mobile data communication capacity for public health. 

6. Enhance reporting through syndromic surveillance to assist public health officials in the field to detect and confirm as well have the capacity for interoperable communication. 

7. Increase the capacity of the Early Warning Infectious Disease Surveillance 

(EWIDS) system to test, confirm and detect public health disease threats along 

the U.S.-Mexico Border with interoperable communication capacity. 

8. Develop continuous training with all partners on interoperability. 

9. Acquire biological airborne permanent environmental detection systems, such 

as, ‘‘BIOWATCH’’ for early detection of the release of pathogens into the air, 

providing warning to the public health community of a potential bioterrorist 

event. This system then needs to be linked to interoperable systems once we 

know if a hazard. 

10. Link interoperable communication systems to the Laboratory Regional Network such as at the city of Laredo Health Department. 

11. Interoperable EWIDS communication. 

F. SUCCESSES AND BEST PRACTICES

• Joint simulated training with all partners and Mexico with a special emphasis 

on interoperable communication. 

• Ongoing routine meetings to enhance communication. 

• 800 MHz radio interoperability established. 

• Emergency Operations Center functions with interoperability. 

• EWIDS Public Health expert weekly exchange of public health disease and surveillance data. 

• Binational monthly public health training with limited simulations that include 

some interoperable communication testing. 

G. CONCLUSION

The United States is under a constant threat of an intentional or unintentional 

medical, biological or chemical attack especially along our U.S.-Mexico Border. In 

Laredo we say ‘‘When Nuevo Laredo, Mexico coughs, Laredo, Texas gets the cold.’’ 

Disease does not respect a border. 

When you think of the potential public health threats that can cause epidemics, 

or contaminate our water or food supply, there is no other area more vulnerable 

than the U.S.-Mexico Border and interoperable communication is fundamental. 

In Laredo, we are proud to provide the first line of defense for our community, 

the State and the Nation. I want to thank you for allowing me to provide this written testimony. 
9 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me—again, before we get started with the witnesses, again, I have to again thank this Member. You will see by 

the line of questioning that these folks really know about Homeland Security. Someone from the northern part of the United 

States, some of us from the southern part, but we’re all working 

together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we address—I know 

all of them. They have all been in Homeland Security. They know 

the work that they do is something that is very important to all 

of us, and I certainly want to thank all of them for being here. 

Also, I would like to say that our committee works on a bipartisan way with the Ranking Member, Peter King, and our Chairman, Bennie Thompson. In fact, Bennie Thompson will be in Laredo Friday, will be coming to Laredo Friday, will spend a day here 

with us on Friday—this Friday, so I certainly want to thank the 

Chairman and the committee staff, both the Republican and the 

Democratic staff for all of us working together. I certainly want to 

recognize Betty and, of course, Peter King also, a Ranking Member. 

Also, don’t forget that after this, we have a 1:30 grants seminar 

where we’ve got Homeland that will be talking to us about the different grants that are available, what timetable, what are the criteria to make sure that you take full advantage of the opportunities that are available. It’s a very unique type of seminar that we’ll 

have here, and I certainly want to thank everybody for participating. 

At this time I will go ahead and move onto the witnesses. I first 

welcome the panel of witnesses. First of all, our first witness is Mr. 

Chris Essid, who’s the director of the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications. Prior to his position, 

he served as the first interoperability coordinator the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Essid is veteran of the U.S. Army and holds 

a master’s degree in public administration. Again, thank you. It’s 

good seeing you again and welcome to our hometown. 

The second witness is Mr. Steve Landin, who’s the assistant fire 

chief and emergency management coordinator for the city of Laredo, has been a member of the Laredo Fire Department for 18 

years, holds a Bachelor’s Degree in finance, economics with an emphasis in fire administration from the Empire State College. Thank 

you, Steve, for being here with us. 

Our third witness is Alfonso Olvera Ledezma, who serves as the 

director of security in Nuevo Laredo for Tamaulipas. Mr. Ledezma, 

again, has been a 16-year veteran of the Mexican State Government. Thank you for being here with us. [Spanish]. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Joe Peters, who serves as a director 

of Technology Assistance Division of the Sheriffs’ Association of 

Texas in Austin covering communications interoperability. Prior to 

his position he served for 30 years as a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety as a trooper, highway patrol sergeant 

and as a Texas Ranger. Mr. Peters currently serves as a communications committee liaison between the Sheriffs’ Association of 

Texas and the Texas Congressional Delegation, State legislators 

and State agencies. Welcome. 

Our fifth witness is Mr. Michael Simpson, the wireless communication services manager for the city of Austin. He’s also the 

State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan Coordinator and 
10 

Technology Advisor for the Texas Radio Coalition. Again, Mr. 

Simpson, welcome. 

We’re all pleased to have you here. Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted into the record, and now I’ll 

ask each witness to summarize his statement for 5 minutes beginning with Director Essid. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY 

AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. ESSID. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, Congressman 

McCaul and Members of the subcommittee. From its inception the 

Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with Congress and the administration to address the—to address the 

human, technical and governance challenges of interoperability, 

one of Secretary Chertoff’s highest priorities for the Department. 

Personally, I’ve learned a great deal about the realities of implementing interoperability solutions at the State and local level as 

Virginia’s interoperability coordinator, and I’m excited about the 

opportunity to apply those lessons as we all work together to improve emergency communications across our Nation. 

Since becoming operational on April 1, 2001, the Office of Emergency Communications has focused on the development of a national emergency communications plan, the national communications capability report and the integration of three interoperability 

programs transferred from within DHS entities, the Integrated 

Wireless Network, the Interoperable Communications Technical 

Assistance Program and Elements of the SAFECOM program. 

As a coordinator of cross-governmental initiatives, OEC is implementing shared infrastructure projects through the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications, known as FPIC, a partnership of Federal, State and local agencies with a public safety 

mission to enhance the interoperability of Federal departments and 

agencies. 

Interoperability grant programs require States and territories to 

develop State communications interoperability plans. This requirement and the planning efforts of the States and localities mark 

critical milestones in breaking down the coordination barriers of 

the past and establishing a roadmap of a future interoperability. As 

of December 3, all 56 States and territories submitted State-wide 

communications interoperability plans. For the first time, all States 

have plans for interoperable communications and the tools to measure their progress toward realizing their interoperability goals. 

This is a very significant accomplishment. As you know, border regions in our country face an even broader set of challenges as they 

work to achieve cross-border interoperability. OEC must collaborate closely with agencies that share responsibility for overcoming 

these domestic and international challenges including the U.S. Department of State, the National Telecommunications and Information Agency and the Federal Communications Commission. 

Currently, OEC is engaged in several activities to address and 

resolve issues at the technical, operational, policy and regulatory 

levels that are hindered—that have hindered the realization of 
11 

cross-border interoperability at the Federal, State, local and tribal 

level on both the northern and our southern borders. 

The United States-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission 

on Telecommunications Security Communications Task Group is 

developing a bilateral solution that will establish a long-term interoperability solution between the United States and Mexico along 

the southwest border. 

The 2010 Olympics Task Force Security Subcommittee Communications Interoperability Working Group is coordinated among the 

Federal, State, and local emergency responders along the northwest border to develop and exercise an interoperability plan for the 

2010 Olympics in Vancouver, and the Federal Partnership for 

Interoperable Communications Southwest Border Communications 

working Group is working closely with Texas, Arizona, California 

and New Mexico to coordinate initiatives and user needs at the 

Federal, State, local and tribal levels along the southwest border. 

Spectrum sharing and information assurance are two common 

and important policy issues currently being addressed by these 

groups. Additionally, as a former State interoperability coordinator 

I recognize the important of cost-effective, technical and operational solutions that adequately address interoperability requirements. Finally, these solutions must be included in operational 

plans and must be a key element in operational training and exercises. We are actively working with practitioners and planners 

throughout the Nation to provide guidance, coordination and assistance at both the technical and operational level. 

In conclusion, improving interoperability on our northern and 

southern borders is of paramount importance to the safety and security of our Nation. The Office of Emergency Communications 

serves as a as focal point for the coordination of long-term crossborder interoperability solutions that address user needs and policy 

requirements of all three countries. Through FPIC and other forms, 

the Office of Emergency Communications will continue to cultivate 

relationships between the Canadian, Mexican and American users 

and regulatory agencies across all levels of government to better 

identify and address barriers to interoperability. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss OEC’s activities and I 

look forward to working with this subcommittee to help meet the 

emergency communication needs of our Nation. 

[The statement of Mr. Essid follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS ESSID

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of the 

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on cross-border interoperable 

communications issues. I am Chris Essid, the Director of the Office of Emergency 

Communications (OEC). 

OEC is a component of the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) 

within the National Protection and Programs Directorate of the Department of 

Homeland Security. Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications 

Gregory Garcia is responsible for the overarching mission of CS&C to prepare for 

and respond to incidents that could degrade or overwhelm the operation of our Nation’s information technology and communications infrastructure. This mission is 
12 

part of a larger strategy to ensure the security, integrity, reliability, and availability 

of our information and communications networks. 

From its inception the Department of Homeland Security has worked with Congress and the administration to address the human, technical, and governance challenges of interoperability. Indeed, interoperability is one of Secretary Chertoff’s 

highest priorities for the Department. 

MISSION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND ACTIVITIES

Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act, as amended, assigns to OEC the mission of advancing interoperable and operable emergency communications through 

collaboration with Federal, State, local, and tribal partners. Since becoming operational on April 1, 2007, OEC has focused on meeting its various mission requirements, including the integration of three interoperability programs transferred from 

other DHS entities: the Federal wireless programs under the Integrated Wireless 

Network (IWN), the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program 

(ICTAP), and outreach, guidance, and tool development by the SAFECOM program. 

We have also focused on working with our key stakeholders to identify their needs 

and gain a better understanding about the ever-changing interoperable communications environment. 

OEC is working to bridge interoperability gaps between Federal, State and local 

governments. As a coordinator of cross-governmental initiatives, OEC is implementing shared infrastructure projects, through the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC)—a partnership of Federal, State, and local agencies with a public safety mission to enhance the operability and interoperability of 

Federal departments and agencies. OEC will continue to leverage the groundwork 

established by its Federal wireless partners and build on existing capabilities at all 

levels of government to enhance interoperable emergency communications. Further, 

we will be working with the National Communications System (NCS), which is also 

a component of CS&C, to coordinate our responsibilities for ensuring the continued 

operation of the telecommunications functions and responsibilities of the Federal 

Government. 

NATIONAL PLANS AND ASSESSMENTS

As directed by Congress, OEC conducts periodic assessments of the state of interoperability across the Nation and regularly reports on progress toward achieving national objectives as established by the President, Congress, and DHS. Development 

of the National Communications Capabilities Report of existing Federal, State, local, 

and tribal government capabilities is a key first step in our analytical efforts. The 

first phase of this report, currently under departmental review, builds on the findings and conclusions of studies and documents such as the National Interoperability 

Baseline Survey, Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans, Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards, and the Communications Asset Survey and Mapping (CASM) database. 

While past assessments like the Baseline Survey focused on State, local, and tribal interoperable communications, the Capabilities Report incorporates information 

from the Federal perspective to show the full scope of interoperable communications 

Nation-wide. The report aims to characterize the emergency communications challenges that must be addressed, the capabilities that exist to address them, and any 

gaps in capability availability or deployment. 

OEC will use the findings and recommendations from the report to develop a National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) later this year. Since this will be 

a National Plan, OEC will be working closely with other DHS components and other 

Federal agencies with emergency communications roles and responsibilities, including the NCS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office 

for Interoperability and Compatibility, in addition to our stakeholders from regional, 

State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Additionally, OEC has 

established the preliminary framework for activities of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, which Congress directed to coordinate the Federal aspects in the development of the NECP. The NECP will set goals and provide shortterm and long-term recommendations for addressing interoperability gaps and advancing operability and interoperability. 

Before we can begin building the NECP, however, we need to have a comprehensive understanding of the interoperability capabilities needed and those currently in 

use across the Nation. Thus, one of OEC’s top priorities in the near term is to develop a robust assessment of the state of emergency communications, particularly 

gaps and vulnerabilities. The Capabilities Report noted above will give us much of 

this information, but we also will be gathering valuable input from other initiatives 
13 

like the State-wide Communications Interoperable Plan (SCIP) review process, 

which ultimately will help us identify how OEC can advance the emergency communications capabilities of first responders and emergency management officials. 

A key component of a Nation-wide, cross-governmental understanding of emergency communications is the development of Communications Asset Survey and 

Mapping (CASM) tool. CASM is a web-based communications assets database that 

consolidates information about land-mobile radio systems and other interoperability 

assets and determines how they are being used by metropolitan and urban area 

public safety agencies within a State. OEC works with participating public safety 

agencies to populate CASM with their data and help them understand the interoperability methods used by neighboring agencies so they can plan accordingly. Recently, CASM has been upgraded to include a ‘‘what if’’ feature that allows users 

to see the consequences to communications assets in a variety of man-made and natural disaster scenarios. To date, more than 75 metropolitan/urban areas and 

States—representing more than 8,000 agencies—have entered data into CASM. 

Through attendance and tool demonstrations at national public safety conferences, 

FPIC meetings, and ongoing coordination with other DHS partners such as the 

member agencies of the National Communications System, OEC is reaching users 

and policymakers at all levels of government. 

OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

OEC has participated in and supported a number of stakeholder forums and initiatives designed to promote awareness and build consensus among Federal, State, 

and local entities on policy and technical issues affecting interoperable communications. This includes dedicated interoperability events with groups such as the National Governors Association’s State-wide Planning Workshops and the National Association of Counties/National League of Cities Interoperability Policy Academies. 

OEC leaders attend major conferences hosted by the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Association 

for Public-Safety Communications Officials and others. Additionally, a significant 

portion of OEC’s stakeholder engagement occurs though the SAFECOM Executive 

Committee and Emergency Response Council. OEC leaders also understand the 

need for private-sector engagement in support of this mission and continue to meet 

with industry to learn more about new developments in interoperable equipment 

and technology. 

Building on these relationships, OEC provides technical assistance services to the 

practitioner community to foster the development of interoperable communications 

capabilities at the State and local levels. OEC’s technical assistance helps States 

identify gaps in their communications infrastructure and determine technical requirements for an interoperable communications system. Technical assistance includes strategic and tactical communications planning, system feasibility studies, tabletop exercises, evaluations of communications sites and technologies, and on-site 

engineering support. 

During the preparations in the Gulf Coast Region for the 2007 hurricane season, 

OEC moved from planning mode to technical-services support mode. There, OEC coordinated the accelerated delivery of communications equipment and training services to several hurricane-prone States in the region well in advance of the season. 

The training addressed the usage of the equipment in its designated communications planning environment, as well as the need for coordination, governance, and 

a regional set of standard operating procedures for communications. 

The Office of Emergency Communications also provided on-site support for the 

2007 Golden Phoenix, an Interoperability Joint Training Event, which had a scenario with an 8.0 earthquake in the greater Los Angeles area. Participants in the 

event include Los Angeles city and county multi-jurisdictional emergency responders, the California National Guard, and the Department of Defense (DoD). OEC 

ICTAP provided technical evaluators and planning assistance to measure and evaluate communications interoperability across the continuum of first responders, DoD, 

and participating State and local government entities and non-governmental organizations. The event underscored the need for training opportunities among the various response groups and the challenges that might be encountered. OEC helped to 

document the challenges and findings. 

STATE-WIDE COMMUNICATION INTEROPERABILITY PLANS

Historically, limited and fragmented planning and a lack of coordination and cooperation among disciplines and jurisdictions have hampered the emergency response community’s ability to communicate during response efforts. To combat this 

problem, the DHS fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) re-
14 

quired States and Territories to develop locally driven, multi-jurisdictional, and 

multi-disciplinary State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs). Following coordination between DHS and the Department of Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), NTIA has also incorporated the SCIP requirement as an element of its Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. The SCIP requirement and the planning efforts 

of States and localities mark critical milestones in breaking down the barriers of the 

past and in establishing a roadmap for the future of interoperability. As of December 3, 2007, all 56 States and Territories submitted SCIPs. For the first time States 

will have a plan for interoperable communications and a baseline to assess their 

progress toward realizing their interoperability goals. 

OEC provided technical assistance, outreach, and guidance to States and territories in the development of their SCIPs. The office developed and facilitated 35 

SCIP development workshops, conducted 15 document reviews, and provided SCIPdevelopment support to 48 of the 56 States and territories. In addition, OEC provided States and territories with the option of submitting preliminary SCIPs. Fortytwo took advantage of this option, and OEC conducted a peer review process in October 2007 to provide critical feedback to those States and Territories on their preliminary plans before the final submission deadline. 

