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

44–909 2008

HEARING ON UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

RADIO UPGRADES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITOL SECURITY 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 18, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILLIAM PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITOL SECURITY

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts, Chairman 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE RADIO 

UPGRADES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITOL SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Michael E. Capuano 

(chairman of the subcommittee) Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Capuano, Brady, Lofgren, and Lungren. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Darrell O’Connor, 

Professional Staff; Michael Harrison, Professional Staff; Matt 

Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press 

Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Gregory Abbott, Policy Analyst; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Alec 

Hoppes, Minority Professional Staff; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority 

Professional Staff. 

Mr. CAPUANO. We are going to start on time because Mr. Lungren is here, and Mr. Brady, I believe, is on his way. He will be 

here shortly. And I am under the impression that we have a good 

chance of having votes called in the not too distant future, so I figured, let us see if we can do this while we can. 

For the purposes of the record, and I hate doing this, but I will 

because, if I don’t, my staff will yell at me, I am just going to read 

a little statement into the record. 

This afternoon we will receive an update from the Capitol Police 

on the status of efforts to upgrade their radio communication system. Their mission is to ensure a safe environment for everyone 

visiting the Capitol and those working in Congress. An essential 

component of that role is the ability of the Capitol Police to communicate effectively with each other and with relevant public safety 

personnel. 

I look forward to learning today more about their progress in implementing the new system, including the reasoning behind the 

choices they have made in formulating the set of criteria for a new 

radio communications network. Through the testimony of the individuals joining us today—we will have a second panel as well—the 

Subcommittee on Capitol Security will gain a better understanding 

of the decisions made by the Capitol Police in choosing the type of 

system that they feel is necessary to enhance the safety of the Capitol complex. 

Much has been asked of the Capitol Police of recent years, and 

we all get a sense of the expanding nature of the security threats, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

the necessity of having an enhanced radio communication system 

to improve the flow of information during a crisis. We should all 

work to facilitate the implementation of an improved system. 

Before I close, I would also like to thank the chairman, Mr. 

Brady, who will be here in a moment, and the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Lungren, as well as everyone in the audience for 

attending today. And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

And for my personal interest, because I am no radio expert, I am 

hoping that all people who testify try to stay away from, as much 

as possible, technical jargon because I may fall asleep if you insist 

on using it. I am interested in the generalities as to whether the 

system that is being considered is the kind of system that we 

should be moving to; is it the norm in the business, or is it some 

sort of an exception? And I would also be interested in hearing people’s opinions on the general cost of such a system, because I think 

that is of interest to us. 

And with that, I will ask Mr. Lungren if he has any opening 

statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Capuano follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 6 44909A.001
4 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, I returned to this Congress because of my desire 

to keep our country safe and secure from the threat of terrorist attack. And one of the prime targets of such a terrorist attack has 

been and will continue to be our Nation’s Capitol. 

I have, since 9/11, been concerned about a number of different 

things involving our first responders. Coming out of the experience 

of 9/11 and other episodes around the country, it is clear that our 

interoperability is not where it should be with jurisdictions around 

the country. And interoperability usually goes to the question of 

different types of responders being able to communicate with one 

another in different jurisdictions. 

But at base, we also suffer from a lack of what I consider to be 

sufficient improvement in the communications networks within a 

department. And I am concerned that we do not have what we 

need to have here. And I know that people are concerned about the 

cost. I am concerned about the cost. 

But I would just say this: It seems to me strange that I never 

hear Congress rejecting the notion that we need to do everything 

that is necessary to protect the President of the United States, the 

White House and other offices that surround the Executive Office 

of the President, and yet we don’t seem to have that same urgency 

with respect to our Nation’s Capitol. I am not suggesting that 

Members of Congress are Presidents of the United States, but what 

I am suggesting is the institution of the Congress is as important 

as the institution of the White House—or institution of the Presidency or the institution of the Supreme Court. And we disserve 

ourselves and our constituents by not putting the same attention 

to the security needs of this Capitol as we would for the President 

of the United States. 

