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

44–766 PDF 2008

ASSESSING THE FRAMEWORK AND COORDINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 

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 

JULY 15, 2008 

Serial No. 110–125 

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 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

I. LANIER LAVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, 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 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

VERONIQUE PLUVOISE-FENTON, Director 

NICHOLE FRANCIS, Counsel 

DANIEL WILKINS, 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

Honorable Robert D. Jamison, Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

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

of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

Mr. Richard Mirgon, Director, Technology Services, Douglas County, Minden, 

Nevada on Behalf of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Chief Charles L. Werner, EFO/CFO, Charlottesville, Virginia, Fire Department: 

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

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

Mr. Michael L. Alagna, Director, Homeland Security, Strategic Initiatives 

and Policy, Motorola, Inc.: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

APPENDIX

Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent ............................................ 49 

(1) 

ASSESSING THE FRAMEWORK AND COORDINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 

Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar 

[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cuellar, Dicks, Lowey, Christensen, 

Etheridge, Dent and Miller. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Emergency 

Communications, Preparedness and Response will now come to 

order. The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony regarding assessing the framework and the coordination of the National Emergency Communications Plan. 

Again, good morning to all of you all for being here with us. On 

behalf of the Members of the subcommittee, let me welcome our 

witnesses from the Department of Homeland Security, the State 

and local governments, the first responders community and the private sector. 

At the outset, I would like to again express my concern about the 

timeliness of receiving the witnesses’ testimony, in particular the 

Department of—the Homeland—the committee rule requires that 

we receive testimony 48 hours in advance of the hearing so Members will have ample time to review and develop the follow-up 

questions. I hope this rule will be honored in the future. 

On a positive note, today’s hearing will give the witnesses an opportunity to discuss emergency communications and the first-ever 

stand-alone interoperable grant program that the DHS authorized 

in Public Law 110–53, the Implementing the Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act, or more simply known as the 9/11 Act. 

Since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has awarded 

approximately $9.5 billion to State, territories, local and tribal governments to help them strengthen their preparedness and responsibilities before, during and after an incident. Of that amount, $2.9 

billion has been spent on emergency communications, making it 

the single largest use of grant dollars. Although an impressive 

amount, the reality of the situation is that addressing the Nation’s 
2 

emergency communications system may range from $60 billion to 

$100 billion. 

In order to ensure that these grant funds are being spent in a 

way that advances interoperable emergency communications, Congress required the Department of Homeland Security to complete 

a National Emergency Communications Plan, the NECP, as a condition to distributing those interoperability grants to recipients. 

The NECP is the principal document that incorporates the Federal, 

the State, the local, the tribal and the private sector input to define 

national goals, specify objectives, recommend solutions, identify 

shortfalls and provide a roadmap for achieving emergency communications for the purposes of the parties and the public in general. 

The NECP was originally due to Congress on April, 2008. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security missed a critical 

deadline in large part due to the fact that DHS did not hire a permanent director for the Office of Emergency Communications until 

December 2007. In anticipation of the NECP, as was promised by 

DHS to reach Congress this month, the subcommittee proposed a 

hearing to both congratulate DHS on meeting a critical deadline 

and to provide Congress an opportunity to review the plan. Unfortunately, this last Friday, I was told that the NECP, although completed by the Department, it is still under review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

As you know, I represent Laredo, Texas, a border community 

which would greatly benefit from effective coordination among the 

Federal, State and local players. Clearly, the NECP would go a 

long way to advance communication goals for the first responders, 

as well as CBP, which both play major roles in responding to border security-related threats and emergencies. 

I am very concerned that this additional setback of the NECP 

may delay the receipt of the fiscal year 2008 Interoperability Emergency Communications Grant Program, the IECGP, which as you 

know ends on September 30. My own State of Texas is anticipating 

the allocation of $3.5 million. The delayed submittal of the NECP 

is yet another example of the State and local governments meeting 

the federally imposed deadline only to have the Federal Government not meet their own deadlines. 

So to move on with this hearing, I look forward to hearing from 

Under Secretary Jamison on what the NPPD has done to support 

the Office of Emergency Communications, more commonly known 

as the OEC, and the furtherance of the NECP. 

Mr. Essid, this subcommittee is looking forward to learning 

about your coordination efforts to develop a statutorily mandated 

NECP and the next steps to advancing national emergency communications at all levels. 

Mr. Mirgon and Chief Werner, I am especially interested in how 

representatives of the State and local governments and the first responders community, your perspectives, how they were incorporated in the State communications interoperability plan and the 

NECP. 

Finally, Mr. Alagna will inform the subcommittee of the role that 

the private sector, a key component, played in contributing to the 

NECP. 
3 

I look forward to a robust discussion about the Federal Government contribution to the NECP as represented by the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center, as well as other impacting 

developments. 

In closing, I continue to stress the importance of adequately addressing the issue of providing first responders with reliable and, 

of course, the resilient emergency communications during times of 

disasters. The lack thereof is our Nation’s silent threat. We must 

do all our due diligence now before an emergency. We must work 

together to encourage the sound governments, improve coordinated 

planning efforts to address the interoperability challenges we face 

today, not after another natural disaster or terrorist attack. If our 

first responders can’t talk, lives will be lost. 

The Chair now recognizes my friend, the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee of Emergency Communications, Preparedness and 

Response, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for an 

opening statement. Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that you 

have decided to hold this hearing today to talk about the National 

Emergency Communications Plan. This Plan will be an important 

milestone in our efforts to strengthen interoperable emergency 

communications at all levels of government. 

This Plan was required by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which this committee wrote in 2006 to define national goals and objectives to achieve interoperable emergency communications. The Plan will be the first of its kind and will help ensure that the billions of dollars spent on emergency communications each year are used effectively. 

Last week, we were informed that the national plan would not 

be available for discussion at today’s hearing. Therefore, I joined 

Chairman Cuellar and Chairman Thompson in sending a letter to 

the Department requesting that the subcommittee receive the executive summary of the Plan. I was disappointed that the Department was unable to meet this request. 

I would note that, while disappointed that the interagency process has delayed the Plan’s delivery to Congress and that we are unable to discuss it fully today, I do commend the Office of Emergency Communications for its hard work in putting the Plan together. With only a handful of permanent staff and some contract 

support, the OEC has not only completed the draft of the national 

plan but also recently completed its first biennial Progress Report 

on Emergency Communications and the first phase of the National 

Baseline Assessment. The Office has also reviewed the State-wide 

Communication Interoperability Plans submitted by all 56 States 

and territories and coordinated with FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate to develop the grant guidance for the new Interoperable 

Emergency Communications Grant Program that was issued on 

June 20. 

I was pleased to see that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

will receive significant funding through the program this year. 

While much has been accomplished, the OEC does not yet have 

sufficient staff to fulfill its important mission and meet its statutory deadlines. When Congress created the OEC, it was intended 

to serve as the primary Federal office for national interoperable 
4 

emergency communications policy, planning, and analysis. This is 

a critically important mission that requires more staff than the 

eight or so currently on board. 

It is my understanding that the National Protection and Programs Directorate, of which OEC is a part, has been working to 

quickly hire full-time staff. I look forward to receiving an update 

on this effort and discussing with Under Secretary Jamison and Director Essid how the Department is ensuring that the OEC is properly resourced and supported by the DHS leadership. 

I also look forward to discussing with our witnesses how the 

process for developing the National Emergency Communications 

Plan incorporated stakeholder input from various disciplines and 

jurisdictions and how they plan to help implement the Plan once 

it is released. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for taking the time to be with us 

today. I thank Chairman Cuellar, and I yield back at this time. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under 

the committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

At this time, we will start off with the witnesses’ testimony. I 

welcome our panel of witnesses that we have here. 

Our first witness is Mr. Robert Jamison, who is the Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate at the 

Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Jamison leads the NPPD in 

its mission to reduce the risk of both physical and virtual threats 

and their associated human elements. Prior to Mr. Jamison’s appointment to the DHS, he served for over 3 years as the Deputy 

Administrator for the Federal Transit Administration at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation; and we welcome you, Mr. Secretary. 

I also welcome back our second witness, Mr. Chris Essid, who 

has previously testified before the committee. Mr. Essid is the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Office of Emergency Communications within the NECP. He also served as the 

first interoperability coordinator for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

He has served on the SAFECOM Emergency Response Council. 

Also, Mr. Essid is a veteran of the U.S. Army and holds a masters 

degree in public administration. 

Our third witness is Chief Charles Werner, who is a 30-year veteran of the Charlottesville, VA Fire Department and personally 

serves as its fire chief. Chief Werner also serves as the SAFECOM 

Executive Committee Chair and member of the Virginia State-wide 

Interoperability Executive Committee, the Communications Committee and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council 

of Governing Board. 

I also understand, Chief, that you have served 30 years already. 

We see this from the great Daily Progress paper. Congratulations 

on being there for 30 years. 

I was walking this morning—early this morning and knocked on 

his window. He was already preparing. I want to say that early 

this morning, before 8 o’clock, I saw the Chief preparing. So he said 

the hardest part is trying to keep it under 5 minutes. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Richard Mirgon, who currently serves 

as the Director of Technology Services for Douglas County there in 
5 

Nevada and also as the First Vice President of the Association of 

Public Safety Communications Officials. He is the founder of the 

Nevada Chapter of the National Emergency Association and the 

Nevada Chapter of the APCO. Mr. Mirgon served 4 years in the 

United States Air Force as an intelligence analyst assigned to a national security agency and holds a bachelors degree in public service. Welcome. 

Our fifth witness is Mr. Michael Alagna. Mr. Alagna manages 

Motorola’s strategic plan for the Federal Government and the international wireless communications programs. He has been designated to represent Motorola’s industry Executive Subcommittee 

for the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee 

and the Communications Sector Coordinating Council. He also 

serves as the Vice President of Motorola’s Integrated Solutions 

Group and chairs the State and local working group. He also received a bachelors degree from the University of Maryland and a 

masters degree in administration from Central Michigan University. Welcome. 

We are pleased to have all of you all here today, and we appreciate your testimony. Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted into the record. 

I now ask each witness to summarize his statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Jamison. 

Again, welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ROBERT D. JAMISON, UNDER 

SECRETARY, NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. JAMISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Dent and Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the ongoing work of the Office of Emergency Communications within the National Protection and Programs Directorate and our efforts to improve communications for emergency responders and Government officials throughout our Nation. 

NPPD has a diverse risk reduction mission with some important 

initiatives that are vital to securing the homeland. Some of the Directorate’s current priorities are securing the chemical sector, establishing in the air and sea environments the collection of biometric information from visitors exiting our country and leading an 

interagency effort to improve the security of cyberspace. 

Another top priority is the mission of the Office of Emergency 

Communications to enable emergency responders and Government 

officials to continue to communicate during any disaster. It is a 

mission that resonates with the American public as well as with 

the Secretary and with all of us at NPPD charged with implementing its critical goals. 

Since Congress established the OEC, the Directorate has been focused on ensuring that the office has been ramping up resources 

to deliver the mission. In particular, we need to make sure that we 

have strong leadership in place to deliver on goals and to manage 

the agency through transition and to ensure that the staff is on 

board to get the job done. 

My staff and I have been focused on two important priorities. In 

December of last year, we brought on Chris Essid as OEC’s Direc-
6 

tor. Chris’ background in the field and as the State of Virginia’s 

first interoperability coordinator enables him to relate to the 

issues. Having someone in the Director’s role that understands the 

intricacies of Government and the realities of the field serves OEC 

well. 

In tandem with bringing on strong leadership to focus priorities, 

securing adequate staffing levels is a Directorate-wide challenge. I 

have established a task force to address staffing shortages and 

have charged them with facilitating the hiring process, including 

accelerating the identification of qualified individuals and decreasing the number of days from tentative job offer to start date. 

Since the staff task force has been in place, we have reduced the 

time to tentative offer by over 45 percent. OEC, a relatively small 

office of 37 people, is benefiting from those initiatives with 13 new 

hires scheduled to come on board in the coming weeks. 

In an effort to bring additional leadership to this area, we have 

also recently hired a seasoned manager with human capital experience. Michael Capps is our Director of Resource Administration. 

The Office of Emergency Communications is on track to deliver 

the National Emergency Communications Plan which will represent a critical step forward in improving the state of emergency 

communications for personnel across the country. The NECP will 

be the first national strategy for emergency communications and 

will drive measurable improvements and interoperability and continuity of communications for emergency responders Nation-wide. 

The NECP will be delivered shortly to ensure that there will be no 

impact of the release of the fiscal year 2008 grant funds. 

OEC will drive the implementation of the NECP by providing 

targeted technical assistance to State, regional, local, territorial 

and tribal government officials by developing grant guidance that 

aligns with NECP priorities and by coordinating the Federal NECP 

activities. 

The events of 9/11 have concentrated our national attention on 

the importance of emergency communication. While we have made 

progress, we still have much work left to do. As we roll out the 

NECP, we are focusing OEC’s efforts on results, improved capabilities and interoperability in the field. A focus on results will drive 

the requirements for technical assistance grants and other programs. 

I am grateful for the committee’s continued support, and Chris 

and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Jamison and Mr. Essid follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. JAMISON AND CHRIS ESSID

JULY 15, 2008 

Thank you Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to address the Office of Emergency 

Communications’ (OEC’s) development of the National Emergency Communications 

Plan (NECP) and our other efforts over the past year to improve communications 

for emergency response providers and Government officials across the Nation. 

Before turning to the development of a strategic national plan, we would like to 

address Congress’ creation of the Office and the important mission that it assigned 

to OEC. As we approach the seventh anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 

we are constantly reminded of the need for emergency responders and Government 

officials to communicate seamlessly to manage incidents and restore essential services in the aftermath of an incident. 
7 

As we have learned through after-action reports and assessments of the Nation’s 

emergency communications capabilities, there continue to be technological, organizational, and jurisdictional challenges affecting emergency responders’ ability to communicate effectively during crisis events. This can impact our response and recovery 

for large-scale events such as Hurricane Katrina, as well as countless regional and 

localized incidents that take place every day. 

Ensuring the effectiveness of emergency communications, however, is not something the Federal Government can accomplish on its own: it requires partnering 

with the tens of thousands of emergency response providers and coordination across 

disciplines, jurisdictions, and all levels of government. 

Recognizing the challenges associated with emergency communications, Congress 

established OEC to be the focal point within the Federal Government to strengthen 

and coordinate interoperable emergency communications in collaboration with Federal, State, local, and tribal partners. Further, aware of the need for an overarching 

strategy to guide National planning and coordination for emergency communications, Congress directed OEC to develop the first NECP and update it periodically, 

in coordination with stakeholders at all levels of government. 

Since becoming operational on April 1, 2007, OEC has been focused on establishing an effective organization to achieve these critical mission requirements. This 

includes integrating the three interoperability programs transferred from other DHS 

entities—the Federal wireless programs under the Integrated Wireless Network; the 

Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP); and guidance, tool, and template development by the SAFECOM program. The day-to-day 

administration of OEC programs and initiatives is being carried out by three 

branches that report directly to the Director’s Office: the Multi-Jurisdictional Communications Services (MCS) Branch, the Federal Communications Services (FCS) 

Branch, and the Policy, Planning and Analysis Branch. 

OEC is working to assess the emergency communications landscape and to identify what is and what is not working; develop plans to reverse deficiencies in emergency responders’ communications capabilities; collaborate on initiatives with our 

Federal, State, and local partners; and work with our partners to implement programs and activities that target gaps and make measurable improvements in emergency communications. 

PLANNING

National Emergency Communications Plan 

The National Emergency Communications Plan will serve as a strategic roadmap 

to help drive measurable improvements in the areas of interoperability, operability, 

and continuity of communications for emergency responders across the Nation. The 

Plan seeks to build on the substantial progress that we have made collectively as 

a Nation and will be the guiding force behind OEC’s strategic planning and implementation activities going forward. 

As a key first step in developing the NECP, OEC worked to incorporate within 

the framework of the Plan the requirements under Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296), as amended by the fiscal year 2007 DHS Appropriations Act. Among the many requirements, the legislation calls for the NECP 

to include recommendations for expediting the standards process, identifying emergency communications capabilities, and providing short- and long-term solutions, 

time frames, and benchmarks for ensuring communications interoperability and 

operability. Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 

(Pub. L. 110–53) added a requirement for the NECP to include a date by which our 

stakeholders expect to achieve a baseline level of interoperability, and OEC worked 

closely with the emergency response community to address this specific element. 