Upon final submission of the SCIPs in December 2007, OEC began working with 

its partners at FEMA and NTIA to facilitate a peer-review process to evaluate the 

SCIPs and supported NTIA in the evaluation of applicants’ PSIC Investment Justifications. Just last week, panels of Federal, State, local, and tribal peers convened 

in St. Louis, Missouri to provide input on the approval of SCIPs. Based on this peer 

input, OEC will make decisions on whether a SCIP receives a ‘‘pass’’ or ‘‘needs additional information’’ grade. The evaluated SCIPs with comments and recommendations will be returned to the States and territories by March 31, 2008. Technical 

assistance will be available to any State or territory that requests additional SCIP 

support. 

Through this process, States and territories will be receiving feedback from their 

peers on how to improve their planning efforts. As a result, the Department expects 

that the SCIPs will require periodic updates and enhancements. To promote the 

value of this process, future DHS grant programs will continue to build upon the 

progress made through the SCIPs to better target funding and ensure the Statewide planning process continues. 

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAMS

In the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress authorized the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program 

(IECGP) to provide grants to support projects which improve operable and interoperable emergency communications among Federal, State, regional, local, tribal 

and, in some instances, international border communities. This grant program will 

fund activities which comply with the SCIPs and with the National Emergency 

Communications Plan. Once completed, the National Plan will help frame the wayahead for the Nation, and will be essential in helping the Department set national 

priorities for emergency communications and target-specific outcomes. 

FEMA and OEC share responsibilities for the IECGP, which will require continued coordination between the two organizations to ensure its success in producing 

measurable progress in improving interoperability. Fortunately, OEC already has 

an excellent working relationship in place with FEMA through our previous collaboration on the fiscal year 2007 HSGP, and our combined work in support of NTIA’s 

PSIC Grant Program. For the IECGP, we will leverage our collective experience and 

expertise and build on the progress, requirements, and lessons learned from existing 

programs. 

CROSS-BORDER INTEROPERABILITY CHALLENGES

Ensuring the ability of public safety agencies and officials to communicate across 

disciplines and jurisdictions and to exchange information on-demand during an incident is challenging enough from a purely domestic perspective. Interoperability 

challenges become even more difficult in our country’s regions that border Canada 

and Mexico. As a result, OEC must collaborate closely with agencies that share the 

responsibility for surmounting these challenges, including the U.S. Department of 

State, NTIA, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). OEC is working 

with its stakeholders and partners in several areas to improve cross-border interoperable communications and manage challenges. 
15 

1 Industry Canada is the spectrum regulatory body for Canada. 

Spectrum Management 

The proper management of spectrum resources is key to achieving cross-border 

interoperability. The use of different spectrum bands among border communities in 

different countries is a significant hurdle to overcome: our emergency response partners in Canada and Mexico do not use U.S. frequency allocations, which results in 

the use of disparate frequencies. Establishing cross-border interoperability requires 

the use of additional technology solutions to bridge these disparate frequencies, or 

new cross-border agreements to allow emergency communications operations in the 

appropriate bands. OEC has established a close relationship with the Department 

of State, and continues to make headway on the issue. 

Regulation 

The Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA) regulatory requirements must be met when 

establishing domestic interoperability among Federal, State, local, and tribal public 

safety agencies. To establish cross-border interoperability on the Canadian and 

Mexican borders, the requirements of Industry Canada 1 and the Mexican Secretariat for Communications and Transportation (SCT) with support from the Federal 

Commission on Telecommunications (COFETEL) must also be met. Differing regulatory requirements in these agencies increases the amount of time and effort required to establish interoperability and coordinate spectrum use. 

Coordination 

In an effort to ensure harmonious spectrum sharing along our common borders, 

the United States has entered into bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. 

As interoperability solutions are adopted, new bilateral agreements may be required 

to protect these solutions or exemptions to existing agreements may be needed to 

preserve the legality of the solution. These negotiations are conducted in conjunction 

with the Department of State; its early involvement is critical to the success of any 

interoperability solution that may be inconsistent with existing international telecommunications agreements. 

Security 

Information assurance is a priority for public safety agencies. Many interoperability solutions, particularly those providing data interoperability, require multiple 

systems to interface, which creates several security concerns. These system security 

concerns must be factored into any cross-border interoperability solutions. 

Geographic and Demographic Factors 

The immense size, varying terrain, and differing population densities of the U.S. 

border regions require interoperability solutions to be tailored to the implementation locales. For example, the most effective solution in a rural, desert location will 

not be appropriate for a mountainous, metropolitan area. 

Operations 

Without comprehensive operational and exercise plans, the best technical interoperability solution may not realize its optimum effectiveness; therefore, all interoperability solutions must address operational interoperability. Additionally, the 

United States, Mexico, and Canada do not have a common incident management 

terminology, and in some instances there are language barriers to overcome. 

OEC INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE CROSS-BORDER INTEROPERABILITY

The United States-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications Security Communications Task Group 

The United States-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications Security Communications Task Group (HLCC SCTG) was established in 

2006 to address the need for security communications between the United States 

and Mexico. The SCTG is jointly chaired by OEC and the Mexican Secretary of Public Security. Initially, a short-term solution was implemented that negotiated an exemption to an existing telecommunications protocol to allow the use of ten Mexican 

public safety radios in the State of Arizona. The SCTG’s recommended long-term solution will provide voice and data interoperability between the United States and 

Mexico by establishing ten broadband microwave links between Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) sites in the United States and the Centers for Control, Command, 

Communications, and Computers (C4) sites in Mexico. The SCTG finalized its recommendations and presented them to the HLCC in early February 2008. 
16 

2 Currently, the SCTG and Mexico C4 have identified five of the six frequency pairs required 

for Phase I of the crossborder microwave project. The latest frequencies submitted by Mexico 

C4 for the Agua Prieta to Douglas microwave link are currently under consideration by the 

NTIA. The frequencies will be in the 7 GHz to 8 GHz band. 3The Interoperability Continuum is a tool devised to measure progress in public safety interoperability using five elements: Governance, Standard Operating Procedures, Technology, Training and Exercises, and Usage. 

The identification of mutually acceptable frequencies has proven to be a challenge. 

Thanks to OEC’s leadership, the SCTG has successfully worked with SCT and NTIA 

to license the frequencies for its long-term solution.2

The SCTG will be recommending the establishment of a protocol by the High 

Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications (HLCC) to ensure the interference protection of the frequencies. Additionally, the protocol will establish a users 

group to address the development of standard operating procedures and other operational issues once the long-term solution is no longer under the purview of the 

High Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications. The SCTG will also 

determine whether communications over the solution will occur in English or Spanish along the southern border. 

The 2010 Olympics Task Force Security Subcommittee, Communications Interoperable Working Group 

The 2010 Olympics Task Force Security Subcommittee, the Communications 

Interoperable Working Group (CIWG) is developing an integrated interoperability 

plan in preparation for the Olympics in Vancouver. The Interoperability Continuum 3 is being used as a basis to develop a robust interoperability solution. Efforts to date have involved the identification of existing communications assets and 

required participants. The next steps in the process include the development of 

interoperable protocols, policies, procedures, and tactical communication strategies. 

The CIWG will also develop a multi-year training and exercise plan and schedule. 

Spectrum issues are also anticipated to be a challenge in the implementation of the 

International Border Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration 

Project and the 2010 Olympics CIWG. The participating agencies operate in a wide 

range of disparate frequency bands. 

Geographic and demographic factors will come into play during the 2010 Olympics. The influx in the number of tourists and public safety officials has the potential to stress existing communications systems. OEC sees this as a good opportunity 

to identify cross-border interoperability solutions to be used for a large-scale international event. 

The Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications Southwest Border Communications Working Group 

The Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC) Southwest 

Border Communications Working Group is a domestic initiative intended to effectively use the region’s scarce critical resources to identify and leverage interoperability opportunities among Federal, State, and local agencies implementing wireless infrastructure along the United States-Mexico border and to help programs succeed in meeting end-users’ needs. 

Additionally, this group is working to ensure coordination among public safety 

agencies on the U.S. side of the border. While this effort does not directly create 

cross-border interoperability, it works to establish domestic interoperability in a 

critical region as a precursor to cross-border interoperability. 

CONCLUSION

Improving interoperability on our northern and southern borders is of paramount 

importance to the safety and security of our Nation. OEC will continue to serve as 

the focal point for the coordination of robust cross-border interoperability solutions 

that address user needs and policy requirements of all three countries. Through 

FPIC and other forums, OEC will continue to cultivate relationships with Canadian, 

Mexican, and American users and regulatory agencies across all levels of government to better identify and address barriers to interoperability. 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss OEC activities look forward to working 

with this subcommittee to help meet the emergency communications needs of our 

Nation. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Director, I say thank you again for your testimony. 

At this time I now recognize Chief Landin to summarize a statement for 5 minutes. 
17 

STATEMENT OF STEVE E. LANDIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, LAREDO, TEXAS 

Mr. LANDIN. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and 

Members of the subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response. Good morning. I’m Steve Landin and I’ve 

been a proud member of the Laredo Fire Department since 1990. 

The Laredo Fire Department is a 348-uniform personnel department. Like my father before me, my professional career has been 

as a first responder on the border, having worked as a firefighter 

and sheriff’s deputy and now as the acting assistant fire chief and 

current emergency management coordinator. 

Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take a moment on behalf of my fellow border first responders in Laredo to 

thank Chairman Cuellar and this committee for the focus you have 

brought to the challenges we face. Chairman Cuellar sat down with 

Laredo public safety leaders to craft a U.S.-Mexico border public 

safety and public health response paper. The conclusion of that 

paper, a copy of which is attached to my testimony, is that there 

is a need for a Federal and local partnership. While I was not part 

of the committee that authored the paper, I do endorse the content. 

On the border, because we are often so isolated from any surrounding communities on the U.S. side, we understand better than 

most that we are on our own to address threats, not only to the 

people, property and economy of Laredo, but increasingly to the 

United States. For instance, while my colleagues in New York City 

or the District of Columbia may rely upon joint assistance programs which are surrounding communities in times of challenge, in 

Laredo, are nearest U.S. support is over an hour’s drive away. Despite Nuevo Laredo, a city of 600,000, being just across the river 

and while the Federal agents manning the border points have point 

responsibility for security, Laredo does bear the burden with respect to protection of life, health and property. 

While the Chairman is well aware of Los Dos Laredos or the two 

Laredos and the role that we play on the border, let me take a moment to share some insights about my community with the subcommittee and outlining Laredo’s role on the border. I am also 

seeking to answer the question that many of you may have. Why 

should Federal resources be used to support inoperable communications that are typically provided by every local government? 

Laredo is at the center of the primary trade route connecting 

Canada to the United States and Mexico. We are the Gateway to 

Mexico’s burgeoning industrial complex. The two Laredos are actually one city divided by only a river. Laredo became the first official 

port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in 1851. In fact, the United 

States Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is America’s oldest continually active diplomatic post established in 1872. Today the Laredo customs district handles more trade than the land ports of 

southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas combined. 

The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a 

comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats 

at the border. Laredo provides the largest communications infrastructure in the region. A unified approach to police, fire and public 

health first responders to ensure safety, security and public health 
18 

disease control and preparedness. We provide training, planning 

and support for disease control and prevention through its public 

health authority, and we support for our Federal and State partners in responding to the public safety hazard challenges such as 

primary response to river rescue and recovery as well as response 

to bomb threats at our international bridges to conduct searches for 

weapons of mass destruction. 

Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo 

is not a direct beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because 

Federal funding for Homeland Security has been limited to U.S. 

census data. Funding formulas must be changed to address threat 

levels and services provided to the Nation by border communities. 

Laredo is providing these services. It is time that the Nation provides Laredo with a fair share of the resources needed for these efforts. 

As first responders on the U.S. border we face a myriad of challenges in delivering emergency services. An example of this is our 

current need of enhancing our regional communications operation. 

Although our region has joined forces—as first responders on the 

U.S. border we face challenges and although our region has joined 

forces for this important task, we have a long road ahead of us. 

Our geographical location dictates that we must consider two important aspects of our overall preparedness and strategy. We must 

ensure that the regional communications is adequate and functional, and we must ensure that we can do the same to our current 

Mexican counterparts. 

We do provide some Federal solutions. Regional radio communication infrastructure upgrades, specifically the addition of radio 

towers in our region. Regional upgrades to the 800 megahertz frequency, continued trading for local or regional interoperability and 

cross-border communication capabilities to include training and 

equipment. This should include the sharing of the spectrum with 

our first responder colleagues and the ability to communicate several miles into Mexico. 

Training and equipment for first responder HAM radio operators 

and UASI should be changed to make proximity to the board a 

threat criteria and funding should be available for people and 

equipment required to meet the threats of the Nation’s health and 

safety. Laredo provides more public health first responders and 

public safety responders on the border than the Federal Government, yet it is not eligible for direct funding. 

The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all major 

ports, not specifically water ports. The city of Laredo is the Nation’s largest inland port on the U.S.-Mexican border, yet it is not 

eligible for port security funding. International bridges should be 

included in the protective class of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses would have a major impact on the Nation’s 

economy. Creative border security initiatives such as the Laredo 

River Vega project that enhances national security by clearing lines 

of site and building river retaining walls with the result being an 

integrated national security project should being supported. 

All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund 

first responders such as the SAFER grant and the COPS grant 
19 

must be fully funded and the role the community plays in supporting national security must be included in the funding criteria. 

In conclusion, Laredo is the only southern border city strategically positioned at the convergence of all land transportation systems. While this location results in Laredo being our Nation’s largest inland port on the southern border, it also means that Laredo’s 

public safety and health programs are heavily burdened with a 

flow of such commerce. Laredo is a shipping and receiving dock for 

the urban centers and seaports in your States. There are studies 

and statistics of the amount of cargo that flows or returns to your 

States in Mississippi, Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana and the Carolinas and beyond. 

Laredo and other border communities strive for healthy and safe 

communities. Sometimes we are asked to bear too large a burden 

in keeping our Nation healthy and safe. We look to this committee 

to assist us obtain the resources we need to meet the challenges 

that we face on a daily basis. Thank you, and I look forward to any 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Landin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE E. LANDIN

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and Members of the Subcommittee on 

Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response—good morning. I am 

Steve E. Landin and have been a proud member of the Laredo Fire Department 

since 1990. The Laredo Fire Department is a three hundred and forty-eight (348) 

uniformed personnel department. Like my father before me, my professional career 

has been as a first responder on the border, having worked as a firefighter and sheriff’s deputy and now as the Acting Assistant Fire Chief and current Emergency 

Management Coordinator. 

LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN CUELLAR

Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take a moment on behalf of 

my fellow border first responders in Laredo to thank Chairman Cuellar and this 

committee for the focus you have brought to the challenges we face. Chairman 

Cuellar sat down with Laredo’s public safety leaders to craft a U.S.-Mexico Border 

Public Safety and Public Health Response paper. The conclusion of that paper, a 

copy of which is attached to my testimony, is there is a need for a Federal-local 

partnership. While I was not a part of the committee that authored that paper, I 

endorse the content. 

ISOLATION & COOPERATIVE EFFORTS

On the border, because we are so often so isolated from any surrounding communities on the U.S. side, we understand better than most that we are on our own 

to address threats not only to the people, property and economy of Laredo, but increasingly to the United States. For instance, while my colleagues in New York City 

or the District of Columbia may rely upon joint assistance programs with surrounding communities in times of challenge, in Laredo, ‘‘our nearest U.S. support’’ 

is over an hour’s drive away, despite Nuevo Laredo, a city of 600,000 being just 

across the river. And while the Federal agents manning the border posts have point 

responsibility for security, Laredo bears the burden with respect to protection of life, 

health and property. 

LOS DOS LAREDOS AND THE ROLE WE PLAY ON THE BORDER

While the Chairman is well aware of ‘‘Los Dos Laredos,’’ or ‘‘The 2 Laredos’’ and 

the role we play on the border, let me take a moment to share some insights about 

my community with the subcommittee. In outlining Laredo’s role on the border, I 

am also seeking to answer the question that many of you may have—why should 
20 

Federal resources be used to support interoperable communications that are typically provided by every local government? 

A. Largest and Oldest Southern Inland Port 

Laredo is at the center of the primary trade route connecting Canada, the United 

States and Mexico. We are the gateway to Mexico’s burgeoning industrial complex. 

The two Laredos are actually one city, divided only by a river. Laredo became the 

first ‘‘official’’ Port of Entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in 1851. (In fact, the United 

States Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is America’s oldest continuously active 

diplomatic post, established in 1872.) Today, the Laredo Customs District handles 

more trade than the land ports of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and 

West Texas combined. 

B. Services We Provide Laredo and Nation 

The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats at the border. Laredo provides: 

• The largest communication infrastructure in the region. 

• A unified approach of police, fire and public health first responders to ensure 

safety, security and public health disease control and preparedness. 

• Training, planning and support for disease control and prevention through its 

public health authority. 