And we should always be conscious of the cost of things involved 

and make sure that we make appropriate decisions with regard to 

the taxpayers. But I hope we are not going to have any idea—and 

I am not suggesting you Mr. Chairman are, but I hope the Congress is not going to nickel and dime its approach to security at 

this Capitol. 

If, in fact, as I have been led to believe, there are certain parts 

of the Capitol that make it difficult for communications by radio, 

that is the problem. That doesn’t mean that ought to continue. If 

it requires us to make certain fixes and requires us to adopt certain 

hardware in order to make that problem be surmounted, then we 

ought to do it. And if that is somewhat costly, we ought to understand the cost is related to the specifics. 

We are not going to change the Capitol. We are not going to 

change the construction of the Capitol. We have to realize it presents some unique problems with respect to communications. And 

if it does, as I believe it does, then our obligation is to overcome 

those obstacles rather than either to pretend that they are not 

there or to somehow say it would be too expensive for us to do the 

job. 

I know the chairman shares my concern about this place, but I 

just would like to put that on the record. This committee, I know, 

is committed to making this Capitol secure. And as the chief auVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:46 Jan 10, 2009 Jkt 044909 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A909.XXX A909

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
5 

thorizing committee in this regard, it seems to me we need to not 

only look at this but act on this issue as soon as possible. 

And so I thank the Chairman for having this hearing. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Lungren. 

Before I forget, because if the bells ring, we need to run out of 

here, without objection, I assume there is none, that the hearing 

record will remain open for a period of 2 weeks for anybody to submit additional testimony, clarifying testimony, at a later time. 

And I am pleased to introduce Mr. Brady. For those of you who 

don’t know him, he is the Chairman of the full committee and a 

fine and wonderful friend of mine and the police department. 

And he informs me he has no opening statement, which is usually my role, but that is to be quiet while he is talking. 

With that, I am just going to go right to the Chief and it is yours 

Chief. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., UNITED 

STATES CAPITOL POLICE; ACCOMPANIED BY ASSISTANT 

CHIEF DAN NICHOLS; AND GLORIA JARMON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

Chief MORSE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss the United States Capitol Police’s proposal for 

a new radio system. 

I am also pleased to be joined here today by my Assistant Chief, 

Dan Nichols, and to my left, my Chief Administrative Officer, Gloria Jarmon. 

It has been 2 years since I was selected as the Chief of the 

United States Capitol Police. I have served the Department for the 

past 23 years. And during this time, the Department has made tremendous improvements in a number of areas, both operationally 

and administratively. 

One area still needing improvement is our current radio communication system. Radios serve as a lifeline for every law enforcement officer. Officers depend on their radios as much as they do 

their weapons. It is often considered an officer safety issue when 

an officer is unable to effectively communicate with his or her fellow officers or dispatchers. Critical information can be delayed or 

missed all together when you do not have reliable and secure radio 

communications. 

The Department is routinely challenged every day with keeping 

our current radio system up and running. The system is over 20 

years old, and we are experiencing failures on a regular basis. 

These failures are the direct result of an aging equipment and infrastructure that have significantly exceeded their life expectancy. 

Equipment manufacturers no longer make many of the critical 

parts used in the Capitol Police radio system, which substantially 

increases the risk that we will not be able to respond appropriately 

in an emergency or even during normal operating conditions. 

A web of very well structured buildings with numerous underground tunnels and subways adds a tremendous amount of complexity to the radio system. It is the mission of the Capitol Police 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
6 

to patrol these areas on a routine basis, though the penetration of 

radio signals into these areas make that more challenging. 

Unlike many other law enforcement agencies whose mission is to 

patrol primarily outdoors, the majority of the U.S. Capitol Police 

patrol area is within the buildings and underground areas. While 

my staff has done a tremendous job of providing as much radio coverage as possible throughout this web of buildings, tunnels and garages and subways, there are many gaps that exist today. 