In addition to these legislative directives, OEC analyzed pertinent emergency 

management documentation and initiatives for possible recommendations and solutions for improving emergency responders’ communications capabilities. This included numerous after-action reports, studies, and strategy documents that address 

communications interoperability and operability issues, such as The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, The 9–11 Commission Report, The 

National Governors Association 2007 State Homeland Security Directors Survey, 

and the SAFECOM 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey. 

State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans 

To develop targeted NECP initiatives that build on the findings and recommendations from these key source documents, OEC leveraged its ongoing work in the area 

of State planning. On December 3, 2007, all 56 States and territories submitted 

their State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) in accordance with 
8 

the requirements of both the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) 

Grant Program and the Homeland Security Grant Program. This marked a critical 

milestone for the Nation. Now, all 56 States and territories have SCIPs that address 

a common set of requirements and guidelines. 

OEC played an important role in the development and approval of the SCIPs, 

working side-by-side with State and local communities to provide related guidance 

and technical assistance. OEC offered assistance in the preparation of these plans 

to all 56 States and territories and conducted SCIP development workshops for the 

30 States and five territories that requested such help. OEC’s technical assistance 

team also supported the development of PSIC Investment Justifications. 

Earlier this year, OEC, in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, conducted a preliminary and final review process 

to evaluate and approve the SCIPs and communicated final feedback and approval 

decisions to the States and territories in April. The SCIPs provided valuable information about the current interoperability environment within each State and territory. This information was leveraged for the NECP, particularly with respect to current State initiatives to address communications gaps. Moving forward, OEC will 

work with the States to ensure that future versions of their SCIPs are aligned with 

the NECP goals and objectives, in part through the grant funding States receive 

under the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program. 

COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION

Stakeholder involvement was the single most important element in the NECP development process. Title XVIII directs OEC to develop the NECP in cooperation 

with State, local, and tribal governments; Federal departments and agencies; emergency response providers; and the private sector. OEC established various working 

groups to coordinate plan development and ensure that this diverse set of stakeholders provided feedback and input at each step of the NECP process. These stakeholder forums will be critical in the implementation of the NECP and all areas of 

OEC’s mission going forward. 

• SAFECOM Executive Committee (EC)/Emergency Response Council (ERC).— 

The SAFECOM EC and ERC, managed jointly by OEC and the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within DHS’ Science and Technology Directorate, 

are composed of emergency responders at every level of government. The 

SAFECOM EC provides strategic recommendations on emergency responder 

needs from the practitioner and policymaker perspective at all levels of government. The SAFECOM ERC serves as a vehicle to collect a broad base of public 

safety community input on emergency responder user needs and participates in 

project action teams to develop work products and identify user needs. The EC/ 

ERC were the primary mechanisms for coordinating State and local feedback 

on the NECP; they formed an NECP Work Group that included more than 40 

first responders, elected officials, and public safety communication officials from 

around the Nation, as well as representatives from some Federal agencies. 

• Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC).—Title XVIII directs 

the ECPC to serve as the focal point and clearinghouse for intergovernmental 

information on interoperable emergency communications and coordinate Federal 

input to the Plan. To facilitate Federal participation in the NECP process, the 

ECPC formed a Focus Group comprising representatives from numerous DHS 

agencies as well as the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, Department of Treasury, Department of the Interior, the 

Federal Communications Commission, the National Guard, and others. 

• Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC).—The CIPAC, developed by DHS, is a key partnership between Government and critical infrastructure/key resource owners and operators; it provides a forum for stakeholders to engage in a broad spectrum of activities. OEC worked within the 

CIPAC structure to facilitate NECP discussions through a cross-sector working 

group that included private sector representatives from the communications, information technology, and emergency services sectors, as well as State, local, 

territorial, and tribal government officials. 

• Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC).—The FPIC is a 

voluntary organization of Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency communications users, managers, and planners that serves as a forum to build partnerships and collaboratively address policy and technical challenges related to 

spectrum, standards and technology, and security. Through the FPIC, DHS and 

other Federal departments and agencies are engaged in resource sharing initiatives with State and local agencies across the Nation. 
9 

• NECP Federal, State, Local Focus Group.—To facilitate cross-governmental discussions and perspectives about the Plan, OEC organized a focus group consisting of Federal, State, and local representatives with significant experience 

in public safety communications and emergency response activities. 

OEC worked closely with each of these stakeholder groups to develop the core 

strategic elements of the NECP, including the overall vision for the Plan, which 

calls for emergency response personnel at all levels of government, and across disciplines, to communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized. To help us realize that vision, the Plan provides goals, objectives, and initiatives for improving 

emergency communications capabilities at the Federal, State, and local levels. The 

Plan reflects the fact that there is no simple solution for solving emergency communications challenges. In addition to technology, we must also focus on improvements 

in governance and coordination, planning, usage, and training and exercises. 

IMPLEMENTATION—POLICY/GUIDANCE/ASSISTANCE

The NECP will serve as the first national strategy to guide decisionmaking and 

better integrate Federal, State, local, and private sector emergency communications 

efforts. It will be a living document subject to periodic review and updates by OEC, 

in coordination with its stakeholders. Although implementation of the NECP will be 

a shared responsibility among all levels of government, OEC will be the lead Federal entity for managing the Plan, working closely with our partners to meet milestones and achieve stated goals. In this role, OEC will monitor achievement of the 

NECP’s recommended milestones and initiatives and will coordinate with our stakeholders to assess progress in reaching the Plan’s goals. 

OEC will help drive NECP implementation through the provision of targeted technical assistance to State, regional, local, territorial, and tribal government officials; 

the development of grant guidance that aligns with NECP priorities; and the coordination of Federal NECP activities through the ECPC and FPIC. OEC will manage 

overall implementation of the NECP, but, for this to be a successful Plan, the emergency response community must take ownership of the proposed initiatives and actions, and dedicate itself to meeting the key benchmarks. We cannot achieve the 

NECP’s goals without the support and commitment of the Federal, State, and local 

communities that helped craft the Plan and that play such an important role in the 

implementation. 

As previously stated, the NECP will be the strategic driving force behind everything OEC does as an organization. It will help integrate emergency communications efforts at the Federal, regional, State, and local levels, and it will better align 

national resources and initiatives under a common strategy. This includes OEC’s 

technical assistance and grant guidance work. 

Grants 

OEC is responsible for developing and coordinating grant guidance for all departmental grant programs funding interoperable communications. In addition, OEC 

will work with other Federal agencies to maximize the allocation and expenditures 

of emergency-response, communications-related grant dollars across the Federal 

Government. OEC’s annual SAFECOM Recommended Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Guidance outlines recommendations for grant funding eligibility, 

including applicants and activities, application criteria, guidelines, and resources, to 

help Federal grant programs use their funds to strengthen interoperability within 

the emergency response community. 

In addition, OEC has been working to implement Section 1809 of the Homeland 

Security Act, which established the Interoperable Emergency Communications 

Grant Program (IECGP) to ‘‘improve local, tribal, State-wide, regional, national and, 

where appropriate, international interoperable emergency communications.’’ OEC 

has worked in partnership with the FEMA Grant Programs Directorate to execute 

the IECGP, for which $50 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2008. OEC has 

focused on ensuring that the IECGP is consistent with the priorities and initiatives 

of the NECP and the SCIPs. Grant guidance for this program was released in June. 

Under the IECGP, States are required to report to OEC annually on their 

progress in implementing their SCIPs, and OEC must annually submit a report on 

grant allocation and any progress in implementing SCIPs and improving interoperability. These reporting requirements will enable OEC to measure the progress of 

States and territories in implementing their SCIPs and assess Nation-wide progress 

in achieving the goals and objectives set forth in the NECP. 

Technical Assistance 

Another important element of OEC’s mission is the provision of technical assistance to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments through the ICTAP. OEC’s 
10 

MCS Branch leads our technical assistance efforts and supports requests for a range 

of interoperability issues, including engineering, governance, training, regional planning, and the Web-based Communication Assets Survey and Mapping (CASM) tool 

funded through ICTAP. Since the NECP attempts to resolve many of these same 

issues, OEC’s technical assistance programs will pursue a more strategic approach 

for addressing gaps and improving capabilities. 

Over the last year, OEC has supported numerous requests for technical assistance, including engineering-related issues on radio channel planning and use, interoperability needs assessments, and the integration of voice and data technologies. 

We helped Urban Areas address gaps in governance and standard operating procedures (SOPs) identified during the 2006 Tactical Interoperable Communications 

Plan (TICP) process and helped States develop their Regional TICPs. OEC also established an agreement with FEMA to provide gateway training for emergency response personnel participating in the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Further, OEC offers ongoing assistance through CASM, which collects and displays interoperable communications information to improve emergency responders’ 

communications planning. In 2007, OEC enhanced the tool’s functionality, and 

CASM was used by stakeholders throughout the country. At the end of 2007, CASM 

contained information on 60 States and Urban Areas, and there are currently more 

than 1,100 CASM user accounts. 

Historically, technical assistance programs have successfully enhanced emergency 

communications capabilities jurisdiction by jurisdiction, in response to requests from 

individual agencies. Going forward, OEC will develop targeted technical assistance 

offerings that align with gaps in the current capabilities and initiatives identified 

in the NECP. 

The development and implementation of the NECP depends on OEC’s successful 

relationship with our stakeholders under the SAFECOM program. SAFECOM 

brings Federal, State, and local stakeholders together to improve interoperability by 

developing tools, best practices, and methodologies for emergency response agencies. 

SAFECOM is an important resource for achieving the vision and advancing the 

goals and objectives of the NECP. 

OEC and its SAFECOM stakeholders are currently developing two key tools that 

will foster NECP implementation and address gaps identified in SCIPs: The Governance Sustainability and Strategic Planning Implementation Methodology, which provides guidance and lessons learned in creating and sustaining an effective Statewide communications interoperability governance structure through SCIP implementation, and The Capabilities Assessment Guide, which will help practitioners develop and execute a capabilities assessment for communications interoperability. 

The guide will also demonstrate numerous ways for users to inventory interoperability assets, including the application of CASM, in their overall assessment process. 

Cross-border Interoperability Initiatives 

Cross-border interoperability is critical in enabling emergency response providers 

to coordinate and mitigate threats posed by criminal activity such as drug and 

human trafficking and terrorism. Through the FCS Branch, OEC is leading several 

initiatives in support of the NECP that improve cross-border communications interoperability among domestic (e.g., Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies) and 

international partners (e.g., Canada and Mexico), including: • 2010 Olympics/Northwest Expansion Project.—OEC is supporting the 2010 

Olympics Security Committee Communications Interoperability Working Group 

in its efforts to ensure effective interoperability during the Olympic and 

Paralympics Games, including coordinating the development of an Integrated 

Interoperable Communications Plan and related training and exercises for all 

applicable Federal, State, local, tribal, and non-governmental organization 

emergency response providers. 

• U.S.-Mexico High-Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications 

(HLCC).—OEC is leading the HLCC Security Communications Task Group’s development and implementation of a long-term solution to improve communications among emergency response providers on both sides of the border to combat 

border violence and improve public safety. 

MEASUREMENTS AND REPORTING

OEC’s current levers and incentives for driving NECP implementation include the 

provision of technical assistance to State, regional, local, and tribal government officials; the development of grant guidance and programs (such as the IECGP); and 

the coordination of Federal emergency communications activities through the ECPC 
11 

and FPIC. In addition, Title XVIII directs OEC and its Federal partners to submit 

to Congress a number of periodic assessments and reports concerning progress made 

in improving emergency communications Nation-wide. 

One such report is OEC’s Biennial Progress Report, which presents an assessment 

of operable and interoperable emergency communications capabilities across all levels of government. DHS submitted OEC’s first Progress Report to Congress earlier 

this year. In addition, DHS submitted the first phase of OEC’s National Communications Capabilities Report (NCCR) to Congress in April. This phase of the NCCR 

evaluates emergency communications capabilities, provides an understanding of 

emergency response capabilities needed, and summarizes Federal and State interoperable frequencies and public safety systems and equipment currently in use. 

The NCCR indicates that Federal, State, local, and tribal governments currently 

have varying levels of available capabilities to address emergency communications 

needs and that additional work is needed to formalize and broaden governance 

structures, standardize interagency SOPs and agreements across regions and surrounding States, manage communications assets, increase backup capabilities, and 

improve training programs and exercises. OEC used NCCR data to develop the 

NECP, including a baseline for measuring interoperability and operability assurance 

capabilities. 

OEC will leverage other Title XVIII reports and assessments to monitor progress 

in achieving NECP goals and objectives, including the annual progress reports 

under the IECGP, the Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Work 

Group annual reports, and the ECPC annual strategic assessment. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and the committee, thank you for your continued support for such 

a vital part of the overall homeland security mission. OEC is committed to achieving 

a unified vision for the Nation, one that enables emergency responders to communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized, at all levels of government and 

across all disciplines. We are extremely proud of the efforts the Office has made 

over the past year to meet this challenge, improve interoperable communications for 

the emergency response community, and ensure the sustainability of communications in an all-hazards context. 

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Director Essid to summarize his statement for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. ESSID. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent 

and Members of the subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be here 

today to highlight the initiatives to improve emergency communications for responders and Government officials across the Nation. 

As we approach another anniversary of the September 11 attacks, we are reminded of the need for emergency responders to 

communicate seamlessly, regardless of the size or scope of an 

event. While we have made significant progress, our after-action reports and capabilities assessments show that we still have technological, organizational and jurisdictional challenges affecting emergency communications. 

Congress created the Office of Emergency Communications to be 

the Federal focal point for strengthening communications for our 

Nation’s emergency responders. As OEC’s new Director, my top priority has been to implement a strategic approach to improving 

interoperable communications Nation-wide. The key initial step has 

been the National Emergency Communications Plan. 

OEC has set an aggressive timeline for developing the NECP and 

established a planning framework that was collaborative, inter-
12 

disciplinary and intergovernmental. The plan will set national 

goals and objectives for enhancing emergency communications over 

the next several years. It also will include recommendations and 

milestones to guide measurable improvements in the areas of governance, planning, technology, training and exercises and disaster 

communications capabilities. 

Another milestone was reached last April with the approval of 

the State-wide communications interoperability plans. As of March, 

2007, only 8 States had interoperability plans. Now all 56 States 

and territories have approved State-wide plans that address a common set of requirements and guidelines. 

Beyond their value to the States, this planning process has provided OEC with an understanding of State and local interoperability efforts, which helps us better target grant funding for interoperable communications. Historically, technical assistance programs have enhanced emergency communications capabilities jurisdiction by jurisdiction in response to individual requests from agencies. Since OEC commenced operations, we have provided more 

than 275 technical assistance visits to States and localities 

throughout the Nation. 

Going forward, OEC will develop targeted technical assistance offerings that target gaps in the current capabilities and initiatives 

identified in the State-wide plans and in the national plans. 

One technical assistance success story is our National Interoperability Field Operations Guide. This guide is a convenient collection 

of channel information and other technical reference material for 

radio technicians in the field. It is a bestseller. We can’t keep it in 

print. Thus far, it has had over 90,000 downloads off a Web site 

from first responders all over the Nation. 

With support from the Department and NPPD leadership, OEC 

has completed an assessment of the emergency communications 

landscape. We have helped State and local stakeholders develop 

policy and plans to address deficiencies in emergency responders’ 

capabilities, and we are implementing programs and initiatives 

such as the technical assistance in grants to close the gaps and 

make measurable improvements in emergency communications. 

Also, the Nation will soon have a strategic plan in place that ties 

all of these activities together in a strategic, forward-looking process. 

OEC recognizes the importance of interoperability, and it remains a critical capability. We stand committed to supporting our 

first responders and incident managers through a coordinated, 

practitioner-driven national policy framework. 

Mr. Chairman and committee Members, thank you for your continued support. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you for your testimony. 

At this time, I now recognize Mr. Richard Mirgon to summarize 

his statement for 5 minutes. 
13 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MIRGON, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY 

SERVICES, DOUGLAS COUNTY, MINDEN, NEVADA ON BEHALF 

OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS (APCO) INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. MIRGON. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member 

Dent, Members of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response for this opportunity to appear 

before you today on behalf of the Association of Public Safety International, more commonly known as APCO. 

My name is Richard Mirgon. I am the Director of Technology 

Services for Douglas County in Nevada. I have over 30 years of 

public safety experience where I have worked from a police officer 

to a Department head running public safety communications. I am 

also currently serving as the First Vice President of APCO International. 

APCO International was established in 1935 and today is the 

Nation’s largest public safety communications organization, with 

nearly 15,000 members who build, supply, manage and operate 

communications systems for police, fire and emergency services 

throughout the country. 