• Support for our Federal and State partners in responding to the public safety 

hazard challenges such as primary response for river rescue and recovery as 

well as response to bomb threats at our international bridges to conduct 

searches for weapons of mass destruction. 

Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo is not a direct 

beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because Federal funding for homeland 

security has been limited to U.S. census data. Funding formulas must be changed 

to address threat levels and services provided to the Nation by border communities. 

Laredo is providing the services. It is time that the Nation provides Laredo with 

a fair share of the resources needed for these efforts. 

CHALLENGE

As first responders on the U.S. border we face a myriad of challenges in delivering 

emergency services. An example of this is our current need of enhancing our regional communications operation. Although our region has joined forces for this important task, we have a long road ahead. 

Our geographical location dictates that we must consider two important aspects 

of our overall preparedness and response strategy: 

• First, we must ensure that our regional communications system is adequate 

and functional as well as possess the capability of communicating with other 

jurisdictions during an emergency. The need for this was evident during the recent Cotulla, TX wild land fires that consumed more than 17,000 acres and destroyed 20 homes. Several fire departments, including our own, were on the fire 

ground and experienced the difficulties that accompany a lack of proper communications. 

• Second, we must ensure that we can do the same with our Mexican counterparts. There are emergency situations that know no boundaries. It is crucial 

that we are able to maintain radio contact among responding personnel, as well 

as with our dispatch, when responding to emergencies in Mexico. 

SOLUTIONS

Federal funding for homeland security and public health response initiatives must 

compensate local communities that are providing protection to the Nation. The easiest way to accomplish this goal is to create a border category in all funding formulas. 

There are also specific steps that the Congress can take to address these challenges: 

• Regional Radio Communications Infrastructure; specifically the addition of 

radio towers in our region for enhanced communications capability, as well as 

the necessary support resources. 

• Regional upgrades to 800 MHz frequency radio systems. 

• Continued training for local and regional interoperability radio operations. 

• Cross Border communications capabilities to include training and equipment. 

This should include the sharing of spectrum with our first responder colleagues 

and the ability to communicate several miles into Mexico. 

• Training and equipping for first responder HAM radios. 
21 

• UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a threat criterion and 

funding should be available for people and equipment required to meet threats 

to the Nation’s health and safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and public safety responders on the border than the Federal Government, 

yet it is not eligible for direct funding. 

• The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all major ports, not 

simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the Nation’s largest inland port on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, yet it is not eligible for port security funding. 

• International Bridges should be included in the protected class of infrastructure 

of national significance. Their losses would have a major impact on the Nation’s 

economy. 

• Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo’s ‘‘River Vega’’ project that 

enhance national security by clearing lines of sight and building river retaining 

walls with the result being an integrated national security project should be 

supported. 

• All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund first responders 

(i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and the role a community plays in 

supporting national security must be included in the funding criteria. 

CONCLUSION

Laredo is the only southern border city strategically positioned at the convergence 

of all land transportation systems. While this location results in Laredo being our 

Nation’s largest inland port on the southern border, it also means that Laredo’s public safety and health programs are heavily burdened with the flow of such commerce. Laredo is the shipping and receiving dock for the urban centers and seaports 

in your States. There are statistics of the amount of cargo that flows from, or returns to, your States of Mississippi, Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, 

the Carolinas, Alabama and beyond. Laredo and other border communities strive for 

healthy and safe communities. Sometimes we are asked to bear too large a burden 

in keeping our Nation healthy and safe. We look to this committee to assist us to 

obtain the resources we need to meet that challenge. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

APPENDIX A.—SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF HECTOR GONZALEZ, M.D., DIRECTOR OF

HEALTH, CITY OF LAREDO

1. INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Cuellar and Members of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communication, Preparedness and Response. My name is Doctor Hector F. 

Gonzalez; I am the Director of Health for the city of Laredo. My colleague Chief 

Steve Landin, Acting Assistant Fire Chief for the city of Laredo Fire Department 

is addressing you today in person to provide testimony on our unique needs based 

issues as first responders and emergency care on the border. I am submitting this 

addenda to the Chief’s testimony. I have every confidence that Chief Landin can address any immediate questions you may have on public health threats and our unified response in Laredo, a Texas-Mexico Border City. 

I have provided public health care for over 30 years. In contrast to private medicine, public health keeps our community disease-free and promotes wellness and 

prevention. We want to keep people well. 

2. CHALLENGES ON THE BORDER

Nowhere are these activities more vibrant and yet challenging than on the TexasMexico Border. 

• Infectious diseases and co-morbidities are critical. Laredo has one of highest 

rates of Tuberculosis in Texas. 

• There is a critical lack of access to health care (over 50 percent of our citizens 

are un/underinsured). 

• There is a critical lack of access to health care professionals. We are a HRSA 

health professions shortage area and we lack appropriate equipment for services 

and adequate communication which all add to the challenges. 

Yet our resiliency has assisted border communities like Laredo to flourish despite 

the odds. From El Paso to Brownsville, Texas first responder responsibility includes 

addressing infectious and all hazards threats. 
22 

3. THE NEW FIRST RESPONDER PARADIGM

After September 11, the first responder paradigm changed. This is especially so 

after the anthrax attacks. No longer do we view first responder and preparedness 

in the same way. Nowhere is this more evident than in Laredo where the Chief of 

Police, Fire Chiefs and I work intimately close to respond to all hazards: biological, 

chemical and radiological. Yet Laredo has always worked in this manner, maximizing, regionalizing and being innovative because we have always recognized that 

it is our community but everyone’s border to protect. Most importantly however, resources have always been insufficient and therefore we created our own response 

expertise. We respond to all hazards to contain disease, prevent the spread and provide immediate care of individuals affected as well to protect the public. For us, it 

is routine to respond locally, regionally and internationally. We are the State and 

Federal responders, as there is no one else to respond, and we recognized this a long 

time ago. On the border, issues may be international in scope, but the response to 

the threat will always be local! This is why we developed our own team of experts 

especially for an all-hazards and public health response. 

4. LOCAL RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL THREATS

Let me share a few examples of interventions. 

(1) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) 

During the worldwide Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) threat, there 

were five mainland Chinese nationals traveling through Mexico City and entering 

the United States illegally through the Freer, Texas border post. The Customs and 

Border Patrol called us in Laredo to inform us that two of Chinese nationals had 

a fever. (Please note, it was not a Laredo Border crossing but individuals in Freer, 

Texas, an hour’s drive.) We respond and conduct a rapid and immediate thorough 

investigation, instituting quarantine and isolation procedures for the prevention and 

protection of all. This effort included a response to protect over 30 Federal agents, 

25 Mexican and Central Americans (caught with the Chinese) as well the well-being 

of all Laredoans. We also had to deal with Federal and State health and immigration authorities from both countries. The city of Laredo Health Department (CLHD) 

made it our immediate responsibility to assure the protection of all and the disease 

containment to prevent a potential spread of a highly communicable disease that 

could have impacted the nation. This was the responsibility of Federal authorities 

but we are the only ones able to respond. While we have a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quarantine station in El Paso that covers New Mexico 

and Texas, they only have 3 persons. We work wonderfully in partnership with 

them but in the end we provide all of the local investigations and response, training 

and prevention efforts not only for Laredo but for the region as we care for four 

other counties as well. Both Chief Sosa and our staff are continuously responding 

to all hazards including assuring the appropriate storage of Cobalt 60, assuring the 

safety management of illegally discarded hazardous materials and the safety of food 

and water supplies. 

(2) TB 

Finally I am sure all of you have heard about the quarantine and isolation of the 

person with TB with XDR who traveled worldwide. The whole Nation is concerned 

and I understand there are hearings on this matter. Well this is an everyday threat 

for us on the border. We don’t need any exotic or biological weaponized threat; there 

are everyday communicable disease threats to the public that are equally lethal. 

One of our cases in 2006 involved two family members (one in Laredo and one 

in Nuevo Laredo Mexico). We immediately intervened (internationally) since members lived on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border to get all family members tested, 

confirmed, treated and followed. When we finished the investigation, we had tested 

over 40 family members and three were positive. These were immediately confirmed, treated and followed as active TB which needs treatment for at least 6 

months with multiple medications. It is imperative to assure compliance to avoid 

drug resistance which is a problem today and in some cases (as in the case all of 

you have heard about) there is a rare extremely multi-drug resistant strain. In our 

situation, the three cases were family members in San Antonio (150 miles away) 

Dallas (over 400 miles away) and in Chicago. If we did not have the surveillance 

detection system to intervene quickly, test, confirm, treat and follow these cases, 

they would have gone undetected putting hundreds if not thousands of people at 

risk. 

Yet we have faced a 30 percent reduction in funds over the last 2 years affecting 

our public health response infrastructure. Today we do not have adequate infection 
23 

control response staff, equipment for services with an isolation and response vehicle 

and appropriate communication systems is still lacking. Our staff responds with 

limited resources and equipment and in their own vehicles which are not appropriate for our terrain and protection against potentially communicable diseases and 

hazardous exposure. This is not an appropriate response. If our staff fall and fail 

to protect and prevent not only is Laredo at risk but the State and Nation as well. 

We ask that you consider providing adequate resources for services, staff and 

equipment not based on formulas and standards that are used for the rest of the 

Nation. Our United States-Mexico Border and in particular the Texas-Mexico Border, specially Laredo as the major inland port of entry, must have adequate resources to respond based on our unique response responsibilities to all threats. We 

must have the appropriate staff, equipment, vehicles to respond as well the proper 

tools to isolate and quarantine, after all what happens in Laredo affects the entire 

Nation. If we protect and respond appropriately in Laredo, we protect the public’s 

health and well-being of the country. 

5. CONCLUSION

The United States is under a constant threat of an intentional or unintentional 

medical or biological attack. In Laredo we say: ‘‘When Nuevo Laredo, Mexico coughs, 

Laredo gets the cold.’’ Disease does not respect a border, a wall or even the most 

professional of custom and border patrol agents. 

When you think of the potential public health threats that can cause epidemics, 

contaminate our water or food supply, there is no area more vulnerable than the 

U.S.-Mexico border. In Laredo, we are proud to provide a first line of defense for 

our community and the Nation. We just need help with the resources to meet these 

demands. 

I want to thank you for allowing me to provide this written testimony. I know 

Chief Sosa is providing immediate answers to any of your questions but I will glad 

to answer any additional questions you may have as well. 

APPENDIX B.—U.S.-MEXICO BORDER PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE; 

THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP

BACKGROUND

The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats at the border. Laredo provides: 

• A unified approach of police, fire and public health first responders to ensure 

safety, security and public health disease control and preparedness. 

• Training, planning and support for Radio Interoperability issues. 

• Support for our Federal and State partners in responding public safety hazards 

challenges. 

CHALLENGE

Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo is not a direct 

beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because Federal funding for homeland 

security has been limited to U.S. census data. Funding formulas must be changed 

to address threat levels and services provided to the Nation. Laredo is providing the 

services. It is time that the Nation provides Laredo with a fair share of the resources needed for these efforts. 

SOLUTIONS

Federal funding for homeland security, radio interoperability projects and public 

health response initiatives must compensate local communities that are providing 

protection to the Nation. The easiest way to accomplish this goal is to create a border category in all funding formulas. 

There are also specific steps that the Congress can take to address these challenges: 

• Reinforcing regional radio communications infrastructure; specifically the addition of radio towers in our region for enhanced communications capability, as 

well as the necessary support resources. 

• Continued training for local and regional interoperability radio operations 

• Cross-border communications capabilities to include training and equipment. 

This should include the sharing of spectrum with our first responder colleagues 

and the ability to communicate several miles into Mexico. 

• Regional upgrades to 800 MHz frequency radio systems. 

• Training and equipping for first responder HAM radios. 
24 

• UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a threat criterion and 

funding should be available for people and equipment required to meet threats 

to the Nation’s health and safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and public safety responders on the border than the Federal Government, 

yet it is not eligible for direct funding. • The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all major ports, not 

simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the Nation’s largest inland port on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, yet it is not eligible for port security funding. • International bridges should be included in the protected class of infrastructure 

of national significance. Their losses would have a major impact on the Nation’s 

economy. • Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo’s ‘‘River Vega’’ project that 

enhance national security by clearing lines of sight and building river retaining 

walls with the result being an integrated national security project should be 

supported. • All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund first responders 

(i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and the role a community plays in 

supporting national security must be included in the funding criteria. 

APPENDIX C.—DETAILED STATEMENT OF CHIEF LANDIN ON THE STATE OF

INTEROPERABILITY COMMUNICATIONS ALONG THE TEXAS BORDER

BACKGROUND

Border Security and safety is an essential component of our Nation’s homeland 

security. It is a duty that we gladly and proudly accept each time we report for our 

shifts. Although our task is challenging, we realize its importance, for we as first 

responders, are the front line of defense for our Nation against intentional or unintentional threats. A sobering reality is that the number of threats in this post9/11 world has increased along the U.S.-Mexico border and so has the number of 

incidents that can potentially escalate into major emergencies. 

The county of Webb, in which Laredo is located, is the sixth-largest county of the 

254 counties in the State of Texas. It covers 3,360 sq. miles or 2,139,217 acres. As 

the second-fastest growing city in the Nation, Laredo has outgrown its boundaries. 

The city of Laredo, thru a contractual agreement, provides emergency services to all 

of Webb County. The county of Webb has 4 cities that the Laredo Fire Department 

services: Mirando City, Bruni, Oilton, and Aguilares. The Laredo metropolitan area 

posted the largest gain in population of any other city along the Texas border. Laredo has an approximate population of 250,000 residents and its sister city, Nuevo 

Laredo, Mexico, has a population of 600,000 residents. 

While all local governments have security issues, border communities have special 

challenges. Consider Laredo, Texas, the largest land port in the United States for 

people and goods arriving from Central and South America. Every day, 13,000 

trucks bring parts and supplies across the border, and 30,000 people cross its four 

bridges, a process that takes 11⁄2 hours on a normal day. 

Our frontier community is a booming one, having doubled its population in the 

past 10 years, from 100,000 to more than 200,000. Nuevo Laredo, our sister city 

across the border in Mexico, has a population of 600,000. During a serious emergency, the closest support from any U.S. locality, State government, or Federal Government agency is 150 miles away. An existing bi-national aid agreement between 

Laredo and Nuevo Laredo includes an understanding of hazardous-materials responses, bomb threats and SWAT tactics among other public safety disciplines. Historically, the aid provided has been to assist Nuevo Laredo emergency agencies to 

properly mitigate threat in our sister city. Also we experience an average of three 

or four bomb threats each week at our international bridges. 

CHALLENGES

As first responders on the U.S. border we face a myriad of challenges in delivering 

emergency services. An example of this is our current need of enhancing our regional communications operation. Although our region has joined forces for this important task, we have a long road ahead. 

Our geographical location dictates that we must consider two important aspects 

of our overall preparedness and response strategy: 

• First, we must ensure that our regional communications system is adequate 

and functional as well as posses the capability of communicating with other jurisdictions during an emergency. The need for this was evident during the recent Cotulla, TX wildland fires that consumed more than 17,000 acres and destroyed 20 homes. Several fire departments, including our own, were on the fire 
25 

ground and experienced the difficulties that accompany a lack of proper communications. 

• Second, we must ensure that we can do the same with our Mexican counterparts. There are emergency situations that know no boundaries. It is crucial 

that we are able to maintain radio contact among responding personnel, as well 

as with our dispatch, when responding to emergencies in Mexico. 

In outlining Laredo’s role on the border, it is important to answer the question 

that many of you have: why should Federal resources be used to support what are 

typical services provided by every local government as well as other special services 

that may not be typical to other jurisdictions? Listed below are two reasons why: 

A. International 

• Largest and Oldest Southern Inland Port 

Laredo is at the center of the primary trade route connecting Canada, the United 

States and Mexico. We are the gateway to Mexico’s growing industrial complex. Los 

Dos Laredos (the Two Laredos) are actually one city, divided only by a river. Laredo 

became the first ‘‘official’’ Port of Entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in 1851. (In fact, 

the United States Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is America’s oldest continuously active diplomatic post, established in 1872.) Today, the Laredo Customs District handles more trade than the ports of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico 

and West Texas combined. 

B. Domestic 

The city of Laredo is a hub for emergency response with assets and expertise to 

manage emergencies in a 150-mile radius. The city has executed mutual aid agreements with several jurisdictions to offer aid in the event they should be needed. 

Local resources could be quickly exhausted should there be a need to respond to a 

major emergency. As a border community we face a wide variety of threats given 

our strategic location and as such we must recognize that emergencies in our sister 

city could lead to a potential emergency in ours. 

Structure Fires 

With 60 million square feet of warehouse space to protect on our side of the border, we must consider the vast amount of warehouse space to the south. The limited 

means of our counterparts puts our community at risk should a fire in their commercial/warehouse districts become uncontrollable. An existing bi-national agreement with Nuevo Laredo would require our fire department to render aid. 