The age of the current radio system is a major concern since 

nearly 90 percent of the system infrastructure is 25 years old and 

desperately needs to be replaced. Our current system is analog 

with a very limiting five-channel capability. While the size of the 

Capitol Police force has increased our radio system has not. 

Our current level of radio security does not meet appropriate 

Federal standards, and there are numerous issues involving our 

current system that I am unable to discuss publicly, but I would 

be happy to discuss further with the committee in a closed-door 

session. 

In 2005 the Capitol Police partnered with NavAir to perform an 

assessment of the current system. NavAir produced a very comprehensive report that included an RF propagation study as well 

as many recommendations for making improvements to our radio 

system and infrastructure. Based upon the NavAir findings, the 

U.S. Capitol Police tasked NavAir with providing a high level recommendation for the future direction of the radio communications 

supporting our operations. 

In 2006 the Capitol Police hired a consultant, Concepts to Operations, to assist the Department in moving forward the new radio 

system. CTO was selected based upon their extensive knowledge, 

vendor independence, strong reputation and experience in designing and building radio communications for systems for public safety 

organizations. And in 2007, the Capitol Police hired a full-time 

radio project manager from Global Tech. 

Our project plan for the new radio system consists of a sevenphase approach which is outlined in the U.S. Capitol Police development lifecycle policy document. The first phase is the definition 

of the project, which includes the purpose of the project, associated 

benefits and so on. Our second phase involves the gathering of system requirements. This stage defines how the system is to operate 

and what characteristics it will have. Phase three of our lifecycle 

takes the information gathered in the requirement phase and constructs a design based on those requirements. We are currently at 

the beginning of the fourth phase of the project, which is the acquisition phase. And at this time, the completion of the request for 

proposal for the new radio system is required. 

The new radio system will require considerable facility related 

work in order to host a system in primary and secondary or mirrored locations. Having a redundant radio system in a second location will substantially reduce the potential for outages resulting 

from environmental or terrorist related events. We at the Capitol 

Police look forward to working collaboratively with the Congress to 

continue to safeguard the legislative process, the Members, staff 

and visitors of the complex. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
7 

We thank you for the opportunity once again to appear before 

you. And my colleagues and myself are prepared to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Chief Morse follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
8 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 44909A.002
9 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 44909A.003
10 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 44909A.004
11 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 44909A.005
12 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 44909A.006
13 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thanks Chief. 

I have a few questions just to start off. Most notably, the system 

that is proposed—and again, I understand that there might be details, if I get to a point where there are some details you don’t want 

to discuss in public, just say so, and that is not a problem. The system that is proposed, in general, do you consider it a state-of-theart system? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And if you were the Chief of Police of New York 

City, is this the type of system you might be interested in looking 

at? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, I would be. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And you feel comfortable that we have had enough 

outside experts, independent experts take a look at this that would 

support your position? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. CAPUANO. The reason I ask is because, obviously, there is a 

letter that has been circulated from one of the vendors that indicates that the system may be more than we need and that maybe 

we should just piggyback on an existing system. And I am just curious what would be your response to that suggestion? 

Chief MORSE. Well, first, I think it would be appropriate for me 

to take you through how we came about selecting the capabilities 

of this particular system. 

First, we had the NavAir study, which concluded that our current system was one that was in need of desperate repair or enhancement in order to give us daily operations and future operations. But it also said that we needed to look down the road to 

a state-of-the-art system to help us provide security to the Congress. 

The first thing we had to do was take a look at our mission and 

what it is we are responsible for in safeguarding Congress and facilitating the legislative process. So, internally, we took a look at 

those mission sets and how they related to communications and, 

specifically, radio communications. And that was our first step to 

have a concept of operations for this new system. 