APCO would like to thank and recognize the leadership of Chairman Benny Thompson and all the Members of the House Homeland Security Committee and the U.S. Congress for its thoughtful 

legislation mandating the National Emergency Communications 

Plan and the Office of Emergency Communications. 

Additionally, we would like to recognize and thank the personal 

leadership within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for 

developing and delivering the NECP. Specifically, we would like to 

thank the Director of the Office of Emergency Communications, 

Chris Essid; the Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity and Communications, Greg Garcia; the Deputy Under Secretary and Under 

Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, 

Scott Charbo and Robert Jamison; Deputy Secretary Schneider; 

and, of course, Secretary Chertoff for their leadership of the NECP. 

As we have all heard, the No. 1 challenge to interoperability is 

funding. However, it is not entirely about funding equipment. It is 

also about funding the proper planning, coordination and training, 

all of which are discussed in the NECP. 

For the NECP to be successful, there are several key issues that 

need to be addressed. The first is that local and State governments 

must buy into the plan and the plan must be flexible enough to accommodate special needs for local and State governments. There 

must be funding to ensure outreach. Without this outreach, local 

government and field personnel are not going to be aware of the 

plan; and if they are not aware of the plan, then they have no ability to comply with it. 

Next, there needs to be more coordination at the Federal level 

and more needs to be done by OEC to promote operational standards for emergency communications and to encourage the use of 

standards. OEC needs funding so that they can work with State, 

local and Federal partners to develop requirements at Federal, 

State, local and regional levels that would provide a national model 

for standard operating procedures. 
14 

There needs to be increased Federal funding for research and development of open-source standards based on communications technologies that would promote competition and lower the cost for 

emergency communications networks. An example of this is 

APCO’s P–25 standard that is used today. It is a suite of standards 

that has been developed for many years that is not yet complete. 

There needs to be specific funding available so that this suite of 

standards can be completed. Federal funding for this type of research and development would reduce the potential for creating additional proprietary equipment and would help to reduce the cost 

of equipment by creating those standards. 

There also needs to be requirements and funding for training. 

Most public safety field personnel receive training in the use of fire 

hoses, weapons, vehicles, but most do not receive any training in 

the use of their radios or the radio system. The days when fire and 

police personnel said that all they wanted to do was for the radio 

to work when they pushed the button are gone. These radios and 

the systems are complex, and they cannot be taken for granted. 

APCO International continues to support the public-private partnership and development of a national interoperable broadband 

network that is designed and mandated to meet the requirements 

of public safety communications. As much as we need this network, 

it does not preclude the need to continue the deployment and development for public safety land and mobile radio systems. 

Our current networks are built to provide mission-critical communications whenever and wherever emergencies occur. It is unlikely that the new broadband networks will provide comparable 

mission-critical capabilities for most first responders until the far 

future. We acknowledge the fact that communication systems 

might fail during a large-scale incident. Because of this, it is important that all plans, including the NECP, provide the necessary 

framework to require situational analysis, disaster planning, training, exercise and other preparedness activities that include all levels of communications operations. 

These plans must also include 911 systems and public safety answering points since they are the primary conduit between the first 

responders and the general public. 

In conclusion, the NECP is a good first step, but a great deal of 

work still has to be done to meet the goals of this plan. The primary concerns we have about the NECP is that the OEC may not 

have the necessary funding and resources to accomplish the objectives of the plan. Until it gets the full backing of Congress to appropriate the necessary funds, it will fail. On behalf of our 15,000 

members, I ask that you not let this happen. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mirgon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD MIRGON

JULY 15, 2008 

Thank you Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response for this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials (APCO) International. 

My name is Richard Mirgon and I am the Director of Technology Services for 

Douglas County Emergency Communications Center in Minden, Nevada. I have 
15 

over 30 years of public safety experience and I have worked as a police officer, emergency manager and department head overseeing public safety communications design and operation. I currently serve as the First Vice President of APCO International. 

APCO International was established in 1935 and today it is the Nation’s largest 

public safety communications organization, representing nearly 15,000 members 

worldwide who build, supply, manage and operate communications systems and facilities for police, fire, emergency medical services and other State and local government public safety agencies. APCO International also serves the needs of more than 

100,000 professionals in the public safety communications industry by providing 

training, frequency coordination, engineering, licensing, advocacy and networking 

opportunities. 

As an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited Standards Developer (ASD), APCO International is dedicated to ensuring public safety communications has a role in the development of standards that affect our industry. APCO 

International’s standards development activities have a broad scope, ranging from 

the actual development of standards to the representation of public safety communications in other standards development areas. 

APCO International represents its members and public safety communications on 

the following ANSI Standards Panels: Homeland Security Standards Panel (HSSP), 

Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP), and Identity Theft 

Prevention and Identity Management Standards Panel (IDSP). 

In 2002, APCO International also established the Public Safety Foundation of 

America (PSFA), a 501(c)(3) charitable organization to engender cooperation among 

public and private groups to provide financial and technical support to the public 

safety communications community. Under the PSFA’s original mission, five rounds 

of grants were completed and included the delivery of more than $13 million to over 

200 agencies in 40 States. 

I am here to tell you that in the field of public safety communications there are 

five truths that we need to acknowledge. 

1. Disasters will occur. 

2. Public and private communications systems will fail. 

3. There will be chaos after a major incident that could last of days. 

4. The public will have an expectation that they will receive immediate and adequate emergency response no matter what the incident involves. 

5. First responders will be deployed to the incident no matter what the conditions are on the ground and what communications systems may or may not be 

operating. 

Today, the No. 1 challenge to interoperability is funding. For more than 75 years, 

local police, fire, and emergency services have been building their own independent 

communications systems. These systems have cost local governments hundreds of 

millions of dollars and they are built using proprietary technology and equipment. 

The tragic events over the past two decades have begun to shift the paradigm of 

building stovepipe communications systems to building interoperable communications networks, but we still have a long way to go. Unfortunately, the cost of replacing and upgrading the thousands of communications systems around the country is 

in the billions of dollars. 

To assist local and State governments in meeting this challenge, Congress passed 

the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act (H.R. 1) which established the first-ever 

dedicated interoperable emergency communications grant program. This Act authorized $1.6 billion over the next several years for the grant program, but we are concerned that Congress will not appropriate the full authorized amount of $400 million for fiscal year 2009. If the goals of the National Emergency Communications 

Plan (NECP) are to be successful, the administration and Congress must ensure the 

NECP and the interoperable emergency communications grant programs are fully 

funded. 

There also needs to be increased Federal funding for research and development 

of open-sourced standards-based communications technologies that would promote 

competition and lower cost for emergency communications networks. Also, before 

any new technology is deployed, there has to be a nationally recognized testing and 

certification process to make sure the new technologies will meet the needs of first 

responders. Federal funding for research and development would reduce the potential of creating additional proprietary equipment that could limit interoperability 

and increase cost for public safety communications equipment. 

APCO International appreciates the hard work that was done by the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) in developing the NECP. We believe the plan provides a good first step in identifying the 

goals and objectives that could become the building blocks to improving local, State, 
16 

and Federal interoperable communications. The plan offers an aggressive time table 

from 6 months to 3 years to accomplish many of the recommended national milestones. 

APCO International would like to thank and recognize the leadership of Chairman Bennie Thompson and all the members of House Homeland Security Committee, and the U.S. Congress in its thoughtful legislation under Title XVIII in 

2006, mandating the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) and the 

Office of Emergency Communications (OEC). Additionally, APCO International 

would like to recognize and thank the personal leadership within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for developing and delivering the NECP. Specifically, we 

would like to thank the Director of the Office of Emergency Communications, Chris 

Essid, the Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity and Communications, Greg Garcia, 

the Deputy Under Secretary and Under Secretary for the National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, Scott Charbo and Robert Jamison, Deputy Secretary Schneider and Secretary Chertoff for their leadership in creating the NECP. 

APCO International has long recognized the need to have effective emergency 

communications plans to improve interoperable communications. For many years, 

these plans have been developed at the local, State, and regional levels. The NECP 

is the first attempt to bring all plans under one national umbrella that also includes 

Federal interoperable communications planning. 

I would like to highlight four key principles that will be critical to the success 

of the plan. 

1. Local and State governments must buy in to the plan. 

The NECP must be flexible enough to accommodate special needs of local and 

State governments. Public safety agencies must be made aware of their role in 

meeting the national milestones of the plan. We believe there has to be considerable 

outreach by the OEC and other organizations to promote the NECP and educate 

local, State, and Federal officials about the goals of the plan. The plan should not 

create unreasonable expectations on public safety agencies or local governments 

that cannot be met. The plan should also provide adequate funding measures to ensure all local and State governments are able to contribute to the national goal of 

improving interoperable communications. 

2. The OEC must be funded so that it can provide the necessary resources to accelerate the development of technical and operational communications standards. 

There are a number of organizations, including APCO International, that are 

working on a variety of technical and operations standards. Many of these efforts 

are independent of each other and there is very little if any national coordination. 

We believe the OEC must take a lead role in cataloging current standards and 

working with nationally accredited standards setting organizations to provide a 

clear road map for local public safety agencies to follow. 

One of the key obstacles to interoperability is standards are not consistently or 

adequately shared with State and local agencies. 

More has to be done by OEC to promote operational standards for emergency communications centers and encourage the use of standards by local, State, and Federal 

agencies. OEC needs to work with local, State, and Federal partners to develop requirements at Federal, State, local and regional levels that would provide a national 

model for Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). The national model needs to be 

flexible enough to meet each agency’s unique emergency communications requirements. Agencies that use the national SOP model could receive certification through 

a nationally recognized accreditation program for a public safety communications. 

3. Voice communications on current narrowband land mobile radio networks will 

continue to be the most mission-critical form of communication. 

Public safety agencies are looking to improve voice, video and data communications capabilities through new technologies that use broadband networks. However, 

these applications will continue to be secondary to mission-critical voice communications on current narrowband land mobile radio channels for many years to come. 

The current networks are built to provide extremely high levels of reliability and 

coverage, essential for ‘‘mission-critical’’ communications whenever and wherever 

emergencies occur. It is unlikely that new broadband networks will provide comparable ‘‘mission-critical’’ capability for most first responders until far into the future. 

There is still considerable work that needs to be done to create a national 

broadband network that can be used by public safety on the 700 MHz spectrum 

band. While the future promise of the national public safety broadband network is 

great, we cannot afford to divert our attention from improving our Nation’s voice 

interoperable communications system in the narrowband channels. In particular, it 
17 

is important that Federal grant programs continue to focus on addressing this mission-critical voice interoperability problem. 

APCO International continues to support the development of a national, interoperable, broadband network that is designed, maintained, and operated to meet the 

requirements of public safety communications to the maximum extent feasible. A 

national interoperable network is necessary to avoid a continuation of the current 

patchwork of public safety communications systems with greatly varying degrees of 

capability, inconsistent levels of interoperability, inefficient use of spectrum, and the 

lack of a competitive, open marketplace for radio equipment. The network must also 

meet public safety requirements and expectations regarding coverage, reliability, capability, and control to the maximum extent feasible. Otherwise the network will 

not become a useful, dependable tool for first responders and it will not meet expectation. 

Ideally, a national public safety broadband network could be deployed entirely by 

public safety entities using only spectrum allocated for public safety use. However, 

the enormous cost of such a network requires either unprecedented levels of Federal 

funding or some form of public-private partnership funding. The required levels of 

Federal funding that would be in the tens of billions of dollars are not likely to materialize nor should Federal funding of current interoperable emergency communications grants be diverted to fund such a network. 

The public-private partnership proposal that is currently being considered by the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) creates the opportunity for a commercial enterprise, the D-Block auction winner, to build a national broadband network 

that spans both public safety allocated spectrum and the D-Block spectrum. The 

challenge is to develop rules that encourage potential bidders to take on such a task 

while still ensuring that the network will meet the special communications needs 

of public safety agencies. 

4. To mitigate the potential failure in emergency communications networks agencies 

should develop strategies that assess vulnerabilities and develop continuity of operations plans at all levels. 

We acknowledge the fact that communications systems might fail during a largescale incident. Failures could occur at multiple points in a network and may include 

human error, system overload, and destroyed equipment resulting from a terrorist 

attack or natural disaster. It is important that all plans, including the NECP provide the necessary framework to require situational analysis, disaster planning, 

training, exercises and other preparedness activities that include all level of communications operations. These plans must also include 9–1–1 systems and public safety 

answering points (PSAPs). 

PSAPs are the primary conduit between the general public and first responders. 

They provide the initial life line to the public during an incident. With the exception 

of a very few 9–1–1 systems, most are owned by local exchange carriers (LECs). It 

is critical that vulnerability assessment also take in to consideration the lifeline between the public and the PSAPs. 

In conclusion, the NECP is a good first step, but a great deal of work still has 

to be done to meet the goals of the plan. The primary concerns we have about the 

NECP is that the OEC may not have the necessary funding and resources to accomplish the objectives of the plan. The Federal Government has developed many 

‘‘plans’’ over the past several years, but no matter how good a plan is, unless it gets 

the full backing of Congress to appropriate the necessary funds the plan will most 

likely collect dust and wither away. On behalf of our 15,000 members I ask that 

you not let that happen. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you again for your testimony, Mr. Mirgon. 

At this time, I will recognize Chief Werner to summarize his 

statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. WERNER, EFO/CFO, 

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, FIRE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. WERNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly glad 

there wasn’t anything bad in that paper. Good morning to Members of the committee. 

My name is Charles Werner. I have 34 years of public safety experience, presently serve as the fire chief for the city of Charlottesville, Virginia. 
18 

I am a member and former Chair of the Virginia State-wide 

Interoperability Executive Committee, and I serve as a member of 

the Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Regional 

Emergency Communications Center Management Board. Today, I 

am appearing as the SAFECOM Executive Committee Chair. 

I appear today specifically to address the continuing communications need for America’s public safety—operability, interoperability 

and the development of the National Emergency Communications 

Plan. I would like to echo Mr. Mirgon’s statement to thank Congress for the legislation that created the OEC and the National 

Emergency Communications Plan. 

The SAFECOM Executive Committee itself is a public safety 

practitioner-driven advisory committee that serves as an effective 

and collaborative bridge between the OEC and OIC. When we look 

back this past month as far as SAFECOM and its resources, its 

Web site alone now receives over 300,000 visits per year as people 

are getting information. I think that is a pretty measurable goal. 

About interoperability. As Mr. Mirgon also mentioned, effective 

interoperability includes more than funding it. It requires an effective blending of governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training and exercises. Planning is one of those key components to accomplish that goal. 

As Mr. Essid mentioned, it is interesting that over a year ago 

only seven States or eight States had State interoperability plans; 

and today all of the States and territories have accomplished plans. 

That is a major accomplishment in conversations between lots of 

people about something that is very common to us all and should 

be acknowledged. 

These SCIPs are the first and necessary step to a continued dialog between and inclusive of all public safety between all levels of 

government. That is something we have to change. 

The OEC played an important role in the development, review 

and approval of those 56 SCIPs; and the OEC conducted SCIP 

workshops for 30 States and 5 territories where it was requested, 

a much-needed resource. 

The next monumental step toward improving emergency communications is through the development of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan. For the first time, we need something that 

is a national plan—and let me re-emphasize national plan, not Federal plan. It is a plan that brings us all together into a collective 

that makes us more effective than we are individually and to work 

together when we need to. It is a necessary guidance to provide 

and define measurable outcomes, identify gaps and develop longterm, sustainable emergency communication strategies that are inclusive of and between local, tribal, State and Federal governments. 

We must change the paradigm of individual and separate systems where it is feasible. Where we can leverage existing systems 

between local, State and Federal entities, we need to do that where 

it makes sense. 

One vital acknowledgement that I must make through this process is the assistance, guidance, leadership exhibited by OEC Director, Chris Essid. How the plan is developed is just as important as 

the plan itself, and Director Essid’s leadership has been stellar. He 
19 

has literally and actively engaged hundreds of public safety practitioners across this country to have a meaningful dialog in development of this plan, and they were some interesting conversations. 

As far as moving forward, of what we need to do, we need to continue to engage the public safety practitioners to understand what 

it is that we need, the people on the ground that are doing the job. 

This is the first step is moving in that direction. 

Technical assistance is another thing that is needed. The processes and the purchasing is becoming so complex that, in order to 

successfully achieve these goals in the SCIPs and the National 

Emergency Communications Plan, assistance is needed to accomplish that goal. 

One important point of the National Emergency Communications 

Plan is it must embrace the common trends and themes that are 

in the SCIPs, not to erase or eradicate what has been done but to 

build on the work that has been done by the States; and, so far, 

that has been done. It has been a pleasing thing to see. 