EMS 

Laredo Fire Department Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to close to 

17,000 calls in 2006. Many of these were responses to our international bridges to 

render aid to patients coming in from Nuevo Laredo. The patients arrive to our 

bridges via personal vehicles or by foot. Additionally, many attempts by foreign nationals to cross our borders illegally generate a response by our EMS system to 

render aid in the hostile terrain that surrounds our community. These patients become dehydrated or suffer trauma while attempting to cross via rail car or by vehicles transporting illegal aliens that are involved in accidents. 

Mass Casualty Incidents 

In addition to offering protection to our community from mass casualty incidents, 

we consider other factors that increase the potential for these types of incidents. A 

major corridor named IH–35, passes through our city and so does a tremendous 

amount of traffic. This includes passenger buses as well multi-occupant vehicles. 

This highway is also a major thoroughfare for the transportation of illegal aliens. 

Many times while chased by law enforcement, these vehicles become involved in accidents with as many as 50 people. Recently, the fire department was called to assist a neighboring border county, Zapata, when a passenger van transporting 50 

aliens rolled over killing one. This incident placed a significant burden on our resources as several ambulances were dispatched to assist, render aid and transport 

the injured back to local hospitals. 

HAZ-MAT Incidents 

Laredo is the main NAFTA corridor for the United States and correspondingly in 

Texas for international trade. Laredo has four international bridges and is currently 

in the process of applying for a Presidential Permit to build a fifth international 

bridge. Laredo carries 50 percent of all NAFTA-related trade. It is further estimated 

that 50 percent of the trade that crosses through Laredo is hazardous material. The 

United States, Mexico, Central and South America’s economies depend on secure 

bridges (the artery through which life flows for the business-trade sector). Terrorist 
26 

actions or any disruptive situations would be detrimental to local, State, national 

and international economies. According to Laredo Development Foundation’s 2001 

data, Laredo is the No. 1 inland port in the United States with 2,772,537 annual 

tractor-trailer crossings and an additional 350,620 rail car crossings through our 

single railroad bridge. Almost half of the cargo that travels through the Laredo Corridor by land and rail carry hazardous materials. The Laredo Airport, a former U.S. 

Air Force Base, had 226 million pounds of freight land in 2001. 

The situation our community faces today is the increasing volume of commercial 

traffic with hazardous cargo passing through our city via road and rail. In addition, 

we are experiencing an expansion of commercial warehousing that store the hazardous materials transported by commercial traffic. This reflects an increase for 

calls our department makes to hazmat incidents. 

Of note are recent emergency calls that posed a threat to our community and contained all of the necessary elements to escalate to a major disaster. • A tractor-trailer overturned on Hwy 359 spilling a significant amount of highly 

toxic sodium hydroxide. The highway was closed for several hours. Prevailing 

winds threatened to carry fumes toward the city. • A tractor-trailer was found to be leaking an unknown chemical. The trailer contained several pallets of AG Oxycom, an oxidizer corrosive that causes irritation 

of the respiratory track when inhaled. • A train derailment caused several boxcars containing petroleum alkalate and 

benzene 10 percent to burn exposing one boxcar with tetrachchloroethylene. 

Residents in the immediate area were evacuated. Wind conditions threatened 

to carry fumes toward a populated area. 

There is also the challenge of rail yards in the midst of a heavily populated area 

of town. These boxcars transport a huge amount of cargo throughout the day at the 

risk of derailment. 

All these numbers translate into a single conclusion: Laredo’s Fire Department 

must be prepared to address a hazmat challenge due to the volume of Hazmat 

cargo, commerce, and tourism present on both sides of the border. Data compiled 

from the U.S. Department of Commerce indicates that in 2004, the total share of 

U.S.-Mexico trade passing through the port of Laredo was 58.9 percent. All other 

ports on the U.S.-Mexico Border totaled only 41.1 percent. This commercial traffic 

has only increased over the past decade as more commerce is utilizing the Port of 

Laredo’s strategic location. The significant increase has offered many opportunities 

for the potential of a major hazardous material incident that would affect the lives 

of many families on both sides of the border as well as those that reside in the surrounding communities. Additionally, Laredo has over 60 million square feet of warehouse space and at least a quarter of that space contains hazardous materials and 

is highly vulnerable to Terrorism and Bio-Chemical Terrorism. 

River Rescue and Body Recoveries 

The Laredo Fire Department is the primary responder to river rescues and body 

recoveries along the Rio Grande. As the increase in attempts to cross our border illegally so do the number of rescues and recovery of drowning victims. We lack the 

equipment and training to safely conduct these services on international waters. 

Bomb Threat at Bridges 

911 Dispatch receives on average 3 bomb threats a week to our international 

bridges alone. The Fire Department responds to these bomb threats and conducts 

a search for any suspicious packages and explosive devices without any protective 

equipment or ordinance training. 

Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo is not a direct 

beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because Federal funding for homeland 

security has been limited to U.S. census data. Funding formulas must be changed 

to address threat levels and services provided to the Nation by border communities. 

Laredo is providing the services. It is time that the Nation provides Laredo with 

a fair share of the resources needed for these efforts. Additionally, we would like 

to mention some of the other challenges we face along the border: 

Additional Services We Provide Laredo and the Nation 

The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats at the border. Laredo provides: • The largest first responder communication infrastructure in the region. 

• A unified approach of police, fire and public health first responders to ensure 

safety, security and public health disease control and preparedness. 

• Training, planning and support for radio interoperability. 

• Support for our Federal and State partners in responding public safety hazards 

challenges such as primary response for river rescue and recovery as well as 
27 

response to bomb threats at our international bridges to conduct searches for 

weapons of mass destruction and emergency response to the region when needed. 

SOLUTIONS

Homeland security is about the integration of a nation, everyone pledged to freedom’s cause, everyone its protector, and everyone its beneficiary. It’s about the integration of our national efforts, not one department or one organization, but everyone 

tasked with our Nation’s protection. To accomplish this task, Federal funding for 

homeland security, radio interoperability projects and public health response initiatives must compensate local communities that are providing protection to the Nation. The easiest way to accomplish this goal is to create a border category in all 

funding formulas. 

There are also specific steps that the Congress can take to address these challenges: 

• Regional Radio Communications Infrastructure; specifically the addition of 

radio towers in our region for enhanced communications capability, as well as 

the necessary support resources. 

• Continued training for local and regional interoperability radio operations. 

• Cross-border communications capabilities to include training and equipment. 

This should include the sharing of spectrum with our first responder colleagues 

and the ability to communicate several miles into Mexico. 

• Regional upgrades to 800 MHz frequency radio systems. 

• Training and equipping for first responder HAM radios. 

• UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a threat criterion and 

funding should be available for people and equipment required to meet threats 

to the Nation’s health and safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and public safety responders on the border than the Federal Government, 

yet it is not eligible for direct funding. 

• The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all major ports, not 

simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the Nation’s largest inland port on the 

U.S. Mexico border, yet it is not eligible for port security funding. 

• International bridges should be included in the protected class of infrastructure 

of national significance. Their losses would have a major impact on the Nation’s 

economy. 

• Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo’s ‘‘River Vega’’ project that 

enhance national security by clearing lines of sight and building river retaining 

walls with the result being an integrated national security project should be 

supported. 

• All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund first responders 

(i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and the role a community plays in 

supporting national security must be included in the funding criteria. 

Additionally, we would like to respectfully submit the following points: 

(1) The city of Laredo has been a major contributor of resources to create a regional mutual aid agreement. As the largest source of assets and experience in 

our region, we are looked to in the event of a significant emergency occurring 

in any of the participating jurisdictions. Support and training for regional preparedness is essential to our border communities. 

(2) Our city has invested heavily in the creation of a state-of-the-art fire and 

law enforcement training facility. This facility has trained first responders from 

around the globe. Students have trained here from different parts of Mexico, 

Central and South America, Europe and Canada. Another benefit to first responders from around this region is the close proximity and accessibility to 

world class training. Standardized training for public safety officials on both 

sides of our border is essential for a uniformed response to an emergency that 

would affect communities on the U.S.-Mexico border. 

(3) We must be recognized as a hub for public safety and homeland security for 

the region and for the front gate of our Nation. Although we are the largest 

community in the region with public safety assets, it is important to remember 

that we are the closest entity for emergency response in 150 miles. 

(4) UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a threat criterion 

and funding should be available for people and equipment required to meet 

threats to the Nation’s health and safety. Laredo provides more public health 

responders and public safety responders on the border than the Federal Government, yet it is not eligible for direct funding. 
28 

(5) The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all major ports, not 

simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the Nation’s largest inland port on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, yet it is not eligible for port security funding. 

(6) International bridges should be included in the protected class of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses would have a major impact on the Nation’s economy. 

(7) Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo’s ‘‘River Vega’’ project 

that enhance national security by clearing lines of sight and building river retaining walls with the result being an integrated national security project 

should be supported. 

(8) All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund first responders (i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and the role a community 

plays in supporting national security must be included in the funding criteria. 

CONCLUSIONS

Laredo is the only U.S.-Mexico border city strategically positioned at the convergence of all land transportation systems. While this location results in Laredo being 

our Nation’s largest inland port on the southern border, it also means that Laredo’s 

public safety and health programs are heavily burdened with the flow of such commerce. Laredo is the shipping and receiving dock for the urban centers and seaports 

in your States. There are even statistics of the amount of cargo that flows from or 

returns to your States of Mississippi, Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, the Carolinas, Alabama and beyond. Laredo and other border communities 

strive for healthy and safe communities. Sometimes we are asked to bear too large 

a burden in keeping our Nation healthy and safe. We look to this committee assist 

us obtain the resources we need to meet that challenge. 

Every day, we work to make our border and America more secure. Every day, the 

memories of September 11 inspire us to live our vision of preserving our freedoms, 

protecting America, enjoying our liberties, and securing the homeland 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Landin, for your testimony. I now 

recognize Director Ledezma to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. My understanding is [Spanish]. 

STATEMENT OF ALFONSO OLVERA LEDEZMA, DIRECTOR OF 

CITY SECURITY, NUEVO LAREDO, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO 

Mr. LEDEZMA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members of the 

committee. The Mexican government in regards to international 

bridge operating procedures are carried out in case of a high-risk 

contingencies by the Mexican Federal authorities. The Mexican 

bridges are Federal precincts. The State authorities, we do not 

have access to the international bridges, but the Mexican government as Director Ledezma. 

In case of municipal situations, high-risk contingencies are dealt 

by the Civil Safety Direction. It operates with 511 police officers 

with 30 vehicles. The area determines the exact nature of the problem and decides an immediate response. Exchange of information 

of any crimes or criminals is vital to monitor the case of establishing of both cities. The communication between both nations is 

priority for the Mexican government and the U.S. Government. 

Our mutual safety, we have considered all bilateral programs 

and agreements and strategies for both nations as the case of bomb 

threats, toxic spills—sorry—on international bridges, includes if 

there’s any bomb threats, Mexican government intervenes with 

protection of civil rights and, also, with the fire department. The 

fire department actually counts right now with two fire—two fire 

trucks that will automatically help international bridges in case of 

an emergency in the United States. Right now the only problem we 

have are the fire—the fire members right now. They are not—they 

are all certified by the U.S. Government right now. 
29 

In case of an emergency, the International Bridges I, II and the 

railroad bridge as well as the commercial international bridge will 

be automatically closed to any access international from the United 

States into Mexico or from Mexico into the United States. The civil 

protection—fire department operates with 114 elements, time response for each contingency point occurs, it’s approximately about 

7 minutes along the Rio Grande and the limits in between Mexico 

and the United States. The contingencies assists and offers as well 

as former specialized squads and task forces. 

Our fire department has, as I said, two fire engines, a model 

2004 Freightliner, with a capacity of 1,260 gallons of water in case 

of general fires. We also have the boat rescue units that aid to the 

migrants from the Rio Grande. This also—we also come with a 

HAZMAT certification program safety for chemicals discharges that 

attend contingencies of this nature. We are certified by the Laredo, 

Texas Department of Training. 

For better communication between both cities is to establish a 

rate of communication frequency for either—it could be phone-wise 

through Nextels. That’s mostly what we use. Right now the federal 

government in case of a contingency automatically goes by the Secretary of Communicacion. After the Secretary of Communicacion 

counts the information, it goes to different Mexico corporations as 

Sedena. That would be the Mexican Army, [Spanish], that will be 

the Attorney General, [Spanish], the Federal police, [Spanish], the 

State attorney general and State police that will be [Spanish] as 

well as the Mexican authorities. 

[The statement of Mr. Ledezma follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALFONSO OLVERA LEDEZMA

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

Regarding all international bridge crossings, operating procedures that are carried 

out in case of high-risk contingencies by the Mexican Federal Authorities consider 

these areas as FEDERAL PRECINCTS. 

Notification of any contingency, by the U.S. Government to the Mexican authorities are received through the National Secretary of the Interior (Secretaria de 

Gobernacio ́n) in Mexico, and it is then passed on to the Central of Control, Command and Compute (C4). It then properly identifies the incident and does the precise evaluation of the incident for all international crossings between Laredo, Texas 

and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas. 

C4 is coordinated with different Mexican Corporations such as SEDENA (Mexican 

Army); PROCURADURIA GENERAL OF THE REPUBLICA, (Attorney General); 

POLICIA FEDERAL (Federal Police); PROCURADURIA GENERAL OF JUSTICE 

OF THE STATE OF TAMAULIPAS (State Attorney General); State of Tamaulipas 

Police (POLICIA MINISTERIAL); SEGURIDAD CIUDADANA (Civic Safety) and 

SEGURIDAD VIAL (Traffic Police). 

C4 classifies the incident and then accordingly assigns it to the corresponding authority. Mexican protocols establish that the first action is to secure national assets, 

as refineries, electrical stations, water supply stations, food banks, international 

crossings and State and national highways. 

The above-mentioned cases are the responsibility of the Mexican Federal Government. 

In case of Municipal situations, high-risk contingencies are dealt by the Civil 

Safety Direction, which operates with 511 policemen, with 30 patrol cars and a 5- 

minute response time to any part of the city. 

This area determines the exact nature of the problem and decides an immediate 

response. Exchange of information of the crime and the criminals is vital to monitor 

the case and establish the search parameters. 

For our mutual safety we have to consider all bilateral programs and agreements 

that are strategic for both our nations, as are the cases of bomb threats, toxic spills 
30 

on or near international bridges, as well as inside city limits. Other cases are reports to search for abducted or disappeared persons and river rescues. 

This concludes issues related to Civil Safety. 

Regarding traffic-related issues, the Traffic Department has 225 officers and a response time of 4 to 5 minutes inside city limits. Other responsibilities are to control 

traffic fluency, privilege rapid movement of ambulances and public safety or emergency units to the place of the contingency. 

Municipal Traffic Authorities considers the following areas as a strategic perimeter for all cases and types of contingencies: • International Bridge I, (Bridge of the Americas). Closing of Streets or Avenues 

in the following way: (1.) On the Street 15 of Junio and Avenue Guerrero: the 

total closing of the structure of the International Bridge, to channel vehicle circulation by the Avenue Guerrero to the South of the City. (2.) On Matamoros 

Street and 15 of Junio: to provide traffic fluency on Guerrero Avenue to the 

South of the City. (3.) On Street 15 of Junio and Jua ́ rez to give traffic fluency 

to Guerrero Avenue to the South of the City. (4.) On the Street 15 of Junio and 

Obrego ́n to provide traffic fluency on Guerrero Avenue to the South of the City. • International Bridge II, (Jua ́ rez—Lincoln Bridge) and the closing of Streets or 

Avenues in a rank of two (2) blocks all around its main access. (1.) On the 

Street 15 of Junio and Santos Degollado Avenue: The closing of vehicles that 

try to enter to the International Bridge. (2.) On the Street 15 of Junio and Avenue Jesus Carranza: to relieve the traffic along the Street Jesus Carranza to 

the South. (3.) On the Street Nicolas Bravo and Avenue Jesus Carranza: to give 

preference to Jesus Carranza street for vehicles that be come from the International Bridge (II). (4.) On Bravo Street and Santos Degollado Avenue: We do 

not permit the entrance of vehicles to the International Bridge (II) by Santos 

Degollado Avenue and proceed to send them to the Bravo Street and send the 

circulation to Boulevard Luis Donaldo Colosio. (5.) On Bravo Street and 20 of 

Noviembre Street to send circulation to the Boulevard Luis Donaldo Colosio. (6.) 

International Bridge III, (World Trade Bridge) has an answering time of 10 to 

15 minutes and closes the access to Mex 2 highway, and the entrance to the 

same road and the internal area that is of federal jurisdiction. 