Then what we did is reached out to a company, which is CTO, 

Concepts to Operations, which are senior executive telecommunications engineers, 16 years of experience in this type of business, 

a multitude of clients that have very similar systems to this. And 

they were to help us from the engineering standpoint to take that 

concept and get us to the operational needs, the Capitol Police 

needs, in order to facilitate the safety and security of Congress and 

facilitate the legislative process. 

Once that was accomplished, we were able to reach the stage 

that we are now, which is the acquisition stage. And at this point 

in time, the design and the concept doesn’t have any specific manufacturer or entity in mind. It has a concept that comes from within 

the agency and its stakeholders whom we serve and the mission 

that we serve. So once the RFP is written, it is open for you know 

technical scrutiny. 

Mr. CAPUANO. In these studies, in the NavAir, the CTO, and in 

your own review, did you also look at the options? Was the option 

reviewed about other systems? Let us put it this way. When I go 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
14 

out to buy a new automobile, my dreams all come true when I go 

to look at the $100,000 cars, and then I walk away from them. You 

know, they are fun to shop around for a little while, maybe take 

one for a test drive. It is not going to happen, and I end up back 

in reality. And I am just curious, did you take a look at some of 

the—again, I am going here because this letter has kind of made 

the rounds. This letter is kind of out there in the general public, 

and it raises some serious question about the potential of saving 

tens of millions of dollars. I am not saying, there is—were the options that they proposed reviewed and compared against the ones 

that you chose? 

Chief MORSE. From a technical engineering standpoint, the answer is yes. All those considerations were made internally and externally. Internal and external is unique with our police department, because many of the municipal police departments have 80 

percent of their mission outside; whereas we have 80 percent of our 

mission inside. So there are technical engineering solutions to that 

that answer those questions that you are asking: Does a certain 

system work? So there are technical engineering solutions to each 

one of these capabilities when you talk about options. 

The one thing that I had to understand as we went through this 

process is that a P25 trunk digital radio system is that in and of 

itself. With that comes options, various options of encryption, options of coverage; is that coverage internal, external? Clarity, voice 

clarity, and then finally is, how do you from an engineer standpoint 

find the solutions to that type of coverage and infrastructure? All 

that was looked at in this project. That is the reason we had CTO, 

the experts in this in the engineering of such a concept and the experience in this type of radio system, involved in helping us get to 

where we are. 

We also had a project manager, someone from Global Tech, who 

was able to keep us on track with a large project and initiative like 

this, someone who had experience in that and the various types of 

systems and projects that are out there that are offered. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thanks, Chief. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, you have your experience in the area of law enforcement. 

You are not a technical expert in the area of communications, radios, et cetera. 

Who did you use as your expert? 

Chief MORSE. We have, what we use as our experts are two people. One is CTO and how they reached out to partner and also to 

experts in the field, and they are certainly engineering, senior engineering experts themselves. In addition to that, the hiring of the 

project manager from Global Tech, he is an expert in this field with 

a vast amount of experience as well. So we had really two paths 

of expertise taking us through this process. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Who is NavAir? 

Chief MORSE. NavAir is a government entity. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Right. But I mean, what are they? 

Officer NICHOLS. NavAir works under DOD obviously. They do a 

lot of engineering for communications for other agencies. They are 

a pay-for-fee, or a pay-for-service type organization. But they do 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
15 

bring a lot of technical expertise to bear on telecommunications 

issues. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Did you consult with other law enforcement agencies that have gone through this same issue? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Who? 

Chief MORSE. Specifically, I would have to turn to our CTO folks 

who are here with us. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, maybe they can tell us who. 

Chief MORSE. But some of the partners or some of the systems 

that were looked at in the Metropolitan area, for instance, are 

Maryland authorities; Prince George’s County the Metropolitan Police Department here in the District of Columbia. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Did you folks consult with the Secret Service? 