The training of communications leaders is also critically important to work in large-scale emergency incidents, and that is under 

way, and it is being really embraced by public safety to support 

NIMS. 

The last couple points that I think will help the NECP: Every 

State institutionalizing a broad, multi-discipline representative 

governance; a designated/dedicated interoperability position in 

every State to continually develop the SCIPs, provide further development of the NECP and to ensure SCIPs remain in sync with the 

NECP; implementation of a plain language policy; implementation 

of common channel naming program and training of COMLs to accomplish that; and continued research and development. 

The last point is the successful deployment of a national public 

safety broadband network is critical to enhance the ability of the 

National Emergency Communications Plan. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Werner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. WERNER

JULY 15, 2008 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. My name is Charles 

Werner. I have 34 years of public safety experience and presently serve as the fire 

chief for the city of Charlottesville, Virginia, a member and former Chair of the Virginia State-wide Interoperability Executive Committee and a member of the Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Regional Communications Center Management Board. I am appearing today as the SAFECOM Executive Committee 

Chair. 

Last year America’s public safety agencies responded to millions of emergency incidents across this Nation. Collectively these same public safety agencies continue 

to prepare through an ‘‘All-Hazards’’ approach to various emergency incidents including natural disasters and terrorist attacks. I appear today to address a specific 

and continuing communications need for America’s public safety—interoperability 

and the development of a National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). First, 

I would like to thank Congress for the legislation that created the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) and the National Emergency Communications Plan 

(NECP). 

ABOUT SAFECOM (WWW.SAFECOMPROGRAM.GOV)

SAFECOM is a communications program of the Department of Homeland Security. SAFECOM provides research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, 
20 

1 Based on data collected at the Los Angeles National Governor’s Association Conference to 

discuss interoperable communications. 

tools, and templates on interoperable communications-related issues to local, tribal, 

State, and Federal emergency response agencies. The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) supports SAFECOM’s development of guidance, tools and templates. The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) supports SAFECOMrelated research, development, testing, evaluation and standards. OEC is managed 

by the Directorate for National Protection and Programs. OIC is managed by the 

Science and Technology Directorate. 

The SAFECOM Executive Committee is a public safety practitioner-driven advisory committee that serves as an effective and collaborative bridge between OEC 

and OIC. 

ABOUT INTEROPERABILITY

As the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum explains, effective interoperability 

requires the effective blending of Governance, Standard Operating Procedures, 

Technology (voice & data), Training & Exercises and Usage. 

Planning is one key component to successful public safety interoperability. As of 

March 2007, only 8 States 1 had State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans 

(SCIPs). 

Just over a year later, ALL 56 States and territories have SCIPs that address a 

common set of requirements and guidelines. THIS IS A MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT FOR OUR NATION! These SCIPs are an important step in creating a culture of effective planning for interoperability and emergency communications. 

These SCIPs are the first necessary step to begin a continued dialog between and 

inclusive of all public safety disciplines and across levels of government (local, tribal, 

State and Federal). 

OEC played an important role in the development, review and approval of all 56 

SCIPs. Additionally OEC conducted SCIP workshops for the 30 States and 5 territories that requested assistance. 

The next monumental step toward improving emergency communications is 

through the development of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). 

The NECP is the first NATIONAL (not Federal) strategy for emergency communications. 

The NECP is a critically important and absolutely necessary step to provide guidance, define measurable outcomes, identify gaps and develop long-term sustainable 

emergency communications strategies that are inclusive of and between local, tribal, 

State and Federal governments. The paradigm must be changed to create/allow opportunities for the various levels of government agencies to leverage existing systems when it can satisfy the needs of each respective agency. 

One vital acknowledgement is the way in which OEC Director Chris Essid has 

gone about the development of the NECP. How the plan is developed is as important as the plan itself. 

Director Chris Essid’s leadership has been stellar; he has actively engaged hundreds of first responders and practitioners from the local, State and Federal Governments as well as private industry to achieve meaningful input for the development 

of the NECP. This input is invaluable as it is directly from the people who ‘‘own’’ 

the problem and know first-hand what is needed. 

I would also like to thank Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity and Communications, Greg Garcia, the Deputy Under Secretary and Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, Scott Charbo and Robert Jamison, Deputy Secretary Schneider and Secretary Chertoff for their support of Director Essid 

and the development of the NECP. 

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NECP

The NECP must be developed in such a way that while establishing a national 

plan it is able to embrace common themes from the SCIPs and build upon the work 

that has already been done by the States and its respective practitioners. 

The NECP must continue to actively involve public safety practitioners in the ongoing development through SAFECOM’s Executive Committee, Emergency Response 

Council, State Interoperability Coordinators, etc. 

The NECP must provide support to States and localities as they implement the 

goals and initiatives in the NECP and their individual SCIPs. 

• Technology funding for voice and data equipment that aligns with SCIPs and 

the NECP. 
21 

• Technical support/assistance.—Systems and solutions have become very complex, technical with difficult contractual and procurement processes. Over the 

last year, OEC supported over 120 requests for technical assistance in the areas 

of training, planning, governance and engineering. For the same reasons, it is 

important to preserve the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance 

Program (ICTAP). 

• Funding for the technical support through the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) was identified as a priority by the 

SAFECOM Executive Committee and the Emergency Response Council both of 

which are comprised of emergency response practitioners. It is believed that the 

$50 million investment in 2008 for the purpose of planning, governance, conducting training/exercises, and developing common procedures and protocols 

will have a profound impact on the SCIPs and NECP. 

• Training.—Train certified Communications Unit Leaders (COML) across the 

Nation to establish communications during large-scale incidents according to a 

standard procedure that support the National Incident Management System 

(NIMS). 

• To date, OEC has supported training for over 90 emergency responders from 

at least ten States. Included were personnel with a role in the two political 

national conventions and the 2010 Olympics in Canada. Additional training 

of this type is essential. 

• A National Interoperability Field Operations Guide (NIFOG) was published 

and distributed by the OEC in 2007 with over 90,000 downloads to date. 

OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO ENHANCE THE NECP

Every State institutionalizing a broad multi-discipline representative governance. 

A designated/dedicated interoperability position in every State to continually develop the SCIPs, provide input to the further development of the NECP and to ensure the SCIPs remain in sync with the NECP. 

Implementation of plain language policy. 

Implementation of common channel naming program. 

Training of a cadre of trained All Hazards Type III COMLs in every State. 

There must be continued support of research toward the development and implementation of new communications technologies (voice and data) as has been successfully done through the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC). 

The successful deployment of a national public safety broadband network is critical and will greatly enhance the communications capabilities for all public safety 

responders and will dramatically expand the scope of the NECP. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Chief, for your testimony. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Alagna to summarize 

his statement for 5 minutes. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. ALAGNA, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND 

SECURITY, STRATEGIC INITIATIVES AND POLICY, MOTOROLA, INC. 

Mr. ALAGNA. Good morning. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and other distinguished Members of the subcommittee. 

I am Michael Alagna, Director of Homeland Security Strategic 

Initiatives at Motorola. That is where I focus on national security 

and emergency preparedness issues. 

By way of background, I co-chaired the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee—that’s the NSTAC—Task 

Force on Emergency Communications and Interoperability, which 

published a report in January 2007. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I am also Motorola’s representative 

to the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council. It was 

this organization, specifically the communications sector, that was 

engaged to help the OEC develop this plan. 
22 

I would like to say industry strongly supports the Office of Emergency Communications approach of stakeholder involvement. It is 

the single most important element of the NECP, as you have seen 

from the witnesses here at the table, in the overall development of 

this plan. 

I would like to share with you some interesting perspectives on 

key elements of the plan, specifically, enhancing resiliency and redundancy for public safety systems, ensuring and improving mission-critical voice data and video communications, interoperability, 

improving coordination of emergency communications efforts and 

positioning the public safety community to take advantage of 

emerging technologies and solutions. 

So let me talk about regarding enhancing the resiliency and redundancy for public safety systems. 

Emergency communications systems need to be designed to withstand worst-case scenarios expected in a region. First responders 

have called this need for system operability, that systems must 

first survive and function. Industry recommended the development 

of an emergency communications operability program, much like 

SAFECOM has done for operability, to include functionality, security, redundancy and performance. 

The Office of Emergency Communications should develop guidance, tools and templates to ensure levels of operability and research related to the development, testing and evaluation of the 

standards. Also incentives for organizations to improve operability 

could also be examined. 

Regarding communications interoperability. In addition to emergency communications system operability concerns, a further major 

barrier to effective communications is a widespread lack of interoperability. 

There are a number of factors for improving interoperability, and 

a critical opponent is the utilization of standards-based solutions. 

Project 25, otherwise known as P–25, is that standard. I want to 

thank this committee for continued support of standards-based solutions and Federal funding to interoperable systems that are used 

to improve mission effectiveness. 

Additional recommendations for interoperability improvements 

suggests that agencies struggling with deploying interoperable 

emergency communications should consider joining regional and 

State-wide initiatives. State and Federal grants should support 

multi-agency cooperation. Neighboring agencies should collaborate 

with planning and acquiring communications systems. With recent 

trends toward regional, multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary approaches, emergency communications needs of city, county and 

State users can be met while improving day-to-day mission effectiveness. 

Regarding improving coordination efforts, better planning of how 

Federal agencies, Federal civilian agencies, the U.S. military, international partners, State and local responders, how they interoperate is clearly needed. 

Of particular interest are areas along border regions which pose 

many unique challenges. Local law enforcement agencies and border communities are expected to communicate and work in conjunction with not just local, State and Federal agencies but with Can-
23 

ada and Mexico. To help identify solutions to interoperable communications requirements and improve collaboration, the Americas 

Security Act of 2007 establishes future demonstration projects 

along our international borders. 

Regarding positioning the public safety community to take advantage of emerging technologies, new communications technologies, including greater access to data, new services will support 

emergency communication functions in critical ways. Enabling 

emergency responders, for example, to obtain real-time access to 

voice data and video necessary for the most effective completion of 

their missions. Solutions must be found within these new and 

emerging technologies that address emergency communications 

users demanding requirements, especially for security and availability. 

In summary, the NECP lays out actual steps for leaders within 

the emergency response community, key Federal programs, the 

Congress and industry to significantly accelerate the current environment and to move the state of emergency communications forward. The NECP identifies private sector support to communications during emergencies and recovery efforts and provides direction for private sector involvement in standards development, advanced communications, technologies and services development and 

deployment. In order for the NECP to be successful, the emergency 

response community of Federal, State, local, tribal and private sector must work together and support each other to achieve Nationwide interoperability and continuity of communications. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome any questions you and 

your colleagues may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Alagna follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. ALAGNA

JULY 15, 2008 

Good morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and other distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee. I am Michael Alagna, Director of Homeland Security 

Strategic Initiatives at Motorola. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony 

to this subcommittee regarding industry perspectives on the development of the National Emergency Communications Plan. 

I would like to begin by commending Congress, and, in particular, this committee, 

for its leadership to support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant Government officials to continue to communicate in the event 

of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters; and ensure, 

accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency communications Nation-wide. 

By way of background, at Motorola, I am focused on homeland security, national 

security and emergency preparedness initiatives. I presently serve on the Industry 

Executive Subcommittee for the National Security Telecommunications Advisory 

Committee (NSTAC). I co-chaired the NSTAC Report on Emergency Communications and Interoperability, published in January 2007. The NSTAC provides industry-based analyses and recommendations on policy and enhancements to national 

security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications. Another of my roles 

is with the Department of Homeland Security’s Critical Infrastructure Partnership 

Advisory Council (CIPAC); I am Motorola’s representative to the Communications 

Sector Coordinating Council (C–SCC) and was just elected vice chair. 

First let me say that Motorola applauds Congressional action with the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 that established in the Department 

an Office of Emergency Communications to support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant Government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters; and ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency communications 
24 

Nation-wide. As a result, Congress directed the DHS’ Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) to develop a plan to: 

• Identify the capabilities needed by emergency responders to ensure the availability and interoperability of communications during emergencies, as well as 

obstacles to the deployment of interoperable communications systems; 

• Recommend both short- and long-term solutions for ensuring interoperability 

and continuity of communications for emergency responders, including recommendations for improving coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments; 

• Provide goals and time frames for the deployment of interoperable emergency 

communications systems and recommend measures that emergency response 

providers should employ to ensure the continued operation of communications 

infrastructure; 

• Set dates and provide benchmarks by which State, local, and tribal governments and Federal agencies expect to achieve a baseline level of national interoperable communications; 

• Guide the coordination of existing Federal emergency communications programs. 

Furthermore, Motorola and industry broadly supported the Office of Emergency 

Communications approach of stakeholder involvement as the single most important 

element in the NECP development process. Congress directed the OEC to develop 

the NECP in cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments; Federal departments and agencies; emergency response providers; and the private sector. Industry 

involvement was coordinated through the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), which included representatives from the Communications 

Sector Coordinating Council. OEC also coordinated with industry representatives 

from the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) 

Emergency Communications and Interoperability Task Force. 

As a key first phase in the development process, OEC drew heavily from a foundation of emergency communications documentation and initiatives. These source documents were key drivers for the NECP’s assessment of the current state-of-emergency communications and also helped shape the Plan’s strategic goals, objectives, 

and initiatives. For example, the NSTAC report on Emergency Communications and 

Interoperability anticipated incorporating critical elements into the NECP, such as: 

large-scale State and regional shared public safety communications networks and 

supporting Federal grants; yearly benchmarks for achieving defined interoperability 

objectives; Nation-wide outreach to support emergency response communications; 

consolidation of Federal operations centers to increase coordination and situational 

awareness; and identification of specific private-sector emergency communications 

and interoperability support roles. The NSTAC report also suggested the establishment and incorporation of the following capability objectives into the National 

Emergency Communications Plan (NECP): support for a significantly expanded user 

base; full leveraging of network assets; internet protocol-based interoperability; assured access for key users through priority schemes or dedicated spectrum; national 

scope with common procedures and interoperable technologies; deployable elements 

to supplement and bolster operability and interoperability; resilient and disruptiontolerant communications networks; network-centric principles benefiting emergency 

communications; and enhanced communications features. 

During the final phases of Plan development, OEC conducted outreach to review 

the document with industry. OEC once again engaged the Office of Infrastructure 

Protection’s CIPAC to review the NECP with the communications and emergency 

services sectors. While a majority of the plan is inherently governmental, industry 

strongly supported the primary elements of the NECP, namely: 

• Enhance resiliency and redundancy for public safety systems, including backup solutions, to ensure communications are maintained and/or restored following catastrophic incidents. 

• Ensuring and improving mission-critical voice, data, and video communications 

interoperability for emergency response providers and relevant Government officials. 

• Improving coordination of emergency communications efforts between Federal 

and State, local, and tribal emergency response providers. 

• Positioning the public safety community to take advantage of emerging technologies and solutions for emergency communications. 

The following comments reflect industry perspectives gained during development 

of the NECP and reviews conducted during the CIPAC process. 
25 

A. ENHANCE RESILIENCY AND REDUNDANCY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING

BACK-UP SOLUTIONS, TO ENSURE COMMUNICATIONS ARE MAINTAINED AND/OR RE- STORED FOLLOWING CATASTROPHIC INCIDENTS

Emergency communications among those responding to a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other large-scale emergency are critical to an effective response. 

Emergency communications systems need to be designed and constructed to withstand worst-case scenarios expected in a region. First responders have called this 

the need for system ‘‘operability,’’ meaning that systems must first survive and function. Systems must maintain communications capabilities during all phases of a disaster or event. Emergency responders need solutions to account for and mitigate the 

potential impact of communications infrastructure damage, including the destruction of telephone lines, public safety networks, towers, and sustained loss of power. 

Mission-critical, resilient and disruption-tolerant communications networks allow 

emergency responders and relevant Government officials to have assured access to 

communications channels to support their ability to coordinate response and recovery throughout all stages of emergencies. Recommendations suggested that users 

define, specify and procure resilient and disruption-tolerant communications networks including priority access and restoration services, emergency power back-up, 

site hardening and redundancy, fault and network performance management capabilities. 

Industry also recommended the development of an emergency communications 

‘‘operability’’ program, (much like SAFECOM has done for interoperability) to include functionality, security, redundancy and performance. The Office Emergency 

Communications (OEC) should establish a comprehensive definition of operability in 

partnership with the emergency response community and support the development 

of guidance, tools and templates to ensure levels of operability and related research, 

development, testing, evaluation and standards. The OEC should consider expanding the National Baseline Survey to include a mechanism for determining and measuring the state of operable communications Nation-wide and should gather information to guide and measure the effectiveness of future communications operability improvement efforts that local, tribal, State, and Federal emergency response organizations execute. Incentives for organizations to improve operability should also be 

examined. 