Certifications and Qualifications 

Our personnel is certified and qualified by the Laredo, Texas Fire Department, 

in the following specialties: (1.) Fireman 1, (2.) Rescue, (3.) HAZ-MAT, (4.) Emergency Management Units. The Red Cross, Certification in ER Techniques, Medicaid, 

Health Sector updating for hospital Pre-Techniques; Michou Mau Foundation (for 

treatment and transportation of burned children). 

• Direction of Civil Protection and Firemen (DIRECCION DE PROTECION 

CIVIL Y BOMBEROS) operates with 114 elements, with a response time of 7 

minutes for any type of contingency that occurs in city limits and along the Rio 

Grande. 

• 1.- 2 (two) Operating Units for Civil Protection. 

• 2.- 2 (two) Utility ATVs for Off-road Needs. 

Consequently in these subjects immediate assistance is offered as well as formation of specialized squads and task forces. 

Our Fire Department has two 2004 Freightliner Fire Engines with a capacity of 

1,260 gallons of water for cases of general fires that can be presented within city 

limits, as well at the disposal for the Laredo, Texas authorities. 

We also have a Boat Rescue Unit to lend aid in the margins of the Rio Grande 

to people in risk; or for searching or monitoring corpses, by georeference of the conditions in which the margins of the Rio Bravo are found, to locate, diagnose and 

establish joint strategies. 

This area also counts with HAZ-MAT certification (Program of Security) for chemical discharges that attend contingencies of this nature, with personnel specialized 

attention in high-risk zones, where it is necessary to jointly establish routes for the 

transit of vehicles that carry dangerous materials. 

For a better communication between both cities, it is possible to establish a radio 

communication frequency, or either use Nextel phones (PTT) between both cities authorities to achieve full binational collaboration. 

As a last note, it is important to establish that a possible problem that could exist 

is the need of passport and visas approval by the U.S. Government in order to allow 

Mexican authorities that need to cross to the United States, basically civil protection 

and fire department personnel. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Muchos gracias for your testimony [Spanish]. I 

said that in Spanish. In English, it’s a pleasure that you are here 
31 

with us. We do understand in this area that the Rio Grande River 

does not divide us, but actually unites us in a community up and 

down the Rio Grande. Thank you on both sides. 

At this time. I would like to go ahead and recognize Mr. Peters 

to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. Director Peters. 

STATEMENT OF JOE M. PETERS, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY 

ASSISTANCE DIVISION, SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS 

Mr. PETERS. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. McCaul. My name is Joe Peters. I serve as director 

of the Technology Assistance Division of the Sheriffs’ Association of 

Texas and as director of the Border Research and Technology Center, a program of the National Institute of Justice. I’m also a founding member of the Texas Radio Coalition. I retired after 30 years 

of service with the Department of Public Safety as a Texas Highway patrol trooper, highway patrol sergeant and the last 18 years 

of my career as a Texas Ranger. 

I grew up in Zavala County and spent a good portion of my career as a Texas Ranger working in the border regions. It’s my 

pleasure to appear before you today, and to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the state of interoperable border emergency 

communications along the Texas border. 

One of the most significant challenges to emergency communications along the Texas-Mexico border has been and continues to be 

a lack of operability in many areas. This is not to downplay the importance of interoperability, but without the ability to communicate 

at all because of a lack of adequate coverage provided by the antiquated systems in place in many of the rural areas along the border, interoperability becomes a moot point. Due to the much appreciated congressional support for the Homeland Security effort, 

many of the first responders serving in the border region are beginning to have some hope that relief is finally on the way in the historically underserved region. Some jurisdictions along the border 

have begun to utilize their Homeland Security Grant program 

funding to begin improvements in their emergency communication 

system. Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant funding 

anticipated later this year will provide a much needed boost in 

those improvements. Resolutions to the emergency communications 

problems are just beginning, but much work remains to be done. 

A second challenge to achieving a desired level of operability and 

interoperability has been a lack of cooperation, planning and coordination between jurisdictions. I’m pleased to report that we are 

making progress in that area due in large part to grant funding requirements that encourage, if not require, planning and cooperation. 

A third and significant challenge to establishing and maintaining 

interoperable emergency communication systems along the Texas 

border is a lack of reliable recurring funding mechanism for operations and maintenance of the systems being or about to be deployed. Again, many of the border area agencies lack the tax base 

to support operations in maintenance of a state-of-the-art communication system they so richly deserve to put them on par with 

their counterparts in the more affluent areas of the State. 
32 

The funding committee of the Texas Radio Coalition is looking at 

possible solutions such as a small increase in the 911 service fee 

charged to customers in the public switched telephone network. 

This fee in Texas is currently set at 50 cents per telephone line up 

to 100 lines per subscriber. The fee is used to operate and maintain 

the 911 system across the State. A small increase in this fee would 

serve to fund the operation and maintenance of the public safety 

emergency communication systems across the State. This or almost 

any fee increase will require a tremendous amount of grassroots 

support across the State to overcome the efforts of the lobby whose 

clients, the service providers, would not support such increases. 

Even as the emergency communications infrastructure is replaced in the border region, many of the smaller agencies, especially fire departments and law enforcement, still have been unable 

to afford to purchase adequate number of mobile and especially 

portable radios, so their responders will be able to communicate 

whenever and wherever they may have the need. 

As grant funding is made available to the border region, a significant concern is that many of the local jurisdictions, particularly 

those in economically depressed areas, and those are many, will be 

unable to meet the cash max requirements of those grants and 

thus be deprived of the opportunity to upgrade their emergency 

communication systems. Even when funding is identified for system upgrades, a lack of available radio spectrum could still prevent 

some jurisdictions along the Texas-Mexico border from deploying 

upgraded systems. The vast majority of the geographic expanse of 

the Texas-Mexico border is currently served by emergency communication systems operating in the VHF band which offered very 

limited spectrum availability for the public safety user. This band 

is also played by interference from both sides of the border. In instances where the interference is identified as originating from the 

Mexican side of the border, fortunately the responder community 

in some areas along the border has established local relationships 

with Mexican regulatory authorities and in many cases those interference issues are resolved quickly and efficiently with often no 

more than a short visit or a phone call to those authorities. 

Spectrum in the 700 megahertz band that will soon be available 

to most of the United States will not be available to public safety 

along the Texas border until the appropriate agreements with Mexico are negotiated. That process is underway with no estimate of 

when that very lengthy process will be completed, but a significant 

impediment to you of utilization of those frequencies along the border. The need for effective reliable cross-border communications is 

significant and increasing. Once again, the resourcefulness of local 

first responders has helped mitigate this issue in some areas, but 

a long-term fixed solution must be identified and implemented. 

This solution is important not only in the case of catastrophic incidents, but in the day-to-day response on both sides of the border. 

Establishing cross-border mutual aid channels with regulatory authority to operate on either side of the border may well be an efficient step in the right direction. 

The formation of the Texas Radio Coalition has been instrumental in providing a venue for public safety communications users 

across Texas to come together in many cases for the first time in 
33 

a spirit of cooperation and coordination. The Radio Coalition membership includes representatives of all public safety disciplines from 

local, tribal, State and Federal agencies. The TxRC, by the way, 

owes much of its success to Mr. Peter Collins and to Mr. Mike 

Simpson, the wireless communication manager for the city of Austin for their unprecedented support for the Radio Coalition. 

As a result of having attend the regularly scheduled meetings of 

the Coalition, representatives of the five councils of government 

with counties contiguous to the Texas-Mexico border have been 

working cooperatively to form the Texas Border Communications 

Project. The goal of this project is to maximize utilization of the anticipated PSIC funding to establish a common shared infrastructure within those five councils of government areas of responsibility 

from El Paso to Brownsville. This group has accomplished more toward cooperation and coordination in the last few months to further emergency communications than likely has ever been accomplished in the border region. 

The border project was born of the effort of the Middle Rio 

Grande Development Council under the leadership of their executive director, Leodoro Martinez, and with project oversight by their 

Homeland Security director, Forrest Anderson. 

The Middle Rio Grande Regional System is a state-of-the-art, 

Project 25-compliant, spectrum-efficient, VHF-trunked infrastructure currently being shared with local, tribe, State and Federal 

users. The system is switched via a master site owned and maintained by the city of Austin. Once again, the city of Austin stepped 

up to the plate and offered excess capacity on their switch at no 

cost to assist the Middle Rio Grande establish their regional system. 

Most entities across the Texas-Mexico border region currently 

utilize radio communications towers that are either expensive 

leased towers or they are 30- to 35-year-old towers purchased with 

LEAA funding in the 1970’s. As the experience in the Middle Rio 

Grande deployment will show, these older towers must now be 

budgeted for replacement. Some of these towers were bound to be 

in serious need of significant repair or replacement due to corrosion 

and/or a lack of routine preventative maintenance. Some of them 

are quite simply overloaded with antennas and transmission line 

and may be in danger of collapse due to overloading. 

Several entities within the border region have recently acquired 

mobile communications vans or trailers equipped to provide communications gateway functionality to achieve interoperability at incident scenes as may be required from time to time. These investments in technology have proved to be quite useful already, these 

often during critical incident. The first 2 hours of the response is 

the most critical period where interoperability is required. Systems 

must be designed and deployed so that interoperability is always 

on and at the ready. Another advantage of having this always-on 

capability is that the emergency communications user community 

is intimately familiar with the equipment because it is their primary means of communication and is in use during their day-today response. 

In conclusion, it’s safe to say that the state of interoperability 

communications along the Texas border is on the verge of signifi-
34 

cant improvement due in no small part to the foresight of local 

leaders and the unwavering support of leaders such as Chairman 

Cuellar, the Members of this subcommittee and other Members of 

Congress. The work has only begun and much remains to be done 

and, fortunately, many of the entities along the border are only 

able to provide their demonstrated willingness to plan, coordinate 

and cooperate to ensure that whatever Federal funding they receive will result in a substantial return on investment for the Federal Government. 

Again, a sincere thank you for the opportunity to discuss border 

communications with you, and I look forward to the opportunity to 

respond to any questions the subcommittee may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Peters follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE M. PETERS

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

Chairman Cuellar and Members of the committee, my name is Joe Peters, and 

I serve as the Director of the Technology Assistance Division of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas and as Director of the Border Research and Technology Center, a program of the National Institute of Justice. I am also a founding member of the Texas 

Radio Coalition. I retired after 30 years of service with the Texas Department of 

Public Safety (DPS) as a Texas Highway Patrol Trooper, Highway Patrol Sergeant 

and the last 18 years of my DPS career as a Texas Ranger. I grew up in Zavala 

County and spent a significant portion of my career in the Texas Rangers working 

in the border region. It is my pleasure to appear before you today and I thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss the state of interoperable emergency communications 

along the Texas Border. 

CHALLENGES WE FACE

One of the most significant challenges to emergency communications along the 

Texas-Mexico border has been and continues to be a lack of ‘‘operability’’ in many 

areas. This is not to downplay the importance of ‘‘interoperability’’ but without the 

ability to communicate at all, because of lack of adequate coverage provided by the 

antiquated systems in place in many of the rural areas along the border, interoperability becomes a moot point. Due to the much appreciated congressional support 

for the Homeland Security effort, many of the first responders serving the border 

region are beginning to have some hope that relief is finally on the way in the historically underserved region. Some jurisdictions along the border have begun to utilize their Homeland Security Grant Program funding to begin improvements in their 

emergency communications systems. Public Safety Interoperable Communications 

grant funding anticipated later this year will provide a much-needed boost in those 

improvements. Resolutions to the emergency communications problems are just beginning and much work remains to be done. 

A second challenge to achieving the desired level of operability and interoperability has been a lack of cooperation, planning and coordination between jurisdictions. I am pleased to report that we are making progress in that arena, due in 

large part to grant funding requirements that encourage if not require such planning and cooperation. 

A third and significant challenge to establishing and maintaining interoperable 

emergency communications systems along the Texas border is the lack of a reliable 

recurring funding mechanism for operations and maintenance of the systems being 

or about to be deployed. Again, many of the border area agencies lack the tax base 

to support operations and maintenance of the state-of-the-art communications systems they so richly deserve to put them on par with their counterparts in the more 

affluent areas of the State. The funding committee of the TxRC is looking at possible solutions such as a small increase in the 911 service fee charged to customers 

on the public switched telephone network. This fee in Texas is currently set at 50 

cents per telephone line up to 100 lines per subscriber. This fee is utilized to operate 

and maintain the 911 system across the State. A small increase in this fee would 

serve to fund the operation and maintenance of public safety emergency communications systems across the State. This or almost any fee increase will require a tremendous amount of grassroots support across the State to overcome the efforts of 

the lobby whose clients, the service providers, would not support such increases. 
35 

Even as the emergency communications infrastructure is replaced in the border 

region, many of the smaller agencies, especially fire and law enforcement, still have 

been unable to afford to purchase an adequate number of mobile and especially portable radios so their responders will be able to communicate whenever and wherever 

they may have the need. 

As grant funding is made available to the border region, a significant concern is 

that many of the local jurisdictions, particularly those in economically depressed 

areas, and those are many, will be unable to meet the cash match requirements of 

those grants and thus be deprived of the opportunity to upgrade their emergency 

communications systems. 

Even when funding is identified for system upgrades, a lack of available radio 

spectrum could still prevent some jurisdictions along the Texas-Mexico border from 

deploying upgraded systems. The vast majority of the geographic expanse of the 

Texas-Mexico border is currently served by emergency communications systems operating in the VHF band which offers very limited spectrum availability for the public safety user. This band is also plagued by interference from both sides of the border. In instances where the interference is identified as originating from the Mexican side of the border, fortunately, the responder community in some areas along 

the border has established local relationships with Mexican regulatory authorities 

and in many cases, those interference issues are resolved quickly and efficiently 

with often no more than a short visit or a phone call to those authorities. 

Spectrum in the 700 MHz band that will soon become available to most of the 

United States will not be available to public safety along the Texas border until the 

appropriate agreements with Mexico are negotiated. That process is underway with 

no estimate of when that very lengthy process will be completed. 

CROSS-BORDER COMMUNICATIONS

The need for effective, reliable cross-border communications is significant and increasing. Once again, the resourcefulness of local first responders has helped mitigate this issue in some areas but a long-term fixed solution must be identified and 

implemented. This solution is important not only in the case of catastrophic incidents but in day-to-day response. Establishing cross-border mutual aid channels 

with regulatory authority to operate on either side of the border may well be an efficient step in the right direction. 

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

The formation of the Texas Radio Coalition (TxRC) has been instrumental in providing a venue for public safety communications users across Texas to come together 

in many cases for the first time in a spirit of coordination and cooperation. The 

TxRC membership includes representatives of all public safety disciplines from 

local, tribal, State and Federal agencies. The TxRC, by the way, owes much of its 

success to Mr. Peter Collins and to Mr. Mike Simpson, Wireless Communications 

Services Manager for the city of Austin for their unprecedented support for the 

TxRC. 

As a result of having attended the regularly scheduled meetings of the TxRC, representatives of the five Councils of Government (COGs) with counties contiguous to 

the Texas-Mexico border have been working cooperatively to form the Texas Border 

Communications Project. The goal of this project is to maximize utilization of the 

anticipated PSIC funding to establish a common, shared infrastructure within those 

five COG areas of responsibility from El Paso to Brownsville. This group has accomplished more toward cooperation and coordination in the last few months to further 

emergency communications than has ever been accomplished in the border region. 

This border project was born of the effort of the Middle Rio Grande Development 

Council (MRGDC) under the leadership of their Executive Director, Leodoro Martinez with project oversight by their Homeland Security Director, Forrest Anderson. 

MRGDC leadership recognized in 2001 that the first responder community across 

the entire economically depressed nine-county, almost 15,000-square-mile region 

was in desperate need of emergency communications system improvements. Many 

of their agencies were totally dependant upon communications infrastructure that 

was purchased with Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant funding in 

the early 1970’s, was unreliable and obsolete, making repair parts acquisition difficult if not impossible. There were many instances of radio technicians being forced 

to cannibalize the base station radios installed in the 1970’s intended solely for 

interagency communications State-wide, obviously rendering that limited method of 

interoperability totally useless. In some cases, agencies were unable to afford the 

repair costs for their equipment and certainly could not afford to purchase replacement equipment. In some cases, agencies were forced to purchase substandard 
36 

equipment that could not long withstand the rigors of the sometimes harsh public 

safety environment. This situation may have placed the safety of the first responders and the citizens they serve in jeopardy because of poor or nonexistent emergency 

communications. 

The MRGDC emergency communications community came together and after 

studying their options, elected to seek funding to establish a region-wide, multiagency, multi-jurisdiction shared state-of-the-art interoperable communications infrastructure to be deployed across all nine counties of the region. Their first attempts to acquire grant funding to start the project failed. Several members of the 

first responder community approached their congressional and legislative representatives at the time to seek advice on how they might enhance their chances at securing grant funding. Ultimately, congressionally-directed funding was secured to begin 

the project. It was established as a multi-phase project to be deployed over 4 years. 