Chief MORSE. I am—the answer is, yes we did. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Did any of these agencies talked about make recent purchases for the upgraded communication systems that they 

currently have? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. The Prince George’s County and Metropolitan 

Police Department would be the most recent. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But they would be one that generally spends its 

time in open areas as opposed to what you described as the unique 

characteristics of the police department right? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I mean, my question is Secret Service, and I am 

not trying to say they are the only one out there, but I have seen 

them operate with their communication systems. They go into just 

about any environment you can possibly have, closed environments, 

open environments, et cetera, have to bring their communication 

systems. It would seem that they might have some particular expertise. How much did you rely on their expertise? 

Chief MORSE. Well, I can say that our representative from Global 

Tech is very familiar with how their systems function and have 

worked on many projects in that respect with those systems. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You said in your testimony that a current level of 

radio security does not meet appropriate Federal standards, and 

then there are some other issues that we cannot discuss publicly. 

I assume that means you could discuss publicly the failure to meet 

appropriate Federal standards. What do you mean by that? 

Chief MORSE. Specifically to encryption capability. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Are you currently in a situation where the performance of the Department is less than what you would hope it 

to be because of failures in communication? 

Chief MORSE. Whenever you operate, knowing that your system 

could fail at any time because it has in the past as a whole and 

on certain occasions from a hardware or software standpoint, it 

does not give you a confident feeling that you can carry out operations on a daily basis or in an emergency situation if in fact your 

system is unreliable. 

Mr. LUNGREN. In the review of what happened on 9/11, there 

was the pinpointing of the lack of interoperability and the lack of 

officers unable to talk to one another, the fire department being 

able to talk to the police department. Do we have a situation here 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
16 

at the Capitol that there are episodes or times where officers cannot talk with one another? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct, nor could we talk to them. 

Mr. LUNGREN. How long have we had that? 

Chief MORSE. Well, at various levels. Obviously, as I said in my 

testimony, our staff has worked very hard to eliminate as much as 

those gaps as we possibly could. This particular system takes it 

even further than that and helps us fill those gaps to ensure that 

communication with our officers—two-way communication with our 

officers is paramount—and that can occur throughout the complex. 

Mr. LUNGREN. See, here is the concern that I have. And that is 

not just with your department, but departments across the country. 

We have gotten a warning which was in the form of a terrible attack on our land, on our own soil. And that has been a number of 

years ago. And one of the things everybody agreed on was the failure of our communication systems on the ground, within departments, within the sub-set of departments, interoperability. And yet 

we still are asking some of the same questions we asked then. 

And that is why I am somewhat confused that, if this is such a 

priority, the 2009 budget request from your shop doesn’t request 

money for this radio system replacement. And if it is of that urgency, as I believe it is, why didn’t we ask for that, or why didn’t 

we receive a request from you asking for that? 

Chief MORSE. Primarily because we wouldn’t be able to ask for 

the amount of money that is required to do an initiative like this 

until we were able to complete the design and concept of the operation and have a cost analysis associated with that. And that is 

where we were as discussions began on this, and that is where we 

are today. 

We now know the conceptual design of this. There is a cost analysis associated with that, as well as facilities costs. And we are prepared to make that request in whatever fashion that the Congress 

would support us. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. First of all, Chief, thank you for being here today 

and thank you for the job you do protecting us and all the citizens. 

I know it is pretty tough that job in itself, but it is also tough to 

have to report to so many bosses that have so many different ideas. 

But in a perfect world or even just in reality, how long would it 

take, if everything moved in the right proper direction, would it 

take for you to have a proper system that you would like and would 

be the proper system that we would be able to rely on, God forbid, 

any other emergency or be able to talk to all the entities that we 

need to talk to? How long would it take for you to get that up and 

running? 

Chief MORSE. Two years. And we have the—as I said, as I stated 

in my testimony, this is designed in phases, and with those phases 

come timelines, and we are in the acquisition phase now. And that 

would require an RFP for bidding for the scope of work that needs 

to be done. And from that point to completion would be 2 years. 