B. ENSURING AND IMPROVING MISSION-CRITICAL VOICE, DATA, AND VIDEO COMMUNICA- TIONS INTEROPERABILITY FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS AND RELEVANT

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

In addition to emergency communications system operability concerns, a further 

major barrier to effective responder communications is the widespread lack of interoperability which impedes communications and critical information sharing across 

dissimilar emergency responder systems. There are positive steps being taken by 

leaders within the public safety community, key Federal programs, the Congress 

and industry to significantly accelerate the current environment and move the state 

of interoperability forward. 

Interoperability is enabled by Project 25 (or P25), a full suite of standards that 

provides the basis for interoperable digital radio voice and moderate speed data 

communications among multiple public safety users, departments and agencies. The 

Project 25 standards were developed by the public safety users and are published 

by the Telecommunications Industry Association. Both DHS and public safety users 

support Project 25 because it is an open architecture solution and enhances the 

transition to digital radio technology. 

P25 improves spectrum efficiency, enables more competitive procurements, and 

displaces vendor proprietary systems that can not interoperate. P25 has been endorsed by virtually all public safety organizations and has received additional strong 

support at the Federal level, including from DOD, DOJ, and FCC. Additionally, 

most States have either built P25 systems, are in the process of doing so, or have 

plans to do so. 

This committee’s strong leadership in supporting P25 has been very valuable in 

assuring that DHS grant programs continue to promote this important standard as 

Federal funds are directed toward improving interoperability. Industry supports the 

NECP’s promotion of a standards-based approach to interoperability and other 

emergency communications issues. 

Increasingly, the campaign for interoperability has expanded beyond voice communications to encompass data and video interoperability that will necessitate the 

expansion of standards efforts to encompass data and video applications to improve 

communication between State and local governments and between neighboring local 

jurisdictions. 
26 

Additional recommendations for solutions to improve interoperability capacities of 

law enforcement, firefighters, and other emergency responders to respond to and 

manage incidents included suggestions such as agencies struggling with deploying 

interoperable emergency communications capabilities should consider joining regional and State-wide initiatives; State and Federal grants should support multiagency cooperation; neighboring agencies should collaborate in planning and acquiring communications systems. The concept of shared system architecture for emergency responders, especially in a State-wide geography brings State agencies and 

local county and municipal first responders together onto a common network for 

shared voice and data services. Recent trends toward regional, multi-jurisdictional 

and multi-disciplinary approaches can meet the needs of city, county and local users 

while improving day-to-day mission effectiveness and incident response interoperability when needed. 

To improve the governance issues associated with multi-jurisdictional communications, industry recommended working with the National Governors Association 

(NGA) as a critical link in overcoming the obstacles to interoperability. This organization can provide the leadership necessary to develop and institutionalize a governance structure that fosters collaborative planning among local, State, and Federal 

agencies, that insures multi-agency coordination of public safety communications. 

C. IMPROVING COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EFFORTS BETWEEN

FEDERAL AND STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS

Industry supports better planning for how the mission-critical, interoperable communications systems of Federal civilian agencies and U.S. military will interoperate 

with State and local responders during events of national significance. While disaster preparedness and response to most incidents remains a State and local responsibility, recent events demonstrated the need for greater integration and synchronization of preparedness efforts among a dynamically expanding user base beyond traditional first responders (e.g., military, National Guard, critical infrastructure providers, and public health system users). 

Better planning for how Federal civilian agencies, the U.S. military, international 

partners and State and local responders interoperate along border regions poses 

many unique challenges. Local law enforcement agencies in border communities are 

expected to communicate and work in conjunction with not just local, State and Federal agencies but with Canada and Mexico. The improving America’s Security Act 

of 2007 establishes future demonstration projects along our international borders 

will improve collaboration and help identify solutions to interoperable communications requirements. 

Industry also plays a critical role for improving coordination of emergency communications efforts. While the Federal Government recognizes the significance of the 

communications infrastructure in providing essential services during and after a 

natural disaster or terrorist attack, lessons learned demonstrate that vital communications restoration efforts were stalled with infrastructure providers having difficulty gaining access to repair essential infrastructure. Currently, there is no standard Government policy for private sector use for access and perimeter control issues, 

this is especially important given that perimeter access policies, in general are subject to State and local regulation and enforcement. 

D. POSITIONING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS FOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

Future-focused technologies are rapidly increasing the range of features, devices, 

applications and available bandwidth that support incident response and recovery. 

New communications capabilities, including greater access to data and new services, 

will support emergency communications functions in critical ways, enabling emergency responders, for example, to obtain real-time access to voice, data, and video 

necessary for the most effective completion of their missions. Solutions must be 

found that address emergency communications functional requirements, within 

these new applications, especially for security and availability. 

With specific mission-critical enhancements to commercial internet and mobile 

wireless technologies, and advances in innovative gateway technologies for bridging 

land mobile radio networks to Internet Protocol (IP) networks, a new class of interoperable voice, data and multimedia service can be envisioned with mobility across 

any and all available access networks. Multiband and multimode subscriber devices 

will improve wireless access across these available networks. 

Solutions for emergency communications capabilities need to incorporate the 

range of features (e.g., voice, data, multimedia, push-to-talk) that best support the 

needs of emergency communications users. Continually evolving emergency re-
27 

sponder requirements and the advent of new technologies will lead to necessary updates and revisions to interfaces and subsequent standards. 

SUMMARY

The NECP lays out actionable steps to being taken by leaders within the emergency response community, key Federal programs, the Congress and industry to significantly accelerate the current environment and move the state of emergency communications forward. The NECP identifies private sector support to communications 

during emergencies and recovery efforts and provides direction for private sector involvement in standards development, advanced communications technologies, and 

services development and deployment. Continued involvement of representatives of 

the private sector as advisors to governmental groups developing their emergency 

communications requirements is critical. In order for the NECP to be successful, the 

emergency response community of Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector 

must work together and support each other to achieve Nation-wide operability, 

interoperability, and continuity of emergency communications. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Alagna, for your testimony. 

I thank all the witnesses for their statements, and I would like 

to remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the panel. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes on the questions. 

First of all, one of the things I do want to make sure from the 

very beginning is that we do appreciate—the committee does appreciate the work that you all did. I think by putting all 56 States 

and territories together to talk to each other, you know, put the 

local, the State and the Federal Government in a plan where you 

will be used as a guide to have these communications is extremely 

important. So I—first of all, I do want to start off with that, because I think it is very, very important what you have done. 

The second thing is, you know, there has been some deadlines; 

and I am going to start off with, Mr. Secretary, start off with some 

questions dealing with the deadline. But I do want to start off with 

I am happy with the work you all have done. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to walk through you this particular 

timeline with you. 

The NECP was due on April, 2008. On June 20, the Department 

announced its grants guidance for the interoperability emergency 

communications grant program. As authorized by the 9/11 Act, 

States must submit their application to the Department by next 

Monday, which is July 21. The awards are expected to be announced on August 1. 

The statute makes it clear that the IECGP grants cannot be distributed until the completion of the NECP. I think the statute is 

very, very clear where the statute says that the Secretary may not 

award a grant under this section before the date on which the Secretary completes or submits to Congress the National Emergency 

Communications Plan as required by Section 1802. The law is very 

clear that the Secretary can’t—the Department can’t hand out the 

grants until we have this plan in place. 

Today is July 15. How, Mr. Secretary, how does the Department 

expect to announce a grant on August 1, when the NECP has yet 

to be completed? I understand—I believe it is pending at the OMB; 

is that correct? 

Mr. JAMISON. It is currently in internal review, and we are confident that we are going to get this to the Hill very shortly. 

But to address your overall question, one we regret is that we 

didn’t make the April deadline. However, I think, based on what 
28 

you heard from some of the panel members here, the reason is because we were doing intensive stakeholder engagement; and part 

of that engagement was the development of the State-wide plans. 

So I understand your discussion about not being—or having the 

grants due before the NECP could possibly be released. 

The good thing is the data, the hard work, the lessons learned 

that came out of the State-wide interoperability plans are consistent with the NECP. You will see that when you get it. I think 

that it is very achievable to get the grants out in the time frame 

that we laid out, as well as getting the report up here. I think you 

are going to find that it all aligns once you get the report. 

Mr. CUELLAR. As you mentioned, the States worked under the 

gun to meet the Department’s deadline, submitted their State-wide 

communications interoperability plans. The Seabees, which is the 

engine of the NECP, the States now burdened with the delay of the 

NECP because they would have less time, less time to review their 

justification for the NECP grant. 

My concern again—and, again, I appreciate all the work that all 

of you all have done, but I want to make sure the money goes to 

the States. 

For example, some of the States—let me see who is here. 

Mrs. Miller, the State of Michigan could lose or not get the $1 

million. 

Charlie, for the State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, it would be $1.6 

million that could be at risk. 

Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, $866,000 that could be at risk. 

Mrs. Christensen, Virgin Islands, $61,000. 

Mrs. Lowey for the State of New York, $7.8 million. 

Mr. DICKS. Seven-point-eight? 

Mr. CUELLAR. Well, I didn’t want to start a fight amongst the 

States here, but that might be another question. 

The State of Washington, $25 million—no, just kidding— 

$997,000. 

Do you want to look at the State of Mississippi? The Chairman is not here: $362,000. 

The State of Texas, 23 million in population, would be $3.5 million. 

But the point here, besides getting our Members all excited about 

the amounts, would be the impact potentially, the moneys going to 

the States. 

Again, I appreciate all the work, but we are almost at the 1-yard 

line, and we have to get this done. What do we do about this, Mr. 

Secretary? What assurances can you give us to make sure we give 

the dollars to the States? 

Mr. JAMISON. Well, we are going to get the ball over the goal 

line. Since we are at the 1-yard line, we are going to finish the play 

and get the ball in the end zone. 

We understand the criticality just as you laid out; and a lot of 

the discussion—I think Mr. Mirgon mentioned it as well in his testimony—is we need to lay out the foundation, fundamentals to 

make sure we have got the training, the plans and the coordination 

in place to execute the rest of the NECP. 

We are confident that the technical assistance that we have done 

through the process for helping the States develop those plans are 
29 

going to allow them to be able to complete their grant applications, 

and we are confident we are going to get the NECP delivered up 

here very shortly and get that money in the hands of the States 

so they can actually start to get the foundation built. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Two questions. My time is up, but just two questions. 

Time, your best guesstimate as to when this plan will be done. 

Mr. JAMISON. I think in all of our previous conversations with 

the committee we committed to try to get this done in July, and 

we are standing by that commitment. We will have the plan up 

here in July. 

Mr. CUELLAR. What day in July, July 16? 

Mr. JAMISON. In July. I mean, we are aggressively doing the review on this document. We are going to get it up here in July. 

Mr. CUELLAR. So that basically means no later than July 30, I 

assume? 

Mr. JAMISON. Correct. 

Mr. CUELLAR. The last question is, you also assure all of the 

Members here and the other Members who are not here, the other 

Members of Congress, that, according to the statute, you can’t give 

any grants out, that the moneys will be given to the States. You 

assure them to be given to them on time? 

Mr. JAMISON. We understand the implications. We also understand the law, that we can’t release any of the grant funding until 

we have released a report, and we plan on making both of those 

commitments. 

Mr. CUELLAR. So there is assurance in that answer? 

Mr. JAMISON. There is assurance. 

Mr. CUELLAR. At this time, I recognize the Ranking Member 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for questions. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Under Secretary Jamison, could you please discuss how the Department and NPPD have worked to support the stand-up of the 

Office of Emergency Communications? Specifically, how is NPPD 

supporting the Office of Emergency Communications’ efforts to hire 

full-time staff? 

Mr. JAMISON. Sure, Congressman. I would be happy to. 

Let me, first of all, say that staffing issues in the Directorate are 

not just isolated to OEC. So we spent a lot of time on this issue. 

As you may know, we have dramatically grown our chemical security regime and have added inspectors to the field. At the same 

time, we have basically doubled our cyber budget. So we have been 

focusing a lot on trying to keep up with those staffing needs. 

What we have done in that area is, one, we have established a 

task force to address the process and address hiring needs from not 

only the date the application of the job announcement is approved, 

until we have someone on board. Since the task force has been in 

place, we have been able to reduce that time period by about 45 

percent and have the days—the average days to get a hire in place 

moved down to about 58 days. 

We have also put resources behind this. We have ramped up the 

contractual support that we have going into our capital human resources office in DHS headquarters. We have looked across the 

Federal agencies and what we can do to try to leverage other 
30 

human resources support, and we have signed an interagency 

agreement with OPM to help bring human capital support to this 

office. 

I guess, finally, I can say the accountability. We are measuring 

the process. We have broken down the process. We tried to make 

sure we eliminated bureaucracy where there was no need for bureaucracy, and we are trying to hold people accountable for that. 

I think we are about to see the fruits of that labor because the 

pipeline is now full with not only hires in cyber and chemical positions, but also it is filling up with OEC positions. We have got 11 

positions that are in the last stage of the process, and we anticipate 

getting them on board. There is going to be two individuals that 

actually already have start dates in the coming weeks, and we 

have got another 10—or, actually, 11 positions that are in the late 

stages of the selection process. 

So the pipeline is filling up. The hard work is starting to pay off. 

I agree that there is nothing more critical than staffing up this organization and the rest of my components as well. 

Mr. DENT. Can I quickly ask you as well, what is the level of senior leadership involvement in the development and review of the 

National Emergency Communications Plan? 

Mr. JAMISON. Well, there has been involvement on the outreach 

from the Assistant Secretary level. Assistant Secretary Garcia has 

been involved in some of the outreach efforts. 

My involvement and my deputy’s involvement and my staff’s involvement has been around trying to lay out strategic direction and 

to make sure that not only we meet our deadlines, which I realize 

we have missed one, but also to make sure that the plan is focused 

on actionable result, it reflects the input from everybody at this 

table and the people in the field and that it has targeted, measurable outcomes and the goals. 

When you get the document, I think you are going to see it has 

short-term, mid-term, long-term goals that are focused on measurable results in the field; and I feel like we need those measurable 

results to drive the rest of the programmatic priorities that we are 

trying to build in the office of OEC. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

To Mr. Essid, the Office of Emergency Communications plans to 

deploy regional interoperability coordinators in fiscal year 2009 to 

each of the 10 FEMA Regional Offices. However, FEMA is also rearranging its Regional Office staff to provide additional emergency 

communications support as part of its response role. How will the 

roles and responsibilities of the interoperability coordinator and the 

FEMA coordinator be delineated? 

Mr. ESSID. We are working very closely with FEMA. We plan to 

collocate these regional coordinators for OEC in the FEMA regional 

offices. They will have different focuses. I mean, the regional coordinators that we plan to hire are going to help with the State-wide 

planning efforts, are going to help with the technical assistance coordination and all of the support that the States need. 

A lot of States are moving into multi-State regional plans. For 

example, in Indiana, I just spoke at a conference in Indianapolis, 

at a State-wide conference. They had representation from Michigan 

and Ohio there, and they all have 800-megahertz systems, and they 
31 

are all going—they are brokering themselves partnerships to where 

the first responders can go across the State lines. But they asked 

for our assistance with that. So our regional coordinators can help 

out with things like that. 

FEMA has an operational mission where, if something bad happens, they take tactical things and they go and deploy. So we will 

complement each other, but we have been coordinating with them 

a great deal to make sure we don’t have overlap. 

Mr. DENT. Is FEMA’s creation of a regional emergency communications position unnecessary or redundant, given that the Office 

of Emergency Communications has the lead for interoperability 

within the Department? 

Mr. ESSID. I see it as they are following what they read in the 

law that they would do to establish these regional groups. 

Again, we don’t have an operational role at OEC. We more so 

focus on the national policy, and we have been working with FEMA 

coordinating. But, you know, I don’t see a lot of overlap. We have 

been coordinating with them on many different issues, and the regional group development is one of them. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions they 

may wish to ask the witnesses. 

In accordance with our committee rules and practice, I will recognize Members who were present at the start of the hearing based 

on seniority of the subcommittee, alternating between the majority 

and the minority. Those Members coming in at a later time will be 

recognized in the order of the arrival. 

I ask without—if it is without objection—Members to skip the 

order. We were supposed to have Mrs. Christensen, but Mr. Dicks 

has a priority meeting at 10 so, without objection, if there is no objection to unanimous consent, I would ask Mr. Dicks to be recognized at this time for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am asking this 

question on behalf of the Chairman. 