The originally planned MRGDC Regional Communications Project infrastructure 

should be completed and fully operational by the end of calendar 2008, pending receipt of requested PSIC funding later this Spring. 

The MRGDC regional system is a state-of-the-art, Project 25-compliant, spectrumefficient, VHF-trunked infrastructure currently being shared with local, tribal, State 

and Federal users. The system is switched via a master site switch owned and 

maintained by the city of Austin. Once again, the city of Austin stepped up to the 

plate and offered excess capacity on their switch, at no cost, to assist the MRGDC 

establish their regional system. This infrastructure, while shared across the entire 

nine-county region, still affords each agency the opportunity to have their own private talk groups as their needs may dictate. There are a number of local and regionwide interoperable talk groups available in every radio on the system for use when 

the need arises. One of the pitfalls encountered with this project is that only a limited amount of the budget was dedicated to the purchase of subscriber radio equipment for the first responder community across the region. Consequently, a number 

of agencies have not been able to fully utilize the system due to the fact they cannot 

afford to provide their entire fleet with the required mobile and handheld radio 

equipment until additional grant funding is received. Some agencies were able to 

provide some local funding for purchase of the required subscriber equipment without waiting for the next grant funding cycle. 

Most entities across the Texas-Mexico border region currently utilize radio communications towers that are either expensive leased towers or they are 30–35-yearold towers purchased with LEAA funding in the 1970’s. As the experience in the 

MRGDC deployment would show, those older towers must now be budgeted for replacement. Some of these towers were found to be in serious need of significant repair or replacement due to corrosion and/or a lack of routine preventive maintenance. Some of them are quite simply overloaded with antennas and transmission 

line and may be in danger of collapse due to overloading. 

Several entities within the Texas-Mexico border region have recently acquired mobile communications vans or trailers equipped to provide communications gateway 

functionality to achieve interoperability at incident scenes as may be required from 

time to time. These investments in technology have proven to be quite useful already. A very recent example where the communications trailers were instrumental 

in providing interoperability was the recent incidents of range fires that blackened 

almost 20,000 acres in the South Texas border region. This method of achieving 

interoperability is certainly a necessary part of any interoperable communications 

plan, but it should not be relied upon as a permanent fix. Often, during a critical 

incident, the first 2 hours of the response is the most critical period where interoperability is required. Systems must be designed and deployed so that interoperability is ‘‘always on’’ and at the ready. Another advantage of having this ‘‘always 

on’’ capability is that the emergency communications user community is intimately 

familiar with the equipment because it is their primary means of communication 

and is in use during their day-to-day response. 

In conclusion, it is safe to say that the state of interoperable emergency communications along the Texas border is on the verge of significant improvement, due in 

no small part to the foresight of local leaders and the unwavering support of leaders 

such as Chairman Cuellar, the Members of this subcommittee and other Members 

of Congress. The work has only begun and much remains to be done. Unfortunately, 

many of the entities along the border are only able to provide their demonstrated 

willingness to plan, coordinate and cooperate to ensure that what ever Federal funding they receive will result in a substantial return on investment for the Federal 

Government. 

Again, a sincere thank you for the opportunity to discuss border communications 

issues with you. I look forward to the opportunity to respond to any questions the 

subcommittee may have. 
37 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Peters, thank you again for your testimony 

and you brought up a lot of very interesting points, and we are 

going to have some questions. As you know, the Federal Government put in a billion dollars for the State so they can add interoperability and 5 percent, my understanding, has already gone out 

for planning. The other 95 percent of the $1 billion to be available, 

but a lot will be dependent on what States do to the planning and 

the coordination. So we certainly want to thank you all for the 

leadership that you’ve taken. 

The other thing is the rural areas, that’s a big concern for all of 

us, the small communities, concerns also about the issues about— 

as you know, the 700 megahertz will be available for public safety, 

but the border’s in a very unique situation, Mr. Director. If we 

don’t get an agreement with the Mexican side, that’s going to put 

our side at a disadvantage, so we certainly—I think, Members of 

the committee, we certainly want to make sure that we’re updated 

on that. Certainly we told Secretary Chertoff the other day about 

thinking outside the box. 

The Federal Government has towers along the borders and will 

be putting more towers along the borders, whether for cameras or 

for other purposes. I think a partnership with our State and local 

folks to use those towers instead of reinventing the wheel and putting in another tower and using some of those towers is something 

that I would ask you all to look at to make sure that we coordinate 

that. So we’ll cover some of those points in a few minutes, but 

we’ve got to think outside the box. We’ve got to listen to our folks 

here because the border is in a very, very unique situation, but 

why don’t we go ahead and move on and we’ll open up for questions. 

Mr. Simpson, I want to thank you again—first of all, Mr. Peters, 

thank you again very much, and, Mr. Simpson, I now recognize you 

to summarize your statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SIMPSON, STATE-WIDE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY PLAN COORDINATOR AND 

TECHNOLOGY ADVISOR, TEXAS RADIO COALITION 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee Members, Mr. 

McCaul, my name is Michael Simpson. I’m the wireless communication services manager for the city of Austin, Texas, but I’m appearing today before this body in the capacity of State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan Coordinator and Technology Advisor for the Texas Radio Coalition, also known as the TxRC. This 

group is composed of individuals from various agencies and associations that represent public safety and critical infrastructure first 

responders from both urban and rural areas from across the State, 

thus allowing TxRC to serve as a voice to that community in Texas. 

Governor Rick Perry appointed the TxRC as the governing body 

for the Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan. 

The TxRC’s primary is oversight of public safety communication 

interoperability in Texas and the development and ongoing revision 

of the Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan. The 

responsibility includes, but is not limited to, making official recommendations to the Governor of Texas, the Texas Homeland Security director, and the Governor’s Division of Emergency Manage-
38 

ment. The recommendations concern interoperability technology 

procurement, training exercises, standard operating procedures, 

implementation and funding of the same. 

In a news conference on April 11 of last year, Governor Perry announced a partnership with the TxRC with respect to a State-wide 

interoperable communications plan. In May 2007, the Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McGraw formerly requested that the 

TxRC develop a new Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Working with the Texas Association of Regional Councils of 

Government and the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, the TxRC 

oversaw a State-wide communications asset survey, 27 regional 

and special focus group sessions and a State-wide strategic planning session that led to the development of the 141-page Texas 

State-wide Communication Interoperability Plan. A copy of that 

plan has been submitted to the subcommittee with my written remarks along with an appendix entitled Texas State-wide Interoperability Channel Plan. Copies have been presented to Mr. Turbyfill. 

Although we have interoperability needs in every region, from its 

inception the TxRC has placed improvement of the Texas Border 

Interoperability Communications Radio as its top priority. Toward 

this goal, the TxRC sponsored the formation of the Texas Border 

Communications Project which brings together Federal, State, local 

and tribal agencies in the five councils of governments regions 

along the Texas border with Mexico from El Paso to Brownsville. 

The project oversight team has been meeting on a regular basis 

since the fall of 2007 to coordinate the planning and build-out of 

an integrated standards-based radio communications capability 

from El Paso to Brownsville. The funding approved by Congress in 

the form of the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant 

Program was the catalyst that kick-started this project. Thank you. 

Once grant funding draw-down is approved this spring, the project 

will launch this summer with the PSIC Grant Program performance period to end on August 31, 2010. This piece of the project will 

cost close to $10 million. However, complete build-out of the infrastructure, upgrade of certain existing mobile and portable radios 

and acquisition of needed additional subscriber units will put the 

totality estimated project cost along the border in excess of $150 

million, most of which is unfunded at this time. Additional Federal 

assistance will be needed for successful project completion. 

On behalf of the TxRC and the 24 million Texas residents served 

by our interoperability planning efforts, I thank the subcommittee 

for the opportunity to discuss our activities and plans today. We 

are truly appreciative of the program and funding support to date 

from Congress as we move steadily toward building a State-wide 

standards-based radio system by January 2015. The enormity of 

this undertaking is such that ongoing congressional support will be 

critical to our success. 

Again, thank you, and I stand ready to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Simpson follows:] 
39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SIMPSON

FEBRUARY 19, 2008 

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee Members, my name is Michael Simpson. I am 

the Wireless Communication Services Manager for the city of Austin, Texas, but I 

am appearing today before this body in the capacity of State-wide Communications 

Interoperability Plan Coordinator and Technology Advisor for the Texas Radio Coalition, also known as the TxRC. This group is composed of individuals from various 

agencies and associations that represent public safety and critical infrastructure 

first responders from both urban and rural areas across the State, thus allowing 

TxRC to serve as a voice for that community in Texas. 

Governor Rick Perry appointed the TxRC as the governing body for the Texas 

State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan. TxRC’s primary purpose is oversight of public safety communications interoperability in Texas, and the development and on-going revision of the Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan. Responsibility includes, but is not to be limited to, making official recommendations to the Governor of Texas, the Texas Homeland Security Director, and 

the Governor’s Division of Emergency Management. Recommendations concern 

interoperability technology procurement, training, exercises, standard operating procedures, implementation, and funding of same. 

In a news conference on April 11, 2007, Governor Perry announced a partnership 

with the TxRC with respect to State-wide interoperable communications planning. 

In May, 2007, Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw formally requested 

the TxRC to develop the new Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability 

Plan, as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

Working with the Texas Association of Regional Councils of Governments and the 

Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, TxRC oversaw a State-wide communications assets 

survey process, 27 regional and special Focus Group Sessions, and a State-wide 

Strategic Planning Session that led to the development of the 141-page Texas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. A copy of the Plan has been submitted 

to the subcommittee with my written remarks, along with an appendix entitled the 

Texas State-wide Interoperability Channel Plan. 

Although we have interoperability needs in every region, from its inception, the 

TxRC has placed improvement of Texas border interoperable radio communications 

as its top priority. Toward this goal, TxRC sponsored the formation of the Texas 

Border Communications Project, which brings together Federal, State, local, and 

tribal agencies in the five Councils of Governments’ regions along the Texas border 

with Mexico. The Project Oversight Team has been meeting on a regular basis since 

the fall of 2007 to coordinate the planning and build-out of an integrated, ‘‘standards-based’’ radio communication capability from El Paso to Brownsville. The funding approved by Congress in the form of the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program was the catalyst that kick-started this project. Once 

grant funding draw-down is approved this Spring, the Project will launch this summer, with the PSIC Grant Program performance period to end August 31, 2010. 

This piece of the Project will cost close to $10 million. However, complete build-out 

of the infrastructure, upgrade of certain existing mobile and portable radios, and acquisition of needed additional subscriber units, will put the total estimated Project 

cost in excess of $150 million, most of which is unfunded. Additional Federal assistance will be needed for successful Project completion. 

On behalf of the TxRC, and the 24 million Texas residents served by our interoperability planning efforts, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss 

our activities and plans today. We are truly appreciative of the program and funding 

support to date from Congress, as we move steadily toward building a State-wide 

standards-based radio system by January, 2015. The enormity of this undertaking 

is such that on-going congressional support will be critical to our success. 

I will be glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Simpson, again, thank you very much for your 

testimony and for the work that you’ve done, and I want to thank 

all of the witnesses for being here at this time. I would like to remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question 

the panel with a little flexibility, of course, added. I will go ahead 

and I’ll now recognize myself for the first set of questions. 

This question goes to Director Essid. As you know, the International Board of Interoperability Communications Demonstration 
40 

Project was created by implementing recommendation of the 9/11 

Commissions Act of 2007. I was a Member of that particular bill. 

It was signed into law on August 3, 2007. It is my understanding 

that your office has been coordinating with FCC and the Department of Commerce to decide the location of six communities along 

the northern and southern borders for this pilot. The pilot—I assume this project, three will probably be in the northern part of the 

States and three in the southern part of the United States, I assume. Can you give the committee an update of what has transpired so far in the interactions with FCC and the Department of 

Commerce and explain the criteria that’s been developed to select 

these six communities and when you expect that pilot program to 

start. 

Mr. ESSID. Mr. Chairman, right now the criteria is still under development. We know what was given to us per the legislation, but, 

you know, criteria hasn’t been finalized. We’re coordinating right 

now. We’ve submitted some estimates at your request. That’s still 

going through the approval process at DHS to give you some estimates on the cross-border projects, but right now as far as final criteria goes, we don’t have any yet. We’re still working on it. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Can you give us an rough estimate when you’ll 

be—I don’t want to tie it up to the exact date and hour, but a 

rough estimate? 

Mr. ESSID. Well, you know, right now we’re trying to figure out— 

there’s various options for the cross-border projects. Would it be a 

split three in the northern, three in the southern, what size 

projects, small, medium, large, voice and data. There’s so many 

variables that we’re working through right now to establish the criteria and then those are directly linked to what funding the 

projects would require also, sir. So we’re working on it. We’re moving as quickly as possible. We should have some criteria I know in 

the very near future, but as far as the specific dates, sir, I can go 

back and ask my staff if you would like and I can get you a response on record. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you. Just give us an update on the progress 

on that and to the committee staff. Let me—questions again for 

Mr. Essid, for Mr. Peters and Mr. Ledezma, and then I have a 

question for Mr. Simpson on one issue. Congress, as you know, set 

the date of February 17, 2009 to transfer portions of the 700 megahertz spectrum to the public safety in the budget Reconciliation Act 

of 2006. The FCC is currently in the process of auctioning this 

spectrum. In your testimony, Mr. Peters, you raised a very troubling fact that the 700 megahertz band will not become available 

to public safety along the Texas border unless the appropriate 

agreements between the United States and Mexico are negotiated. 

My first question to you and then I’ll move onto the other individuals, Mr. Peters, can you further elaborate on how you believe this 

will impact Texas and what outstanding issues that are still under 

consideration? 

Mr. PETERS. As I mentioned in my testimony, the majority of the 

geography along the Texas-Mexico border now is covered by systems that operate in the VHF frequency band—VMF high band frequency band. Someone in here smarter than I am can probably correct me if I’m wrong, but somewhere in the neighborhood of a little 
41 

over 3 megahertz are available—in that spectrum available to public safety. The 700 megahertz spectrum, there is a total of 24 megahertz available depending on locations and other uses and so forth. 

Until the treaties are negotiated with Mexico, those 700 megahertz 

frequency-based spectrum is not available to border areas across 

the country for that matter within 140 kilometers of the border. We 

can’t fire up the transmitter on those frequencies until those treaties are agreed to with Mexico. Not a small task in itself is getting 

those treaties. There are television stations in Mexico operating on 

those frequencies still and, as a matter of fact, there’s still some 

in the United States. But as you mentioned, February 2009 they 

are supposed to be gone and public safety will have priority. But 

not having that spectrum available to public safety along the border will have a significant negative impact on interoperability 

along the border. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you. Mr. Essid, with February 17, 2009 just 

a year away—less than a year away, can you explain what the 

principal Federal agencies involved in this negotiation, DHS, the 

State, tell us, you know, where are we on this negotiation because 

that’s going to put the whole border at a very disadvantage, and 

I think you know my personal feelings. You know, it’s—people talk 

about a wall, but we can’t even get these communications between 

our neighbors started, and we’re extremely interested in where we 

are on this issue. 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir. We’ve got some pretty good negotiations and 

coordination going on between the United States and Mexico with 

the High Level Consultative Commission, the HLCC. They have 

got some long-term border interoperability solutions we’ve been 

working on. We attended some meetings in Mexico earlier this 

month and making a lot of progress, you know, and it’s really looking at the first ever long-term agreement between the U.S. Government, the Mexican Government or the State, local and Federal 

folks along the border. 

I know 700 megahertz is in those discussions right now. I don’t 

know the exact point where we’re at today, but what I will do is 

find out when I go back to the District of Columbia, have my staff 

research it and report back to the committee. I know that’s one of 

the issues that is amongst a lot of the issues that are being discussed, but we’re making significant progress on a lot of the issues, 

and I don’t know the exact point where 700 megahertz is right 

now, but our intent is to move forward and get some agreements 

as quickly as possible, not to hold anyone up from planning. 

Mr. CUELLAR. And not only keep us in informed, but I specifically 

would request to you that the different witnesses are here, that 

y’all get to know each other real quickly and communicate. So not 

only with our committee, but also with the witnesses who are here, 

all of them present. 

One other question. Mr. Ledezma, just to follow up on this is who 

in the Mexican Government is—are the equivalent participants or 

negotiating these agreements. 

Mr. LEDEZMA. There’s one group responsible of communication 

we’re talk being about here. That will be the Federal Government. 

That will be from Secretaria de Gobernacion. That depends on 

them. 
42 

Mr. CUELLAR. If you can just send a message back, very amicable 

message from us that we would like for y’all to continue working 

with our Federal Government to get this agreement done as soon 

as possible because it is going to affect both sides of the river 

where we talk about public safety. 