There is a testing phase that goes with that, but that is not an 

operational issue. So we would expect to go operational with this 

in 2 years. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
17 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that this is a system that could be upgraded; as times allow or need be, they can upgrade them as you 

have to? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, this system provides us not only state-of-theart technology that is current with this type of radio system, but 

it also sets us up for the future and expansion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then you will need one budget request, or will 

you need a phased 2-year budget request? 

Chief MORSE. The preference of the people who are advising me 

is that this be a one-time request, which—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not holding you to that. You need to be 

safe. I understand that. 

Chief MORSE. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. For the most part, to the best of your knowledge, 

it will be a one-time budget request, and you will have what you 

need to get it done, phases that will be up and running within 2 

years but completed within 2 years? 

Chief MORSE. Right. 

Ms. Jarmon is going to answer the question here regarding—— 

Ms. JARMON. I just wanted to add that, while the option of receiving the money up front is probably the better option because 

we wouldn’t have as many of the possible cost increases that could 

occur if we receive the money over several years, but since, like the 

Chief mentioned, that this would be 2 years from the time that the 

contract is awarded based on our estimate, our preference would be 

that there be no-year money because it will be spent over a couple 

of years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I would like to note that we have been joined by 

Ms. Lofgren, and without objection, if she would like to ask any 

questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry to be late. I am very interested in this subject. As Mr. 

Lungren knows from our other assignment on the Homeland Security Committee, there is a lot of work that has been going on on 

interoperability. And we are fortunate that the District of Columbia 

metropolitan region is in the lead along with Silicon Valley on how 

you do interoperability in the smartest way. And so I am looking 

forward to making sure that we get the upgrades that we need but 

that we do it in a way that is going to last and not have to be replaced, because there are software solutions to a lot of what we 

think are hardware questions. 

And I thank the chairman for allowing me to participate and 

look forward to being a productive partner with the subcommittee 

on this. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. 

Chief, I want to talk, because there have been several publicized 

reports about the potential cost of this system that have ranged all 

over the ballpark, anywhere from $10 million to $70 million and 

above. And I know that you haven’t put the RFP out there. I know 

that, and I respect that. 

At the same time, you know, every vendor in the world already 

is thinking about this. You are already thinking about it. You have 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
18 

some ballpark ideas of what you think it might cost and a range. 

Could you give us an estimate of a range? And I am particularly 

interested in, if that is the case, as I understand it, some of those 

estimates have changed depending on who has looked at the issue, 

and I am just wondering why they would have changed. 

Chief MORSE. Well, I would like to address the issue of what has 

changed and why that has changed. With respect to NavAir, which 

is where the original costing quotes were placed, with respect to 

NavAir and replacing a new system, what they did versus replacing a new system are really two different things. What NavAir did 

for our organization was take a look at the existing radio system 

and recommend to us a manner in which we could enhance that 

system to its highest capability. Even with that being said, that 

would be with the existing 25-year-old hardware and software and 

infrastructure. So we would be enhancing a system that eventually 

would be obsolete. But that was an option, and certainly remains 

an option, that you could enhance to the highest capability possible 

the current radio system, which is an analog system. And you 

would try to do that in coverage areas, as well as a secure and 

interoperability. But we would be doing that with a system that is 

obsolete. 

What changed is the fact that, at the conclusion of that report, 

it notes that the long-term resolution is for state-of-the-art technology, a P25 digital trunk system, which requires a whole different level of engineering expertise infrastructure along with the 

mission sets that are required to accomplish our mission as the 

United States Capitol Police in safeguarding the campus. That is 

the big difference. It is really an existing system versus making a 

new system what it needs to be to support us. And that is really 

the difference in cost. 

So had the NavAir report been the CTO report of a new system, 

we would be at the same place today. But they were really two different reports. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you Chief. 