Mr. Jamison, as you know, the committee is greatly interested in 

the Department’s transition to the next administration. When Secretary Chertoff testified before the committee last September, I 

asked him pointedly if he was planning on serving out his term 

under the administration. In light of rumors that you plan to leave 

the Department by the end of the summer, I ask you the following: 

Do you plan to leave your post as the Under Secretary of the NPPD 

before the end of this administration? 

Mr. JAMISON. You must know something that I don’t know, because I have no indications of leaving before the end of the administration. I am committed to get the job done; and when I signed 

up for this job and when I went through my confirmation in December, I stated that I am planning on staying throughout the administration. 

Mr. DICKS. That is good to hear. So I don’t have to ask the rest 

of that question. 

Let me ask you, going back—Mr. Dent asked a question about 

the personnel issue. It is somewhat striking that it is now July, 

2008, and the OEC staff with less than 10 FTEs. Why is that? 
32 

You have asked for funding, as I read it here, for 42 FTEs in fis- cal year 2009, $38.3 million. To date, the OEC has only 7 FTEs and 

even though Congress provided $38.6 million for 38 FTEs for fiscal 

year 2008. What is the problem? Why can’t we get these people on 

board? 

Mr. JAMISON. Well, as I stated in the other answer, I mean, we 

have had to focus a lot on human resources and trying to get people on board. We focus a lot—I think we are going to make the 

commitment to have our FTEs on board by the end of the year; 

and, therefore, the budget of the 42 FTEs will still be appropriate. 

We have got the pipeline full. Unfortunately, one of the reasons 

that we haven’t gotten more people in place is because we had 

about 10 positions that we didn’t get the skill sets that we were 

trying to get through the process and we had to re-advertise. 

Mr. DICKS. Do you have an outside private sector company that 

provides you with the names for these people? 

Mr. JAMISON. We have got actually a broad recruitment effort 

that we go under. I mean, we market, depending on the position, 

to the publications where we need to go find people with those skill 

sets in the associations. We also use USAJobs to get staff on board. 

Mr. DICKS. They are the ones—we were told that USAJobs is the 

principal source of people for the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. JAMISON. That is the Federal Government’s Web site that we 

post all of our job listings on, and we use that resource. But we 

also try to make sure that our—— 

Mr. DICKS. Has that been effective? It doesn’t sound like it has 

been very effective for you. 

Mr. JAMISON. Well, I wouldn’t say that the Web site and that resource is the issue. There are a lot of issues as you go in and break 

down the hiring process. We have broken it down to nine steps for 

tracking accountability on every step of the process to get people 

on board. A lot of issues to make sure we get the resources to process the applications, make sure that we can get people through the 

security process and, quite honestly, make sure that we have gotten the right people in the pipeline. 

To your point, the Web site is helping seek people in the pipeline. 

We need to continue to make sure we are beating the bushes, so 

to speak, to get the right people. This has been an ongoing issue. 

Don’t get me wrong. We have focused a lot on it. We have got 

a pipeline full of people that are heading to 104 positions that 

hopefully are going to have—in process—— 

Mr. DICKS. How many people do you have working on the hiring 

aspect? How many people—Mr. Essid, does this come under your 

responsibility? 

Mr. ESSID. Well, yes, sir. I mean, to get positions into the Office 

of Emergency Communications, it does. We review the applicants 

that are given to us and we see if they have the skill sets required 

for the positions. When we—— 

Mr. DICKS. How many people within your group focus on this? 

Mr. ESSID. Well, I mean—— 

Mr. DICKS. Or you do it yourself? 

Mr. ESSID. A lot of it we do ourselves to see if these people, once 

these lists are presented to us—after we interview, sometimes can-
33 

didates have the required skill sets and experience and sometimes 

they don’t. We have had to go out for additional re-advertisements 

for several positions. 

But some of the positions we are hiring for are very difficult to 

find, like radio engineers or frequency coordinators. People with 

that kind of background, they don’t grow on trees; and we try to 

ask our friends here at APCO and the other groups that help support us—when we have announcements, we send them out through 

those associations to try to increase the numbers of applicants. 

Mr. DICKS. Finally, what is the consequence of not being able to 

get these people on board? Has it affected your ability to do your 

job? 

Mr. ESSID. Right now, sir, I mean, we have been very successful 

in accomplishing the task that we have been assigned. Of course, 

we want to get these folks on board, and we are working as hard 

as we can to get them on board. That will help us as we increase 

our role and as all the States have plans now, for example, and 

they are going to need more support than ever. That will help us. 

But, right now, it hasn’t impeded us from doing what we need to 

do. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Miller, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

all the testimony of the witnesses. I tried to listen intently, and I 

thought it was very interesting, and appreciate your service to your 

individual and respective communities and certainly to our Nation 

as well. 

I have a question specifically about a point actually made by Mr. 

Alagna. I hope I am pronouncing your name correctly. But I think 

my question is for either Secretary Jamison or Director Essid. 

Let me just start by saying, a principal advocacy of mine has 

been northern border protection. As the Chairman mentioned about 

Michigan, of course, Michigan is a northern border State, it is interesting I think as the efforts in our Nation to secure the southern 

border have been quite successful, what is happening is a lot of the 

problems that we have had along the southern border are now 

being exacerbated along the northern border as well. We see a lot 

of activity that is increasing there. 

Actually, in title III, section 302, of H.R. 1, there is actually this 

provision, as you had mentioned, sir, about the interoperability 

demonstration for six communities to be designated. It says that no 

fewer than three of the communities shall be located on the northern border and then three on the southern border as well. 

I ask that question because, in my State and in my district specifically, we have a number of unique dynamics that I think would 

lend itself ideally to be one of these demonstration projects. So I 

am, in full transparency, let me just make a pitch for this. 

I am sort of here. In Michigan, it is great; you always have a 

map of your State on the end of your arm here. But we have the 

Blue Water Bridge, which is the second-busiest commercial artery 

along the northern tier. Last year, we had about 5 million crossings 

across that bridge. It is actually the conduit and the genesis then 
34 

for both Interstate 69 and I–94 as well, critical arteries into the 

Nation. The economics are obvious. 

We have the CN rail tunnel entry that runs under that bridge 

across the St. Clair River, which is the busiest rail entry into the 

Nation, actually. Immediately across the St. Clair River on our Canadian shores is something we call chemical valley, which is the 

largest concentration of petrochemical plants, I think in the hemisphere, perhaps next to New Jersey, but very, very large. Of 

course, all sitting on the banks of the Great Lakes, which is the 

freshwater drinking supply, 20 percent actually, of the freshwater 

drinking supply, one-fifth of the entire planet. 

Today, as we speak, actually, this afternoon, that particular 

county in my district, St. Clair County, is meeting with our Canadian counterpart. They have established something they call the 

Cross Border Community Planning Projects, and they are talking 

about interoperability and how they can better communicate in the 

case of a terrorist attack, in the case of any kind of circumstance 

that might happen to one of these critical arteries or the water or 

what have you. 

So my question is, what is the criteria that you are using to select the communities for these demonstration projects? If you could 

flesh that out a bit for me. What are you looking for from the communities, et cetera? Thank you. 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, ma’am. Well, right now, what we know with section 302, as defined by OMB standards, all communities with populations greater than 10,000 along the northern border will be considered for these interoperability pilot projects. OEC has been 

working a lot on what will be the criteria for such a process to select these communities. 

We have got some pretty good starts on it, but, again, right now, 

there is no funding to support this. So as the funding becomes 

available, then we will continue to work on those and finalize 

those. It will have to be some type of a competitive process for selection, because as you can imagine, we have heard from many 

communities that have heard of this project and, you know, are 

very interested. 

But the northern border is just as critical as our southern border 

communities. You are right that there will be three and three, 

three on the northern border and three on the southern border. But 

right now, we have got a start on some criteria, and we have been 

visiting a lot of the border communities to try to ascertain a little 

bit more about the situations they deal with. But nothing has been 

finalized at this point. 

Mrs. MILLER. Well, I would just suggest, obviously, as you are 

putting together and doing the construct on your criteria, just because you are a community that has 10,000 people on the border 

as opposed to a community that is actually the host for one of the 

most critical infrastructures and certainly economically into the 

Nation, not only the bridge, as I say, but also the rail tunnel that 

is there, and all of these unique dynamics, it really is I think an 

extraordinarily unique situation in that area. I am certain that I 

could be echoed by both our United States Senators and our Governor and many other States even along the—within the Midwest 

there, is a very unique locale. 
35 

So I would ask as you are developing this criteria, please keep 

us up to speed, if you would. We would like to be in the loop on 

the thing. I think it is a very important issue, not just for the area, 

but for the Nation as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Just to follow up, we have some Members of the 

Appropriations Committee here, but I believe the House full committee is requesting to appropriate $30 million for this program, 

and I believe the Senate has what, $10 million. So there is something hopefully that our friends in the appropriations will keep the 

$30 million and hopefully keep it at $30 million instead of the $10 

million that the Senate is looking at. But, anyway, I just wanted 

to mention there is something in the pipeline. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes Ms. Christensen, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to 

the witnesses. 

To Secretary Jamison and Director Essid, I am also concerned 

about the vacancies, but I also see that many of the positions that 

are filled are filled by contractors. Is there a particular reason why 

there seems to be a propensity? Is this a policy of the Department, 

or is it the nature of the positions? It is in some of the appendices 

that were sent to us. Many of the currently filled ones are filled 

by contractors rather than Government employees. 

In answering that, would you also tell me, we actually had a 

hearing about the diversity of the Department or the lack thereof, 

and in your recruitment, are you reaching out to HBCUs or minority-serving institutions? I am sure there are some very bright people coming out of those institutions that could fill these positions. 

Mr. JAMISON. Sure, let me answer that. So, first of all, on two 

fronts, we have talked a lot with this committee about the challenges of trying to get people on board and trying to ramp up very 

quickly. So the contractors you see in place are an effort to try to 

get resources quickly into the pipeline so we can start to build the 

capabilities we need to deliver on many important priorities this 

committee has laid out. 

That being said, however, we also have, as we continue to ramp 

up and address the many vacancies we have had in the directorate, 

we have also had an effort underway to do conversions to make 

sure we convert those contract employees to FTEs, mainly to make 

sure we have the most efficient use of Federal resources, and we 

are doing an evaluation on that, but also to make sure we have stability headed into the transition. So we have targeted over 150 positions across the directorate to be converted. 

To your second point, we always look at the diversity issue, and, 

quite honestly, we are looking across the university spectrum. We 

have been focusing on this a lot from the cyber perspective just because of the demands, the needs that we have there, and we have 

actually brought some diverse leadership on board recently in that 

arena. We look to apply those same principles as we continue to fill 

out the rest of the needs, especially OEC’s. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Mirgon, Chief Werner, Mr. Alagna, in Mr. Mirgon’s statement he talked about the fact that the narrowband mobile net-
36 

works are what we are going to have to rely on for quite a while 

into the future. As you have reviewed the plan, I believe, does the 

plan address to your satisfaction the reliability and the resiliency, 

the operability of the narrowband mobile networks that we are 

using, and is there something we ought to be doing to speed up the 

availability of broadband, since that is what would work best? 

Mr. MIRGON. I believe the plan does sufficiently state it at this 

point. We have to remember that, as Chief Werner said, this is a 

national plan. It is like a large umbrella. It cannot relieve local 

government of the responsibility of providing their narrowband 

radio systems and doing it properly. So, I believe the plan does address it properly and addresses the issue that you have got to be 

able to talk to each other when you need to, because in some of the 

most major incidents in this country, we have seen that even the 

largest of agencies can’t do it themselves. They bring in resources 

from other places. So I believe the plan did that very well. 

Excuse the mush have between my ears, but I don’t recall the 

second part of your question. Could you restate it? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Just what—because broadband is the optimal, 

what can we be doing to speed up that? 

Mr. MIRGON. As far as the broadband, I believe we need to continue down the path we started. The public-private partnership is 

absolutely imperative. The only way we will get there as public 

safety is if we partner with those private organizations to build 

this public-private partnership. It is a mass undertaking, but there 

is a lot of information people need on the street that is being converted to IP data, and that is the only way to deliver it. That is 

also our best hope for border issues on interoperability. That IP is 

pretty well a world standard, and as we start looking at some of 

the technology used on the border, it is not necessary compatible. 

But IP is, and this gives us our hope and our chance to be able to 

resolve some of the border issues, the interagency issues, and to be 

able to communicate across different agencies. 

Mr. WERNER. If I may, I concur with what Mr. Mirgon said. 

One additional point is, the plan outlines outcomes, performance 

measures, by which we all can now see and direct our resources to 

work toward that common goal which we haven’t seen in the past. 

So now the State plans, the local plans, are all meshing into a common direction, where we never had that roadmap before. So I think 

you are going to see the positives of that. 

I agree with the broadband network, that is our next best effort 

of public safety communication, especially in the way of data, and 

enhancements of being prepared for all hazards and terrorist attacks. 

Mr. ALAGNA. Regarding improvements to operability, I think the 

plan lays out roles for industry, and I think industry needs to be 

more fully integrated into national-level exercises that in fact test 

the ability to do restoration and improve the resiliency of these networks. 

Another area for consideration is, as the Department goes to regional emergency communication support, we heard this discussed, 

whether it is FEMA or the OEC, there is a call for industry to be 

engaged in that regionalization process. 
37 

So I think more tightly integrating industry into the overall planning process and some of the operational components would in fact 

improve the resiliency restoration of some these networks. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Just a little point of observation before I go to Mr. 

Etheridge is that it seems like the witnesses, I know you all were 

participants or your groups were participants, that you all know 

what is in the plan, but we as Members of Congress that provided 

the legislative oversight, we haven’t been provided the information. 

So I hope, Mr. Secretary and everybody, you understand why we 

as the oversighters, if I can use that term, feel a little uncomfortable that you all know exactly what is going on, but we haven’t 

seen it yet. So I hope you understand where we are coming from. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

this hearing. 

Thank you for being here, and let me echo what the Chairman 

just said: It is kind of marred to fly blind, but in effect that is 

where we are, and it would be helpful to have that. 

Let me return a little bit to the question the Chairman asked 

earlier, because I happen to believe that emergency response really 

depends on a partnership, a partnership with the Federal Government, State and local personnel who really act as the first line of 

defense. And 9/11, of all the things it taught us, that is the one 

thing we learned very quickly, because even though we saw it on 

TV and we have had a lot of things happen since then, when the 

first call went out, the last time I checked, it didn’t ring here in 

Washington, DC. It rang in the local fire department, the local police station, the first responders, et cetera. 

So that is a critical piece, and I think we need to keep that in 

mind in everything we do. Sometimes we get caught up in plans 

and other stuff and forget who really delivers the service, and we 

are so busy shaking things around. 

So let me get to the question, is that the Federal Government, 

it is important for us to support the work of the locals. We have 

to have a plan. But we have to work together and do that. DHS, 

as you talked about earlier, and I want to come back to that, has 

sort of set a deadline of December 2007 for the State-wide communications interoperability plans, and the State met those plans. 

They had to hustle to meet them. The Chairman touched on this 

earlier, but we now are finding out, at the Federal level, we aren’t 

meeting our plan. 

So I guess my question to you is, now that the grant guidance 

has gone out for interoperable equipment grants program—and we 

know the deadline, we talked about it just a minute ago. So my 

question—and I am not going to you, Mr. Secretary; I am going to 

the folks who have got to make the decisions and deal with it. 

Mr. Mirgon and Mr. Werner, I want to know from you, even 

though you represent large organizations, I would like to hear from 

you, though, in your regard how the delays may be affecting the 

first responders back home? What is being lost in the first round 

of the interoperable communication grants because States can’t use 
38 

the NECPs to make their proposals? I mean, it has got to have an 

impact. I would appreciate hearing from you on that response, and 

then I will go to Mr. Jamison. 

Mr. MIRGON. As much irony as this may sound like, even though 

it tends to run late, it is a positive impact. The SCIPs that were 

provided by the States brought a major awareness to the States 

themselves of how important interoperability was and how difficult 

the task is and how few people that are out there that understand 

how to build such a plan or construct such networks. 

One of the personnel problems they have today within OEC is 

that these specialists that they keep referring to, you know, the 

knowledge skills and abilities, it is rare. We have a hard time recruiting them at the local level; let alone, I can’t imagine trying to 

do it at the national level. 