Mr. LEDEZMA. We’ll extend the communication. 

Mr. CUELLAR. One question, then I’ll pass it on to Mr. Simpson. 

Mr. Simpson, in your testimony you state that the Texas Radio Coalition has been very successful in working collectively to create a 

State-wide radio communication system, and I thank you for all the 

work that y’all have been doing. The Texas Radio Coalition seems 

to be ahead of the curve when it comes to governance and planning, and because of the effort and energy that y’all had put in and 

I certainly applaud you for the efforts, can you elaborate as to what 

are the best practices that can be shared with other States that 

may lack the level of coordination we’ve instituted here in the State 

of Texas? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Congressmen, Mr. Chairman, we were extremely 

lucky to form an alliance early on in our process which is only May 

of last year, it wasn’t that long ago, with the Texas Association of 

Regional Councils of Government that already had a standing 

weekly conference call for all 24 COGs with the SAA, the State Administrative Agency, with the Government Division of Emergency 

Management that does grant administration through DHS. So that 

framework was already there and I encourage people that use existing frameworks that may be available in their States rather 

than try to invent something new. Because of these regional councils of government, they deal with the various counties within the 

region and then the county emergency management coordinators 

deal with individual cities and fire departments and police departments within those counties. So that network was already there 

and we just kind of tapped into it. 

We also through a partnership with Joe’s group, Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, already has a wide network made up of law enforcement throughout the State. That’s very important to us and 

then, of course, working with Government Division of Emergency 

Management staff. So together as a collective body, we put together 

a scheme on how we’re going to pull this off as far as our planning 

efforts to build a new system, and we only have about 4 to 6 

months to put a plan together for 24 million people. We started 

with surveying all the police, fire and EMS agencies throughout 

the State through this COG process. That filled it up, and we conducted 27 focus group sessions and regions around the State, and 

we have a monthly TxRC steering committee meeting in Austin 

and that rolled up into a State strategic planning session that we’ll 

hold every year to discuss where we are in the state of interoperability communications to make changes to our plan. 

The outgrowth of all of that was a State-wide communication in 

our building plan that was then presented to our governance bodies, our oversight bodies, the executive committee which is made up 

of the director of the State police, the DPS, the director of the 

Texas Transportation Department, other key players and city and 

county government, health, around the State. They passed our plan 

out and we submitted it to DHS the week before on December 3. 
43 

That was kind of a crash program in how we did it. I’m sure there’s 

pieces of Texas that we haven’t gotten to and it may not have trickled down to every individual, but we’re continuing our outreach in 

that respect. 

Mr. CUELLAR. With 254 counties I think you’ve done very well, 

so thank you again very much. At this time I’d like to recognize 

the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent, the gentleman from Pennsylvania for questions. 

Mr. DENT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Essid, I guess my question to you is, as you know, the Office of Emergency Communications was established by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act of 2006. The office was formerly established in 2007. 

Would you please discuss the progress that’s being made in fully 

establishing the Office of Emergency Communications and also, 

how many full-time staff you have versus contractors? 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir. Well, I’m happy to say right now we have 

announcements on the street, Federal announcements for job opportunities. Seventeen of them were announced late last week, 

early this week. As it stands right now we have five Federal employees, GS, government service employees, and we have about 100 

contractors, so supporting our effort now our plans are to hire 37 

GS employees to offset that balance. 

Mr. DENT. So you are using contractors right now because you 

can’t hire Federal employees? 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir, and we’ve also got some assistance that we’ve 

requested to have, detailees from other DHS agencies to come in 

to help us in the year term. Apparently, the hiring process in the 

Federal Government just—I’m 2 months on the job and I’m just 

learning a whole lot about the Federal process, but it takes—it’s 

pretty time-consuming, so we’re looking at every option we can to 

try to get some other Federal employees in the door to help the Office of Emergency Communications. 

Mr. DENT. What can we do to help you hire people? Would a direct hire authority be helpful to you? 

Mr. ESSID. Well, sir, we looked to requesting a direct hire authority and the process it takes to request it and then get approval we 

were told can take anywhere up to 6 months, so we rapidly 

scrapped that option for our initial wave of employees. I do—you 

know, I do appreciate the offer to help. One good thing, sir, that 

I think the committee will be happy to hear is that we have a lot 

of interest in coming to the Office of Emergency Communication 

from folks that have been working interoperability for 10 years. 

Some of them are Federal employees that might be able to come 

into the door a little quicker than a 6-month process in transfers. 

So we’ve got a lot of interest in these jobs. People are asking when 

are you going to advertise them or are there any opportunities 

where we can come on board and assist you in your mission immediately, but, you know, I’m not really sure what assistance can be 

offered. I know Secretary Chertoff has offered the same assistance 

and he offered to provide detailees from the agency and put out 

that request. 

Mr. DENT. Another question, I guess, for Mr. Peters. We talked 

a little bit about lack of operability, not to mention the challenges 

of interoperability, but operability. What is your sense from a 
44 

State-wide perspective—not looking at Nuevo Laredo for a little 

bit—what is the current state of interoperability between Texas 

and other States, like Arkansas, Oklahoma, or Louisiana, and how 

does that compare to what’s happening down here with Mexico? Is 

it better across the border than it is with the other States? I’m just 

looking at my perspective from Pennsylvania. Many of my constituents commute from New York City every day, you know, New Jersey and New York City, and we look at interoperability kind of 

within the State silo. We’ve got New Jersey and New York to deal 

with and New York City has its own challenges. I’m just curious 

how the interstate play is versus the international play. 

Mr. PETERS. I would suggest that the interoperability challenges 

between the States are probably not as challenging as those between Texas and Mexico. Fortunately, the local agencies or local 

public safety first responders, if you will, in a lot of cases have good 

relationships with their counterparts on the other side of the border, and often it’s easier to get cooperation from our counterparts 

on the other side of the border than it is to get cooperation amongst 

ourselves, but—— 

Mr. DENT. I had a feeling you were going to say that, but go 

ahead. 

Mr. PETERS. Well, I just thought if the shoe fits we need to wear 

it, do something about it. Maybe we can take some lessons from 

our friends in Mexico about cooperation, but as far as interoperable 

communications with surrounding States, Louisiana, Arkansas, 

Oklahoma, New Mexico and so forth, Texas has developed a— 

Texas Communications Interoperable Channel Plan that is a list of 

VHF frequencies, 800 frequencies, 700 frequencies when they become available and they have—we have identified as available 

State-wide, those frequencies are all licensed to the Texas Department of Public Safety State-wide, and if a local entity will sign a 

memorandum agreement with the Department of Public Safety, 

they are free to and encouraged to utilize those interoperable frequencies. These are Simplex frequencies. They can for the most 

part only be used at an incident, but still that has been—that has 

proven quite successful, and we invite the other States to participate as well. 

Mr. DENT. With respect to interoperability, you have various 

challenges due to geography or land. In my own State we have 

mountains in northeastern Pennsylvania. That has interrupted 

interoperable communications. In fact that is where the first cable 

company was laid up there actually because of those reasons, because of those intended issues, I’m curious, do you have those same 

challenges here in Texas? 

Mr. PETERS. Yes, sir. Just probably more of them. We need to 

keep in mind too that generally the VHF system that was deployed 

in the early 1970’s with LEAA grant funding was deployed across 

Texas for the most part and was designed at the time for mobile 

communications, and, you know, the towers were spaced accordingly in some cases and in some cases the engineers put a dart on 

the map and placed a tower. Those tower placements need to be 

reconsidered as we move to 700 megahertz and 800 megahertz because of the difference in propagation characteristics between the 

bands, and we’re experiencing now coverage problems where the 
45 

public safety responder is demanding or requiring—not necessarily 

demanding, but requiring communications with hand-held radios or 

portable radios. They can’t always have their vehicle with them 

with a high-powered radio in it. They get out of the car on the border or out of truck on the border. They are on their own. Often 

don’t have commercial service coverage in the areas and would be 

totally dependent on the public safety infrastructure that we provide them. Unfortunately, the system that is currently in use in 

most of those rural areas particularly was not designed for portable 

coverage. 

Mr. DENT. I guess one thing too, you keep talking about operability, which I think is important. One of the problems with 

Katrina was, of course, operability. Nothing was operating. I guess 

just to get back to the issue of 700 megahertz, and maybe Mr. 

Landin can help me with this with respect to Laredo, I think you 

already touched on this issue. You can’t implement a 700 megahertz system until this treaty is implemented or signed, but how 

much of the 700 megahertz system is being implemented throughout Texas right now, I guess, absent the border communities? How 

long will it take to get the treaty ratified? 

Mr. PETERS. If the question to me is as to how long it will take 

to get the treaty ratified, I don’t have a clue except that we don’t 

anticipate it will happen any time soon because of the challenges 

that are based by the people that are doing those negotiations. We 

would encourage a prompt response and every effort be applied to 

making that happen because it is so critical to national security 

that the first responders along the southwest border, particularly, 

and the northern border as well have the capacity to communicate 

not only amongst themselves, but with their counterparts on the 

other side of those borders. 

Mr. DENT. Mr. Landin, the 700 megahertz issue, how is that 

going to affect you if we don’t get this treaty issue resolved? 

Mr. LANDIN. Currently the city of Laredo is on the 800 megahertz spectrum, and as I mentioned in my testimony, we do have 

the largest infrastructure radio infrastructure in our region alone, 

and, again, we’re far away from any of the or communities. We’re 

about an hour’s drive away on the U.S. side, and, so, yes, we are 

on the 800 spectrum as we currently speak and it’s functioning 

very, very well. 

Mr. DENT. My final question, I guess, is to our friends from 

Nuevo Laredo. When an incident occurs in Nuevo Laredo that will 

affect Laredo, how is that information communicated to officials 

here in Laredo? 

Mr. LEDEZMA. There’s a—it’s called C4. When there’s a contingency in the United States and Mexico, the first ones that will be 

called will be Secretaria de Gobernacion. Secretaria de Gobernacion 

will delegate the responsibilities to C4. That is what we call it. 

That will be center of control command and compute. After the immediate, it will be notified for the different authorities that will 

be—Sedena will be the Mexican military, Procuraduria General of 

the Republica, the attorney general, will be combined with all authorities and it will just be one host for the authorities. 

Mr. LANDIN. I can expand a little bit on that because we do respond to the border on the bomb threats and also the river rescues, 
46 

the Laredo Fire Department responds there, and so basically the 

way we get the call is basically over the telephone through 911 and 

we pick up a tie line and our Laredo International Bridge, it will 

directly call over to the Nuevo Laredo Bridge and that will activate 

them and then they’ll communicate on their end. On our end we’re, 

again, on the 800 spectrum radio system and that’s the way we 

currently respond through phone currently or personal cell phones 

or regular land lines. 

Mr. DENT. Do you have any mutual aid agreements between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo whether it’s a fire or other type of incident? 

Mr. LANDIN. We do have an understanding and we have responded to fires in Nuevo Laredo as recently as the Christmas season. We assisted the Nuevo Laredo Fire Department in extinguishing a couple of houses that burned over there and as well as 

some grass fires that were ongoing over there during that time. So, 

yes, we do have that understanding. We do respond in there into 

Nuevo Laredo, and basically our radios will work to very limited 

capabilities, but we cannot communicate with Nuevo Laredo at all 

over the radio. Basically we rely on hand signals or we can call 

them through Nextels as they’ve indicated a little while ago. That 

is the way we rely on communicating with them in emergency situations. That is why we bring that solution that—that I proposed in 

my testimony was basically the addition of towers that would be 

able to carry over and provide us communication into Mexico for 

that purpose and adding additional infrastructure along the border 

would be a big plus for that. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Before I pass him on just a clarification. Mr. Essid, 

who are the principal participants responsible in this U.S.-Mexico 

negotiations? Is it the OEC, DHS or is it the State Department? 

Mr. ESSID. I know it’s OEC and the State Department. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Who’s the driving force on our side? 

Mr. ESSID. OEC is really going down there with the technical negotiations, and so we’re working in conjunction with the State Department, sir. I mean I don’t know who the driving force is. I know 

we have to go through the State Department with our negotiations 

and our coordination with the Mexican Government. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Again, just to remind you, we want to be informed 

periodically. I’ll let y’all work it out with our staff. 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir. It will be first and foremost on my mind 

when I go back to Washington. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes 5 

minutes from the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Essid, do we have the same problem on the 

northern border with the 700 megahertz? 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir. I think we’re going to have coordination with 

both borders. 

Mr. SOUDER. Is there as much resistance on the northern border? 

In other words, they have TV stations and that’s the only two you 

know. 

Mr. ESSID. Well, it’s complicated. I’m sure they have the same 

issues that everyone’s having with the TV stations having to, you 

know, vacate and then you have buffer zones and things of that nature until you get these treaties worked out. I do know we’re working with the 2010 Olympics and we’re working through going 
47 

through some planning that’s involving the Canadian government 

as well, so this issue has come up there. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Peters and Mr. Simpson, maybe I can start 

with you on this question. Do—these radios, are they used for law 

enforcement in addition to fire and public safety? 

Mr. PETERS. The idea is to have one radio that will serve all disciplines. 

Mr. SOUDER. Is it a similar challenge or different as it relates to 

our Federal agencies like Border Patrol? 

Mr. PETERS. It depends on the area you are talking about. The 

city of Laredo, for example, operates on an 800 megahertz trunk 

system. The Federal agencies in all the borders that I’m aware of 

operate at VHF. The two are not compatible. 

Mr. SOUDER. So as I move along the Texas border, different sheriff’s departments are sometimes going to be able to interconnect 

with Border Patrol and sometimes not? 

Mr. PETERS. That’s true readily. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Essid, that—one of my frustrations is have you 

ever dealt with the Department of Defense? Do they talk to you 

about what they’ve done on this? 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir. We’re coordinating with them right now. 

They’re part of a coordination effort amongst a lot of different Federal entities that OEC is leading. 

Mr. SOUDER. On behalf of the taxpayers, the stovepiping gets incredibly frustrating. I mean I have a man in my district who at the 

request—this has got to be 15 years ago at this point trying to get 

the SNDRs radios and other military radios and you are just raising a technical problem. He’s already fixed it, that you can take 

any different radios and interconnect the radios. It’s not something 

that has to be invented here or it’s as difficult as can be because 

we were running into this problem and when we’re in a military 

situation, they can’t have this happen. The question is why doesn’t 

the technology that—this is true on some of our defense protection 

or other electronics protection. 

We’re having huge problems where they can’t get the cameras to 

work on Project 28 right now and Boeing’s bringing in another 

team. They have already done this at the military bases 10 years 

ago, and the interoperability of radios sounds to me a lot like a solution trying to find the problem. That, in other words, we’ve already solved it. The question is what’s the cost of this? What is the 

challenge of this to get this type of thing? It’s a similar thing that 

the Department of Interior hasn’t looked at this enough and the 

Federal Government—I mean we start a forest fire and—forest fire 

starts and you have the Interior Department people looking, local 

fire department and different States come in and they have to take 

down helicopters and stop the spring because they can’t talk to 

each other and they are afraid they are going to run into each 

other when, in fact, we’ve taken care of this. 

I would encourage you to not blame DHS here. The Department 

of Defense has been at times less than willing to share full cooperation. I mean, admittedly they are busy, but at the same time they 

tend not to do this, and Homeland Security has to be more aggressive or come to Congress and say, look, we’re not getting the co-
48 

operation. We need you to push the Department of Defense because 

taxpayers have already funded a bunch of this stuff. 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, sir, I agree, and I think your comments underscore a greater need for interoperability. The technologies exist— 

I think everyone on this panel here would agree that the technologies exist to solve the problem. What we need to invest in focusing on is governance, standard operating procedures, training 

and exercises. This is a 90 percent coordination, 10 percent technology problem, and Texas has done a great job of coordinating 

from what I’m hearing, and the coordination is where getting folks 

in a room and talking about these issues before an incident is how 

we’re going to solve this problem, sir. I mean we’ve spent so much 

money on equipment, and as a State—former State person in Virginia when we did inventories I was always amazed at the amount 

of equipment, the sheer volume of stuff that people had bought to 

try to solve this problem. 

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask you one other line of questioning on the 

risk assessment of how you decide where you are going to spend 

your money. Is it—I thought the implication was nearly divided by 

population at this point. Do you have some risk assessment criteria 

that can go beyond that? For example, where you see signing 

across from Detroit we have all these chemical plants right along 

the river versus a border crossing where—how do you do the risk 

assessment on what the potential damage is to public safety—how 

do you factor in the tornado alleys in New Orleans where you are 

doing your communication system? 