So, yes, it is running late, and local governments were getting 

tight time frames from the Federal Government. But there are 

many of us who participate in such things as SAFECOM, our conferences and the SCIPs and the grant reviews. We will step up to 

the plate. We get it. This is an important task. I don’t know of any 

State that didn’t ultimately step up to the plate and get the task 

done, and I don’t know anybody out there that is in a senior management position, like Chief Werner and myself, that don’t understand the complexity of such a project and the skill set required to 

do it and the lack of available people out there to do those tasks. 

So we feel the pain at the local level. We truly believe they have 

provided the best effort to get there, and in partnership, we will 

get it done, and we will make sure that the citizens that, whether 

they are hired to protect or elected to oversee and provide leadership to them, aren’t let down in the end. We believe that is going 

to happen. 

Mr. WERNER. I think I would have to agree. The difference would 

be if we happen to come forward with a national emergency communications plans that was in conflict with the SCIPs, we would 

have a problem. 

I think the good news is that the plan that comes forward not 

only is embracing of those SCIPs, but is a enhancement to the direction of where we head next. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. So if what I am hearing is correct then, all is 

well? 

Mr. WERNER. Well, I don’t know that we would go that far. It is 

looking better, and I think as long as we move closer with the 

timeline, and we don’t have longer delays, I think we are going to 

be okay. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, let me just finish up, Mr. Chairman, if I 

may, because part of the question is whether we will end up with 

a bunch of different State or local plans or whether they are going 

to be coordinated interoperability? Are you telling me they are all 

going to be coordinated, or are we going to have a bunch of different plans out there that feed into a the National plan? 

Mr. MIRGON. I would just like to say, it is not going to be perfect. 

There are so many things out there—— 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I understand it is not going to be perfect. My 

question is, will we have a bunch of separate plans that the States 
39 

have but together that work in those States but they don’t necessarily feed and coordinate? 

Mr. MIRGON. I think we will have a significant majority that are 

coordinated. There may be one or two that may look kind of odd, 

but in the end, the vast majority will be coordinated and will accomplish the goal. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. One or two means you are going to have 48 that 

are and two that aren’t? 

Mr. MIRGON. It potentially could happen, just because of the idiosyncrasies that happen within certain States. You know, Nevada, 

which I come from, tends to be a little odd at times. So I just want 

to recognize reality. 

Mr. WERNER. It will take a couple—it will take several years for 

us to really shake this all out, because everybody is learning in the 

process. But, again, I think the key point is the National Emergency Communication Plan is the first time that we will start having specific outcomes that the State plans must be working toward, 

so we have performance measures that will help to relieve some of 

that. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Okay. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your patience. I yield 

back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me just say this, that I want to recognize Mr. 

Lowey right now, but Members, since you are the last person, if 

you all want to go for another round of questions, I will be willing 

to go ahead and do that. 

But at this time I would like to recognize Ms. Lowey from the 

great State of New York. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Chairman Cuellar for holding this hearing. 

For several years, Chairman Thompson and I championed the 

creation of an Interoperable Communications Grant Program, a 

goal that came to fruition with the passage of H.R. 1. The issues 

before us today, the execution of the emergency communications 

title of the legislation, are some of the most important we will consider all year. 

As someone who has spent so much time on this issue, I closely 

followed the release of the national emergency communication 

hearing with Under Secretary Jamison and Assistant Secretary 

Garcia, and I asked and we all kept asking, when is the NECP 

being released? 

Mr. Garcia testified: We are working to have it by July. He went on to say the Department expected to have the $50 million in fiscal 

year 2008 funding distributed by the end of the fiscal year. 

Not only has the Department not yet submitted the NECP, but 

unless it is released soon, it seems unlikely that States will receive 

final awards from the fiscal year 2008 Interoperable Communication Grant Program by the end of the year. I want to make it clear 

that this is not acceptable. The release of the interoperability funds 

is contingent on the release the NECP, and first responders can’t 

wait on bureaucratic delays to receive funds to advance communications efforts. 

The Chairman mentioned the $7.8 million that New York would 

or may or maybe some day may receive. But I want to make it 
40 

clear that this whole project is $2.2 billion, and there is still a lot 

of work to do. 

We often hear problems when a report is completed by an agency 

but then languishes in the Office of General Counsel or OMB. For 

an administration that claims to loathe bureaucracy, it certainly 

has mastered the art of losing initiatives in the bureaucratic maze. 

I want to join my Chairman and colleagues, it is pretty upsetting. I am glad you all have seen the report, but this is still delayed. The report has probably been done, and we haven’t seen it. 

So maybe you can tell me, Mr. Jamison or Mr. Essid, has the report been sent to the Office of General Counsel or OMB? If so, 

when? Where is this report, and can you give us a preview as to 

what will be in the NECP? 

I mean, why is there this big secret? We are very concerned in 

New York. I am concerned with what Mr. Dicks said, because I 

think this office was so important, and the Chairman and I were 

pretty critical in getting the office, and you only have seven people 

there rather than the 42. So where is the report now? What is taking so long? Who is holding it up? Come clean. 

Mr. JAMISON. Congresswoman, as we testified earlier, the report 

is in the last stage of review. 

Mrs. LOWEY. So Mr. Essid wrote it. He did what he had to do? 

Mr. JAMISON. The report is written. It is in the final stages 

of—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. So where is it? Who is holding up it up in the bureaucracy? 

Mr. JAMISON. It is in the late stage of review. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Who is reviewing it? How long has this ‘‘late stages’’ 

been reviewing it? 

Mr. JAMISON. We would have to come up and give you a briefing 

on the whole details of every stage of the review process. 

I think it is important to say we understand what you are saying 

about getting the funds out. As I committed to the Chairman earlier, we are going to make sure that none of the funds go undelivered to the States. We are going to make sure that we have met 

our commitment to get the plan up here in July. 

I think it is important to note, based on the conversation of why 

they have seen the plan from our partners in the local governments 

here, is because they are involved in writing the plan, and that is 

inherently what delayed the process to make sure we had full involvement. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Excuse me, but only because—but maybe since we 

are the last here, I can pursue this. We know you are delayed. We 

are aware of this. But I have the feeling that Mr. Essid might have 

written the plan and it is sitting somewhere, and people don’t understand that, on the local level, this is really urgent. 

As a New Yorker, we are getting $7.8 million. I know several of 

my colleagues kind of laughed at that, but it is a $2.2 billion program, and this is critical. I remember the World Trade Center. I 

was down there. There has to be more of a sense of urgency. 

So I think maybe you can take a message back that this committee is really upset with the bureaucrats who are holding this 

up, because we may not be able to get the money by the end of the 

year if this continues to delay and delay. 
41 

So I think this committee needs a report about where this is, 

why it is being held up, because our local first responders, our police and firefighters, need this money, and they need it now. 

Now, I also want to say, in addition to the fact that instead of 

42 people, there are so many people losing jobs that, frankly, the 

fact you only can find seven people, either there is something 

wrong with the recruiting process, something wrong with the personnel department, or maybe we should be training more people at 

the local level to do this work, because it is so important. Seven 

people, and there should be 42, is amazing. 

Then I noticed here the urgent mission of OEC may not be reflected in the organization chart. In order to find the office, you 

have to search for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, then the Office of Cybersecurity and Communication. OEC 

is one of the component programs with the Cybersecurity and Communications office. 

If you ask our local police, firefighters, EMS workers, mayors, 

what is most important, it seems to me this should be a more highprofile office. Mr. Essid is charged with coordinating emergency 

communications for Federal, State, local and tribal governments, 

and I am very concerned that, as hard as you work, that burying 

the office under Cybersecurity may prevent it from accomplishing 

its mission. 

So it seems to me the Department doesn’t need another major reorganization. However, maybe there can be some tweaking by the 

next administration, and if anyone would care to share with us 

whether it would be more beneficial to give more prominence to the 

Office of Emergency Communications, I would appreciate hearing 

from you. 

Anybody care to share? When you are a local person, do you have 

trouble finding this office? 

Mr. MIRGON. Only if we actually had to physically go to their office, because being from Nevada, I have trouble finding just about 

anything out here. 

As far as prominence of the office, it absolutely needs to be 

raised. This is a critical issue across the country. Don’t think for 

one moment my comment is that I don’t think they treat it well 

within Homeland Security. I don’t think that is the case. 

The case is how it is seen nationally by Governors, local governments, other people, is for them to understand it is important, they 

look at that chart also and go, well, it can’t be that important to 

the Federal Government. 

But this is critical. If people can’t talk to each other, whether it 

is cross-border or cross-town, we have some major issues. So, yes, 

there would be some very strong support to raise the prominence 

of this office to help raise this issue and move this topic forward. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I just want to say 

that in June, the Department released the fiscal year 2008 interoperable emergency communications grant program guidance 

which allows funding, here we are, for planning exercises, training, 

but prohibits funding for actual equipment. 

This is ridiculous. Many State and local governments, frankly, 

have not waited for the Federal Government to take action. In New 

York, the State and many local governments, including West-
42 

chester, Rockland Counties, already have interoperable plans in 

place. They don’t need money to write another plan. They need 

money to build the network backbone and purchase radios. 

So, perhaps, just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. 

Jamison and Mr. Essid can tell us why the Department is prohibiting fiscal year 2008 funds from being used for equipment? Maybe 

someone just doesn’t get it there. I don’t know if you were down 

to 9/11, if you were down there at the World Trade Center when 

those beautiful 300—over 350—firefighters were going up when 

they shouldn’t have been going up. Why are we just giving money 

for planning, and they still can’t use it for equipment? 

Mr. JAMISON. Congresswoman, first of all, to answer your question, I spent 6 months in New York City in the recovery operations 

around Lower Manhattan, so I saw the devastation. I saw the impact on your constituents. Quite honestly, that is one of the things 

that drove me to be a part of Homeland Security. So we understand that issue. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to say that I personally appreciate your 

service, and, therefore, I don’t want to ask you to squeal. But 

maybe you can tell us, who is holding this up? Where is this plan? 

Who doesn’t see the urgency? 

Mr. JAMISON. I think everybody sees the urgency, and I think the 

urgency to get it right is important as well, which is why we focus 

so much on the partnership, making sure that we participated in 

the State-wide planning process, making sure that we get this 

right. 

To address your earlier question about why the grants were limited to non-technical equipment, a lot of the capabilities gaps work 

and a lot of the work we have done through the State-wide planning process has identified there is fundamental governance, planning, coordination, other fundamental building blocks that continue 

to be barriers to getting interoperability and continuity of operations in place across the States, and I would be happy to have my 

colleagues comment on that. 

We want to make sure we get those fundamental building blocks 

in place, in addition to the fact that if you go back and look at the 

grant programs across DHS, if you try to track it, we spent approximately $2.5 billion on interoperability, and about 93 percent 

of that money has been spent on technical equipment, and we still 

have many challenges in getting interoperability derived. We need 

to focus on some of the fundamental building blocks, and then the 

eligibility for the other grant programs, UIC funding, can help address some of the technical equipment needs. 

Chris, I don’t know if you want to take a shot at that as well. 

Mr. ESSID. Well, I would like to add that a lot of the gaps we 

collected from the State-wide plans, first of all, earlier, it was 

asked if the State-wide plans could all be different. We have standard criteria for all the plans. So, for the first time, they all hit a 

standard criteria, same governance structures and things of that 

nature, throughout the Nation. But these were the gaps that were 

communicated in those State-wide plans, the focus areas for this 

grant. 

In New York, they are building a very expensive State-wide system. But they are going to have needs. This grant can still help 
43 

them with other needs. While they may not buy radios, they are 

still going to have to work out standard operating procedures on 

how that State system communicates with all the locals or programming certain frequencies into the radios. All that stuff costs 

a lot of money. This grant will help support that system. Let me 

be clear about that. There are so many needs they are going to 

have; this grant will help them do a lot of those other needs. While 

it might not be buying so many radios, it is going to be taking expenses that they would have to find other funding for to support 

that State system. So that is one thing I would like to just add. 

It will be beneficial to New York. 

Mr. MIRGON. Ma’am, if I could add something here, from a local 

perspective, the interoperability problem today is partly because of 

equipment, but we spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year 

across this country for communications equipment. 

Part of us what got us to this problem is we failed to plan. We 

failed to have the foresight to bring it together. We as locals support the concept, those of us who have been in this mix and been 

on both sides of this coin, support this concept of planning, because 

without that plan and without the training to use the equipment, 

all of the equipment we buy in the world will sit on a shelf or will 

not be able to be used when that disaster strikes again. This planning is absolutely paramount to have for the success of the entire 

plan and the success of the first responders in the field. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me—yes, sir? 

Mr. WERNER. One of the things we found, just to reinforce what 

Mr. Mirgon has said, is we found, after 9/11, after Katrina, there 

is a rush to bring us money for equipment, and we are always willing to take it. The problem is we were taking the money and trying 

to figure out after the fact about how we best do it, and we were 

doing it locally. We weren’t doing it regionally. We weren’t doing 

it State-wide. 

Now, for the first time, we are bringing people together. We are 

having conversations. We are doing SCIPS. We are planning, and 

the people are starting to talk to each other. What we found is that 

billions of dollars have been spent on technology, but it won’t matter if you and I have not agreed to talk to each other in a planned 

system, in a program that works. 

So I think this piece of the money is really designed to help bring 

people together to the table to pay the expenses, to get things really moving in a planned program that will move us toward that national emergency communications plan. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me just thank you very much. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to clarify: I have been saying, as has the Chairman 

and has the big Chairman, that we need a plan, for a very long 

time. You all seem to know about this plan. We don’t have this 

plan. There is a sense of urgency here that maybe some people 

don’t feel. 

Look, I agree with you. This equipment that people are buy—are 

buying—will be outdated next year. We know that. Many of us up 

here don’t even understand what A does and B does and C does, 
44 

because now you have D, E and F. You probably get it and understand what is coming out here. 

But what I am concerned about is that the bureaucracy somehow 

is holding this plan, rather than completing this plan and getting 

it out there, and that prejudices those States and communities who 

have been responsible and have put a plan together and want to 

begin completing that plan by getting the equipment in place. So 

that is why we are concerned that there are seven people there instead of 42. That is why we are concerned that it isn’t a high profile in the Department. You can’t even find it. 

So I would just say, maybe you could have a private discussion 

with the Chairman. Let him know where this plan is that many 

of you worked so hard on, and move it and get it out, so by the 

end of the year, we can implement it. God forbid, God forbid, if 

something else happens, sir, and I respect your involvement here 

and all of those involved in 9/11, people are going to feel pretty bad 

if plans are still sitting in the bureaucracy someplace, and they are 

not out there. 

So I just encourage you, if you need some help, if you can’t recruit fast enough, there are a lot of unemployed people that could 

be trained perhaps, maybe not at that level. 

But I have spoken enough. I think I have made my point. Thank 

you for your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me follow up with a couple of questions, 

points, that the Chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has 

made. 

First of all, last month I sent a letter to the House appropriators 

requesting that the director of the OEC be elevated from a GS–15 

level to a Senior Executive Service position, to move it up. The 

Chairwoman here did push it, and I believe the full committee has 

now approved this. Of course, we are still, on the House side, waiting for that. 

So, Secretary Jamison, I know we still have a process in the appropriations, but I think if everything goes according to plan, the 

House is asking that this be elevated. So if you want to stay ahead 

of the curve, it would be nice if in the last—to the end of the administration, if you could take some proactive steps on this, because I mean, it is going to be done one way or another. It would 

be nice if you would take that into consideration, No. 1. 

The second thing is we have been hearing from the States about 

the input. But what about the Federal input? The ECPC includes 

the Department of Homeland Security, Defense, Commerce, Justice 

and the FCC, that serve as the primary mechanism for coordinating the Federal input into the NECP. What about the Federal 

input? We haven’t seen the State. We haven’t seen the Federal. We 

are the oversight mechanism in this process, and we still haven’t 

seen this. 

We were supposed to be—when were we supposed to have gotten 

the executive summary? 

Yesterday. We still haven’t seen an executive summary. 

One of the things that really concerns me is that sometimes in 

Washington, we are seen as ‘‘they’’ versus ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘us’’ versus 

‘‘they.’’ We are all on the same team. We are all on the same team 
45 

together. If Members of Congress request a copy of at least an executive summary, it would be nice for us to get a copy of the executive summary, because, again, I emphasize, and I don’t understand 

what this mentality is of a ‘‘us’’ versus ‘‘them’’ and all that. We are 

on the same team together. 

Mr. Secretary, could we get a copy of the executive summary? We 

understand it is a draft, and we understand it is being reviewed 

internally in the OMB or wherever it might be. I don’t understand 

if it is internally or if it is at the OMB. Regardless of where it is, 

could we at least see an executive summary of that, the Members 

of this committee? 