Mr. ESSID. Sir, we’ve been working with FEMA right now about 

how these risk assessments are done. I know it’s usually a combination of population and then threat of natural or man-made disaster, but I’m not exactly 100 percent up to how these different 

threat assessments are conducted. I mean—— 

Mr. SOUDER. But there will be a prioritization process based on 

risk assessment? There will be a prioritization of where grants go 

based on risk assessment? 

Mr. ESSID. I believe a portion of the funding will be as a risk assessment, yes, sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Souder. At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas also, Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all 

of the panelists. I also want to commend Mr. Peters and Mr. Simpson for your leadership on this issue. Getting five COGs together 

along the border with Mexico is not an easy thing to accomplish, 

and I’ve been to a couple of your meetings and I’ve sort of witnessed first-hand the great accomplishment that you had made in 

terms of laying the foundation and the structure—maybe infrastructure in place to make it happen. I think that’s actually a 

model I think the rest of the country can look at in terms of how 

to better put this together. 

My questions are—really have to do with funding because that’s 

what we do in the Congress. We fund things, and we probably 

spend too much money, but this is an important issue I think we 

need to be spending money on. The last Congress we appropriated 

a billion dollars of grant funding for this purpose. Out of that bil-
49 

lion dollars, $65 million came to the State of Texas, about $14.5 

million of that went to the Houston area which does have some 

high-risk assets, leaving about roughly $50 million for the rest of 

the State. 

You just said, Mr. Simpson, that you need about $150 million to 

really be able to fully fund and carry out your operations. Can you 

explain to me—obviously we’re going to have a deficiency there. 

Can you explain to me what is it—what would be the plan with the 

full $150 million? 

Mr. SIMPSON. The $150 million estimate only pertains to the border COGs. Texas conducted the study about 8 years ago State-wide 

which is kind of an updated $1.6 billion to really do everything that 

needs to be done in Texas. The border being a subset of that, estimates have been somewhere in excess of $150 million to complete 

the radio system network from Brownsville to El Paso. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Where is that money going to come from? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, we’re trying to be as inventive as possible. 

We have our regular Homeland Security grant funding as well as 

the FISA grant. Most of the granting authorities when you put 

forth the best of justifications, they like to see that you are maximizing the income from a variety of resources and that you had a 

long-term plan that you divided in phases and that you put together large consortiums of entities that are working cooperatively 

together. 

So with that in mind we’re also looking at the Assistance to Firefighter Grant. Quite a bit of money is available there. The Community Oriented Police and Services Grants from the Department of 

Justice by invitation of certain metropolitan statistical areas which 

also received several in the last 2 years and others at that time, 

so we’re reaching out to all sources, plus there’s local bond elections 

and COs and operating budgets. Those are still far short. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I guess Steve McGraw, my old friend from the FBI, 

is going to be making the allocations with regard to the $65 million 

to the State. You are working closely with him? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Very closely. In fact, if you factor out the State agency share and the strategic reserve funds, that leaves about $33 

million for the various councils of governance, and if you divide 24 

into $34 million, you get something like a million-three or whatever 

per COG and the COG may be made up of three to 20 counties. 

So you can see at the bottom end there’s not a lot of money actually 

available at the user level. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yeah, I agree that’s going to be a rural problem. 

I failed to mention the city of Austin’s role in all this, and being 

from Austin, I appreciate the leadership they have provided. 

Mr. Essid, getting to the funding issue, the administration’s 2009 

budget request for DHS does not include funding for the Interoperable Communications Grant Program and proposes to cut funding 

for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, another large 

funding source for these communications activities. In other words, 

sort of zero—we got a billion dollars last year in grant funding, but 

this budget request, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m 

wrong, is zeroed out with no money. In fact, they’re not only zeroed 

out, but they are now giving you additional cuts. Can you explain 

why in this particular area? 
50 

Mr. ESSID. Well, no, sir. I do know—I can’t explain that. I can 

just say that, you know, FEMA just recently released 16 grant programs a few weeks ago and a lot of these grants, if not all of these 

grants, are eligible for interoperable communications investments. 

Communications investments go on in a lot of these different. They 

kind of dominate a lot of the grant requests throughout the Nation 

from all the States. It’s such an important issue, so I know there 

is a lot of funding available in these larger Homeland Security 

grant programs and other grant programs that can be set aside by 

States and localities for interoperable communications, you know, 

and so there’s a lot of opportunity here with the coordination we’re 

seeing from the panel members here in Texas. I think that’s the 

first step to investing in the right things, but, you know, communications investments are eligible for these grant funds. 

Mr. MCCAUL. In fact, I’m meeting with the DHS grants person 

after this hearing, and I’ll be talking to him about this specific request. I think we got out in front, we have this structure in place 

and I’d like to see the funding there for you so that we can make 

it a success. It’s something I think the rest of the country can appreciate. 

Last, I want to—my last question has to do with our relationship 

with Mexico. You talked about mutual aid—mutual border aid 

agreements. I think, Mr. Landin, you said that there are actually 

some of those in place already? 

Mr. LANDIN. We do have them in place, and we have gone— 

mainly the United States, you know, Laredo has gone into Mexico 

and I know that Dr. Gonzalez works very closely with the physicians and the health departments on the Nuevo Laredo side. We 

do have a larger fire department than theirs, Nuevo Laredo, so basically the request mainly comes from them to us and we do honor 

those requests, and we do go into Mexico to provide those services. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Mr. Ledezma, we met with President Calderon. He 

mentioned that he has committed or dedicated 30,000 Mexican 

troops, soldiers, to the northern border or to the respective borders 

of Mexico, southern and northern. Can you comment on—well, first 

of all, the level of communication between the Mexican military 

and our side of the border, who are they talking about? Are they 

talking to our military or are they talking to our law enforcement? 

Mr. LEDEZMA. There’s a monthly meeting between both cities, 

the United States and Mexico, and there’s collaboration between 

[Spanish] and Mr. Ledezma right now in the U.S. customs for civil 

protection, fire departments, the United States Army, the Mexican 

Army, also with the FBI. There’s one right now is—my understanding from Mr. Ledezma right now there’s a meeting and 

they’re in communication right now. Like Mr. Ledezma said, 

there’s via phone. That’s all we have right now or the Nextel. 

That’s our communication with the fire department. We communicate ourselves with Nextels. That’s how we are—the communication we have right now. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Very last question and, again, to Mr. Ledezma. 

This may be outside the scope of this hearing, but since we have 

you here, I’d like to ask this question. That is the well-being of the 

city of Nuevo Laredo. We know that the—a lot of businesses have 

moved out. We know that the level of violence that was there with 
51 

the drug cartels. Can you comment on the current security in the 

city of Nuevo Laredo and particularly with the introduction of the 

new Federal troops? 

Mr. LEDEZMA. The intervention of the federal government or federal Army right now, it’s rolled up by the authorities in Mexico 

right now. It gives you a better security to the people in Nuevo Laredo. Mr. Ledezma as director of the safety civil police, his work 

is to see the people in Nuevo Laredo have a better business there. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. We certainly wish you all the success 

there, that the businesses will be back in full force and health and 

prosperity and security. Thank you so much. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. McCaul, and, again, it was a 

pleasure going with Representative McCaul to Mexico City just recently to a fact-finding case. I really appreciate it. It was very good 

for us. Any other questions? I have no further questions. 

Mr. DENT. Just one brief one. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, sir, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. I’ll be very brief. Mr. Simpson, I neglected 

to ask you during my first round: How did the Texas Radio Coalition work with the Office of Emergency Communications and did 

you guys consult with the OEC during the drafting of the Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Our association with the OEC is kind of recent in 

nature, only in the matter of the last few weeks. We were struggling in the process last year to get this plan crunched in such a 

short period of time. We reached out to as many as we could. VHS, 

ICTAP particularly which is part of OEC did provide technical assistance to us during the search process and so we had a relationship there, but our relationship has kind of been renewed as of recent in the last 2 weeks with the Southwest Border Regional Working Group. In fact, they may be coming—Chris and I were talking 

earlier about some of these folks coming to our next meeting in 

April to see what we were doing to kind of firm up those relations. 

So our relationship is improving with all Federal agencies, particularly OEC. 

Mr. DENT. So you really didn’t get much feedback then from OEC 

regarding your State-wide plan? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Only through the ICTAP. That was very, very useful. They came down for several working days with a team of three 

people. It was intense sessions and lots of phone calls and it was 

very much appreciated. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Souder, any other questions? 

Mr. SOUDER. No. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. No, sir. 

Mr. CUELLAR. First of all, before we start closing up, I want to 

thank my colleagues here. As you can tell, these Members are extremely knowledgeable in Homeland Security, whether it’s in the 

northern part or the southern part of the United States, and, actually, we’re all pretty docile in the questions because we’ve been a 

little more aggressive on the questioning, but today, you know, I 

really appreciate the work that they’ve done. They are colleagues 

of mine, and I really appreciate their expertise here. I know that 
52 

some of them will be leaving us after a while, but I do want to 

thank them for coming down here to Laredo. 

A couple of just—couple things before we close up. I know one 

of the things that McCaul—we got together last night. We were 

talking about this. One of the things that we are going to be doing 

afterwards and anybody that’s willing to join us after the grant 

seminar is that we’re going to go down to an area where the Texas 

Soil and Water Conservation has worked on clearing up the 

Carrizo. As you know, there’s different thoughts on how to do this. 

With all due respect to our friends at Homeland, they want to 

bring in—I think their solution is to bring in Spanish bugs to eat 

up the Carrizo. I’m concerned about what happens when they finish eating the Carrizo what sort of diet they are going to go after 

and that’s going to take really honestly a couple of years before 

they see the unforeseen. 

There’s some solutions that have been taken care of. In fact, Michael, I think you were at the Steve La Mantias ranch where they 

actually got rid of Carrizo and put grass there so make sure there 

is no erosion. So there’s other places, and I know that afterwards 

if anybody wants to join us this after the grants, anybody that 

wants to join us, you are welcome to do that, No. 1. 

No. 2, we’re going to go ahead and break off for lunch, but I do 

ask you to come back at 1:30. At 1:30 we have the other part, 

which is a grant seminar. The two folks that we have here is— 

these are key people that we have here. First of all, we have Mr. 

Ed Staples, the manager of the Homeland Security Grants Coordinator for the State. Is Edward here? Edward, thank you very 

much. Edward will be making a presentation, and we want to 

thank you again. Again, Federal and State dollars going in to you 

and we appreciate you being here. Ross Ashley, the FEMA assistant administrator, who’s now the head of the grants program. 

Where is Ross? There you are. Thank you. Ross will be here. These 

two people are key to Federal grants and State dollars going—Federal dollars going through the State for the applications. I certainly 

want to welcome everybody. I know we got—I see many faces 

from—all the way from the valley up to the San Antonio area to 

former judges from Laredo. So many people here from Ryan Gant’s 

office. So many other folks here. I would ask you to come back at 

1:30. The two gentlemen will be making the presentation. 

This grant seminar is key. It really is. I know we’ve been very 

successful in getting more grants, but this presentation as to what 

dollars are available, what are the timetables, what are the criteria. I ask you to come back for all the first responders that we 

have. I’m really, really happy because we’ve got folks from all over 

the place. I’ll ask you to come back, go have lunch, be back the 

same place here at 1:30. 

The last comment before I close up, Mr. Essid, I ask you to establish this relationship with Mr. Simpson, with Mr. Peters, Mr. 

Ledezma, Mr. Landin and any of the folks because you as the new 

director, and I know you are new and I appreciate that, but you 

got to work with these folks. These folks have been on the ground 

for years and years, and, you know, you were in Virginia. You understand how the State and locals can provide a lot of new ideas 

to the Federal Government. 
53 

I would ask you to follow up with our staff. Coming down in 

April, that’s great, but if you need to see them before, if y’all want 

to go up there before, please work with our staff so we could set 

up and facilitate the meetings, but, again, these people have been 

here on the ground for years and we ask you to please take advantage. 

So at this time with this house cleaning, we’re going to go ahead 

and break for lunch. Be back at 1:30. Ask everybody to be back. 

I thank all the witnesses for the valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the subcommittee may 

have some other questions to ask you. Having no further business, 

the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR OF TEXAS FOR CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. Mr. Essid, as you know, the International Border Interoperability 

Communications Demonstration Project was created by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which was signed into law on 

August 3, 2007. It is my understanding that your office has been coordinating with 

the FCC and the Department of Commerce to decide the location of six communities 

along the Northern and Southern borders for this pilot project. Can you give the 

committee an update of what has transpired thus far in your interactions with the 

FCC and the Commerce Department? 

Can you explain the criteria being developed to choose these six communities and 

when you expect it to begin? 

Given what you heard at the hearing on February 19, 2008 about the 

vulnerabilities and the unique border positioning we are confronted with in my District along the Texas-Mexico border, do you believe Laredo would be an appropriate 

location for this border demonstration project? 

Answer. The proposed selection criteria for the International Border Interoperability Communications Demonstration Project are broken down into four major categories: 

• Existing infrastructure/activities: examine established working groups, activities, shared systems, and interoperability solutions that can be leveraged for the 

demonstration projects; 

• Priority locations: identify communities that have pressing interoperability 

needs identified by Federal agencies, Canada, or Mexico; 

• Risk: examine a range of factors that increase the need for interoperable emergency communications; and 

• Geographic diversity: ensure that the selected communities meet the legislative 

requirement to conduct the demonstration projects in areas of differing population densities. 

These proposed selection criteria are currently being reviewed and approved internally within DHS. Upon approval, the criteria will be coordinated with the Federal 

Communications Commission, the State Department, and the Department of Commerce. At that time the Department will be able to assess specific locations. 

Question 2. As you all you know, Congress set the date of February 17, 2009 to 

transfer portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to public safety in the fiscal year 2006 

Budget Reconciliation Act. The FCC is currently in the process of auctioning this 

spectrum. In your testimony, Mr. Peters, you raise a very troubling fact—that the 

700 MHz band will not become available to public safety along the Texas border 

until appropriate agreements between the United States and Mexico are negotiated. 

Mr. Essid, with the February 17, 2009 just a year away, can you explain who the 

principal Federal agencies involved in these negotiations—DHS, Department of 

State? How soon will these negotiations result in an agreement permitting Texas 

to manage and use this spectrum? 

Answer. In November 2006, the United States and Mexico signed a Protocol 

(agreement) to share the 700-MHz band. Since this time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has modified the public safety allocations within this band. 

The U.S.-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications 

(HLCC) is currently negotiating an amendment to the existing Protocol to reflect the 

new U.S. public-safety allocation. The Department of State and the FCC are the 

principal Federal agencies within the HLCC involved in this negotiation and is 

striving to have the amendment in place before the February 17, 2009, deadline. 
56 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR OF TEXAS FOR STEVE E. LANDIN, 

DEPUTY CHIEF, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, LAREDO, TEXAS

Question 1a. Chief Landin, you and I are very aware of the unique challenges that 

public safety folks face in Los Dos Laredos when put to the test of responding to 

emergencies. Due to our geographic location, we have a strong Federal, State, and 

international presence in Laredo. In your testimony you spoke of the need of building a stronger Federal-local partnership. Can you elaborate on your statement? 

Do you believe that the local government is accurately included in the decisionmaking process when it immediately affects Laredo? If so, why? If not, why not? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Can you explain the day-to-day operational coordination and the cooperation between the government in Laredo with CBP/ICE and other Federal entities that are present here? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR OF TEXAS FOR ALFONSO OLVERA

LEDEZMA, DIRECTOR OF CITY SECURITY, NUEVO LAREDO, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO

Question. As you all you know, Congress set the date of February 17, 2009 to 

transfer portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to public safety in the fiscal year 2006 

Budget Reconciliation Act. The FCC is currently in the process of auctioning this 

spectrum. In your testimony, Mr. Peters, you raise a very troubling fact—that the 

700 MHz band will not become available to public safety along the Texas border 

until appropriate agreements between the United States and Mexico are negotiated. 

Mr. Ledezma, who in the Mexican government are the equivalent participants 

that are negotiating these agreements? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR OF TEXAS FOR JOE M. PETERS, 

DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE DIVISION, SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS

Question 1. Mr. Peters, in your testimony you mention how antiquated communications systems are in rural parts of Texas and that border regions within our 

State have historically been underserved. Can you explain to the committee how 

dire the situation is? 

Can you describe some areas in which Texas is progressing and what is being 

done to address the emergency communications challenges? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. As you all you know, Congress set the date of February 17, 2009 to 

transfer portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to public safety in the fiscal year 2006 

Budget Reconciliation Act. The FCC is currently in the process of auctioning this 

spectrum. In your testimony, Mr. Peters, you raise a very troubling fact—that the 

700 MHz band will not become available to public safety along the Texas border 

until appropriate agreements between the United States and Mexico are negotiated. 

Mr. Peters, can you further elaborate on how you believe this would impact 

Texas—what are the outstanding issues that you are aware of? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