Mr. JAMISON. Well, we are working hard, as I mentioned earlier, 

to get the full report released, and I appreciate, respectfully, the request for the executive summary. 

I can tell you the reason the executive summary was not released 

is because it has, and actually I think this is a very positive part 

of all the hard work the people at the table here have put into this 

plan, the one thing, the one criteria that I really wanted to make 

sure we had was actual, measurable goals for measuring our interoperability in the field. The executive summary includes those aggressive, measurable goals. Those goals are pre-decisional. It is important it gets reviewed completely through the administration. 

That is why we didn’t release the executive summary. 

I can commit to you I will continue to try to work to get the executive summary released. Hopefully, the report will arrive very 

shortly and make this a moot point. But I understand your frustration. We are trying to, respectfully, make sure we have got the review for setting those aggressive timelines and goals that I think 

the committee expects. 

We are in this together. We want to get this done. It is a partnership across not only the States and locals but the Federal Government. 

To address your other point, we have had a working group for 

the ECPC that has had their input on this process as well as critical infrastructure. The Partnership Advisory Council is a part of 

the NIP framework that has sector coordinating councils and government coordinating councils that have input into this process. 

So we take that seriously. We apologize for the delay, and we do 

want to move on. 

Mr. CUELLAR. If I was a betting man, I bet we won’t even get 

the executive summary. Okay. If I was a betting man. 

One last question, Mr. Alagna, let’s say the appropriators keep 

the $30 million for the border pilot program on the interoperability 

cross-border, if that stays on and you all are there to participate, 

how do you envision your pilot program involved with Homeland 

for both the northern and the southern borders? 

Mr. ALAGNA. Okay. Well, clearly, that has got to be a competitive 

process, as was described. I think, based on the nature of the 

threat and the assessment of the vulnerability of those facilities or 

localities should play key into the overall decision process for picking candidates for potential development of pilot programs. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me restate this again. I am sorry. Hypothetically, how would you see this, from the private sector, how do 
46 

you envision the border pilot programs, both in the north and the 

south? 

Mr. ALAGNA. From a technical perspective, I think it would absolutely prove out the concepts of operations that are necessary to 

support the multiple constituents in that border community. You 

have the locality, the public safety entities there in the city, the 

State. You also have international partners. To date, I don’t think 

this has been tried or exercised. 

So the ability to put in a technical solution that begins to prove 

concepts around collaboration of multiple partners in border areas 

to include technical approaches that could improve interoperability 

and operability, I think that needs to be done. It should be a high 

priority. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. 

Any other questions? 

I recognize Ms. Christensen from the Virgin Islands for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Just two questions, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Director, is there a 

budget that accompanies the NECP, and, if so, what is it? 

Mr. ESSID. Well, there is not a budget per se, because the national plan is a national strategy document that is really taking 

and leveraging a lot of existing efforts that are already in existing 

budgets and putting it all together in one strategic document for 

the first time ever. So a lot of these things are already budgeted 

for. A lot of them, a lot of the initiatives in the national plan are 

focused on coordination and partnership building between local to 

local, or local to State, or State to State, or Federal agency. 

So a lot of them are in existing budgets as far as the Federal 

Government or the Federal agencies involved are, and a lot of State 

and local involvement—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But once the plan is out, don’t you plan to 

look at how much it really costs to implement it? Much of the other 

testimony, for example, Mr. Mirgon, the chief and Mr. Alagna 

talked about the lack of funding. So isn’t it in your plans to look 

at how much the implementation of the budget will actually cost, 

the plan will actually cost? 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, ma’am, in the future we will. 

Once we have the plan, we will be tracking what it costs to implement those initiatives. It is all over the place. You are talking 

grant funds. But a lot of States and locals spend a lot more money 

than we could ever give out in grants on this problem. I mean, 

since most of the infrastructure is owned at the local level, they are 

spending so much money out of their own general funds on communication systems. So we can’t really track that with our grants 

tracking per se. 

But with the partnerships we are developing through the Statewide planning efforts and the interoperability coordinators popping 

up all over the Nation—I know New York State just hired a new 

one just recently—we are starting to build those relationships 

where we can gather that information, not only what they are 

spending in grants but what they are spending in the general fund 

on communications. 
47 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have another question for you, Mr. Essid. 

The regional emergency communications coordinating working 

group is supposed to contribute to the NECP to promote the regional application of interoperable communication systems. The 

post-Katrina reform act made it clear that the director of OEC is 

statutorily responsible for coordinating the RECC working group 

within FEMA regional offices. But during a recent committee briefing, there was some confusion about whether it is the OEC or 

FEMA that is responsible for the RECC working group. 

Could you just explain to the subcommittee what you understand 

about your office’s responsibility as it relates to the RECC? 

Mr. ESSID. Yes, ma’am. 

As mentioned earlier, we are really coordinating with FEMA on 

these regional groups. You know, the roles and responsibilities of 

the Office of Emergency Communications in FEMA as far as these 

regional groups are set forth in section 1805 of the Homeland Security of 2002, although these regional groups are to be administered 

by FEMA and the receipt the annual progress reports is the only 

role explicitly identified for the Office of Emergency Communications in section 1805; OEC and FEMA though are coordinating 

more closely than this when we are establishing these groups. We 

intend to play an active role in these groups, and we are, as they 

are being established throughout the Nation. We are going to colocate our regional coordinators with FEMA, and we are working 

on how our positions out there and these FEMA regional offices 

could be complimentary as to their mission and how FEMA can 

help us with our mission as far as the technical assistance we offer 

throughout the Nation, any policy or support, or any support for 

the States in general. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But where does the buck stop in the coordination, at FEMA or at your desk? 

Mr. ESSID. The way we see it is that FEMA is to establish these 

regional groups. That is the way the legislation reads, to FEMA 

and to us. However, we are, again, coordinating with them. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Lowey, any other questions? 

Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to say thank you to you all. We appreciate your great service to our country. 

I just hope that wherever this plan is in the bureaucracy, you 

who have worked so hard can say that the committee wants that 

plan now. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, both of you. 

The only thing I would ask you, since you all are taking extra 

time to finish the reports, if you do have performance measures 

and objectives and inputs and outputs, I just happened to do my 

dissertation years ago on performance-based budgeting, so on the 

performance measures, please don’t give us performance measures 

that measure activity, that is how many radios they have. I mean, 

I want to see measures of results. 

So I see your staff back there saying that that is not going to be 

included. I emphasize that, because I have seen performance measures that all they do is measure how many pencils we have, how 
48 

many radios we have, how many people we have. Forget about 

that. Measure the actual results, and I think that will be appreciated. 

Again, I do want to thank you, because I know it has been a lot 

of work trying to put this plan together, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Essid, 

Mr. Mirgon, Chief Werner, of course, Mr. Alagna, everybody in the 

private sector that put it together, I know it is a lot of—I think you 

sense a little frustration from both sides over here on getting this 

done. 

We are almost there. So I encourage you, if you need any help 

from us, talk to us, talk to our staff if we can be of any assistance. 

But I do want to thank you for the service you provided. 

Thank you. 

At this time, I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the 

subcommittee may have additional questions. I ask the witnesses 

to please respond to them as soon as possible in writing to those 

questions. 

Having no further business, the hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER CHARLES W. DENT FOR ROBERT D. JAMISON, 

UNDER SECRETARY, NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. During the hearing, Ms. Lowey commented that the current placement of the Office of Emergency Communications within the National Protection 

and Programs Directorate may not be appropriate given the size and importance of 

its mission. Mr. Mirgon, Director of Technology Services for Douglas County, Nevada, stated his support for elevating the Office to signal its importance to leadership at the State and local level and to help garner the attention the issue of interoperability deserves. 

Do you believe that the Office of Emergency Communications receives adequate 

support and leadership attention at its current organizational level? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Would elevating the Office of Emergency Communications improve 

the Department’s ability to enhance interoperable emergency communications and 

also increase its available resources? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. Do you have plans to elevate the Director of the Office of Emergency 

Communications to an SES-level position? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2. What are the estimated implementation costs for the National Emergency Communications Plan? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER CHARLES W. DENT FOR CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. As part of the State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans, 

States are expected to hire a dedicated interoperable communications coordinator. 

How will these positions work with the Office of Emergency Communications’ interoperability coordinators and FEMA’s emergency communications coordinators? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. The Regional Emergency Communications Coordination working 

groups seek to provide assessments of local emergency communications systems’ 

survivability, sustainability, and interoperability. 

Has a Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of Emergency Communications and FEMA been developed to clarify their respective roles and responsibilities for the Regional Emergency Communications Coordination working groups? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Can you please provide an update on the status of the Regional 

Emergency Communications Coordination working groups’ annual report? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. Have you seen any trends in these annual reports that may require 

greater Federal involvement? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 3. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Act (Pub. L. 110–53) 

directed the OEC to establish cross-border interoperable communications demonstration projects. The 9/11 Act specified that at least six communities along international borders—three along the northern border and three along the southern border—are to be selected to participate in demonstration projects to identify solutions 

to facilitate cross-border interoperability for emergency response providers, identify 

joint-use equipment to ensure communications, and provide technical assistance to 

enable emergency response agencies to adapt to a variety of environments. 
50 

Can you provide an estimated timeline for when we can expect the competitive 

selection process for the demonstration projects to begin? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER CHARLES W. DENT FOR RICHARD MIRGON, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, DOUGLAS COUNTY, MINDEN, NEVADA ON BEHALF

OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS (APCO) 

INTERNATIONAL

Question 1a. SAFECOM is a communications program within DHS that provides 

research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on 

communications-related issues to local, tribal, State, and Federal emergency response agencies. 

Has your office or county leveraged the work done by SAFECOM? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Have its offerings been beneficial to increasing the ability to provide 

interoperable communications to first responders? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. One of the challenges faced by first responders and public safety officials across the country as they work toward interoperable communications is the 

issue of cultural change. In the past, decisions regarding communications were 

made by each agency without regard to the need to coordinate with other agencies. 

What do you believe is the major challenge to achieving full emergency communications interoperability? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What metrics or programs would you recommend to ensure that national planning is being implemented at the State and local operational level? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER CHARLES W. DENT FOR CHARLES L. WERNER, 

EFO/CFO, CHARLOTTESVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA

Question 1a. The Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program calls 

for the establishment of common operating protocols through the development of 

standard operating procedures, consistent use of interoperability channels, plain 

language protocols, and common channel naming. 

Would it be reasonable to set a time frame by which all communication systems 

can be operated in a uniform manner? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. What more can be done at not only the State level but at the local 

and tribal levels to facilitate this conformity? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. Is sufficient planning taking place between State and local authorities with regard to the development of emergency responder skills? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 1d. Are coordinated training programs and common educational practices being developed for emergency responders? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. One of the challenges faced by first responders and public safety officials across the country as they work toward interoperable communications is the 

issue of cultural change. In the past, decisions regarding communications were 

made by each agency without regard to the need to coordinate with other agencies. 

What do you believe is the major challenge to achieving full emergency communications interoperability? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What metrics or programs would you recommend to ensure that national planning is being implemented at the State and local operational level? 

Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER CHARLES W. DENT FOR MICHAEL L. ALAGNA, 

DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIC INITIATIVES AND POLICY, MOTOROLA, 

INC. 

Question 1a. The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) is intended 

to provide recommendations to support and promote the ability of practitioners and 

Government officials to continue communications capabilities in the event of a disaster and to ensure that the Nation continues to pursue the goal of fully interoperable communications. 
51 

What was Motorola’s involvement in the development of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan? 

Answer. Motorola and industry broadly supported the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) through the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), which included representatives from the Communications Sector Coordinating Council. The partnership provided by the CIPAC allowed industry and 

Government the opportunity to work together and exchange information. The purpose of a Communications Sector Coordinating Council which includes representatives from 38 companies and associations (manufacturers, owners, operators, cable, 

commercial broadcasters, information service providers, satellite, wireless & 

wireline) is to foster and facilitate the coordination of sector-wide activities and initiatives designed to improve physical and cybersecurity of the critical infrastructures and related information flow within the sector, cross-sector and with DHS. 

Motorola chairs the CSCC State and Local Working Group, which was given the 

charge of coordinating industry involvement with the development of the NECP. 

Industry representatives from the National Security Telecommunications Advisory 

Committee (NSTAC includes representatives from 22 companies and associations), 

also supported the OEC. The Office of Emergency Communications drew heavily 

from existing emergency communications documentation and initiatives. These 

source documents were key drivers for the NECP’s assessment of the current stateof-emergency communications and also helped shape the Plan’s strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives. The NSTAC report on Emergency Communications and 

Interoperability anticipated incorporating critical elements into the NECP, with Motorola and AT&T co-chairing the Emergency Communications and Interoperability 

Task Force (ECITF). 

Industry/Motorola’s involvement in the development of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan included review of the overall framework, its goals and objectives, and the varied initiatives of the plan. Industry perspectives were compiled; 

comments were prepared by the Communications Sector Coordinating Council State 

and Local Working Group and approved by the CSCC prior to submission to the 

OEC. 

Question 1b. Is your perception that industry, as a whole, was actively engaged 

throughout the development process and that your input was incorporated into the 

document? 

Answer. Federally-approved advisory committees were engaged during the development of the NECP, providing broad industry participation. The accelerated pace 

of development of the plan stressed industry’s advisory role to review and develop 

recommendations to the process in a timely manner; however industry input was 

incorporated into the document, for example private sector support to communications during emergencies and recovery efforts and involvement in standards development, advanced communications technologies, and services development and deployment. 

Question 2a. One of the challenges faced by first responders and public safety officials across the country as they work toward interoperable communications is the 

issue of cultural change. In the past, decisions regarding communications were 

made by each agency without regard to the need to coordinate with other agencies. 

What do you believe is the major challenge to achieving full emergency communications interoperability? 

Answer. Achieving emergency communications capabilities and interoperability 

requires the sustained commitment of substantial resources. There is progress 

across the spectrum of challenges to interoperability: human factors, technical and 

financial. The emergency response community views the following as the key issues: 

• Incompatible and aging communications equipment; 

• Limited and fragmented budget cycles and funding; 

• Limited and fragmented planning and coordination; 

• Limited and fragmented radio spectrum; 

• And limited equipment standards. 

The strengthened Federal leadership through grants, outreach and guidance has 

greatly improved the support to State and local officials. An increased level of coordination and cooperation by establishing multidisciplinary, cross-jurisdictional 

governance structures has improved regional planning and collaboration. Much of 

the communications equipment used by emergency responders is being upgraded to 

the Project 25 (P25) standards-based digital equipment, which improves communication between State and local governments and between neighboring local jurisdictions. The Digital TV transition legislation enacted by Congress makes available 

new spectrum for critically important public safety interoperable communications 

and supports the objective of providing public safety with Nation-wide interoperable 

broadband data. While there is progress across all fronts on achieving full emer-
52 

gency communications interoperability, continued funding to replace aging and nonupgradeable communications equipment and maintain a sustained, consistent and 

predictable budget cycle remain a top priority. 

Question 2b. What metrics or programs would you recommend to ensure that the 

national plan, once complete, is being implemented at the State and local operational level? 

Answer. Continued targeted Federal grants will ensure the national plan is being 

implemented at the State and local operational level and to assist the national plan 

in meeting its goals of demonstrating response-level emergency communications 

within specified time frames for routine and significant events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. 

Question 3. How does your company interact with the Department regarding 

interoperable emergency communications? Would you make any recommendations to 

improve this relationship? 

Answer. There are numerous organizations within the Department of Homeland 

Security and across the Federal Government that industry interacts with regarding 

interoperable emergency communications. For example, the Science and Technology 

Directorate (R&D), the SAFECOM program, the Office of Emergency Communications, the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC is working with NIST 

and the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) to support the efforts of the 

emergency response community and the private sector), the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC), FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications 

(DEC) Division, the National Communications System (NCS) and the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC). 

A recommendation to improve industry’s interaction with the Department would 

be to clarify and consolidate Federal Government interoperable emergency communications roles and responsibilities. Specifically, additional policy guidance is required to clearly delineate the interoperable emergency communications roles and 

functions of the new Office of Emergency Communications, as established by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, and any other DHS organization (e.g., Science & Technology Directorate, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency) with a role or responsibility in the area of interoperable emergency communications. Also consideration should be given to elevating the Office of Emergency 

Communications within the organizational hierarchy to ensure executive oversight 

across the Federal Government for a fully coordinated, integrated, and interoperable 

emergency response communications function and capability. 

Æ