And the reason I ask is, obviously, I mean, we all want the best 

system we can get that works and meets the security requirements 

and all the other requirements that you already know about. At the 

same time I hope that you are sensitive, and I am actually more— 

I am less talking to you than I am to what I presume to be vendors 

in the audience. I hope that they are very sensitive to the fact that 

what we went through with the CVC, we will not go through with 

the radio system. When we get a number, it is the number. And 

it won’t be doubled. It won’t be tripled. It won’t be quadrupled. 

That will be the number. Whatever the number is, and as long as 

it is fair and reasonable, that is going to be the number. And that 

is—I think a lot of concern around this place lately is the fact that 

we are not sure we are being led down a rosy path with numbers 

that double and triple as soon as we say yes. That is number one. 

Number two is—my hope is that, as you go out to bid, that there 

is some sort of performance bond, particularly if you are going to 

pay the money up front or chunks of money up front, which I understand. I have no problem with that concept. But I will tell you 

that representing Boston I have an unfortunate fair amount of experience in people that didn’t get sufficient performance bonds for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
19 

large capital projects. And that was significantly a seriously bad 

judgment. And as a former mayor, I have bought radio systems. I 

have bought fire trucks. I have bought police equipment. We always had performance bonds and, again, not because we don’t trust 

the vendors, but because we had to give up a lot of money up front. 

They were expensive systems, because you don’t want to get into 

the thing and, all of a sudden, you get halfway down the road and 

somebody says, well, by the way, you didn’t ask for this third tower 

over here, and now that you need it, it is another $5 million. Performance bonds prevent that. So my hope and expectation is that 

whatever the number is that it is the number; it gets you exactly 

what you ask for and, especially if we are going to be having upfront payments, that we have some sort of a performance bond or 

its equivalent. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The thought strikes me that someone who succeeded in getting 

this bid and did a good job, it might be a pretty good selling point 

for other business around the country that you provided the best 

radio system for our Nation’s Capitol. Maybe people ought to think 

about that when they are bidding. 

You know, we passed a billion dollar grant program for interoperability for all the agencies around the United States except the 

U.S. Capitol, $1 billion. And it was supposed to be on a risk-based 

assessment. And what is risk? One of the ways you analyze risk, 

one of the elements of risk is threat. 

Is there any belief on your part, Chief Morse or Assistant Chief 

Nichols, that the U.S. Capitol is no longer a potential target among 

terrorists? 

Chief MORSE. There is no belief of that at all. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, here is my point. We spent $1 billion. We 

are going spread out all around the country. We are going to send 

to every other jurisdiction for their communications, and part of it 

is, we are going to try and figure out which may be targets as part 

of our assessment as to who ought to get the grants, but we make 

sure the only person who doesn’t get it, the only group that doesn’t 

get it is the U.S. Capitol Police. I don’t know, that strikes me as 

somewhat odd. 

Let me ask you this, Chief, who is the chief contracting officer 

in your operation for this? 

Chief MORSE. It would be a procurement officer within the Office 

of Financial Management which falls under the Chief Administrative Officer. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Who is? 

Chief MORSE. Gloria Jarmon. 

Mr. LUNGREN. All right. 

What role if any is played by the police board and the oversight 

committees. 

Chief MORSE. With respect to the Capitol Police Board, we 

briefed out and kept apprised the Capitol Police Board of every 

step along the way of this project. And they were inclusive in the 

decision-making of its concept and endorsed that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If there is a protest involved in the bid process, 

how is that adjudicated? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
20 

Chief MORSE. That is not a question I can answer. 

Maybe Gloria could do that for us. 

Ms. JARMON. I think the protest would still go through the GAO 

bid protest process. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is there any—Chief, you mentioned that, if everything goes along as it should, you would have this system up in 2 

years. If you have a protest in the midst of that, do you know how 

that would interfere with, if it would interfere with, the project if 

you have already started the process of building this out? 

Chief MORSE. Well, I think if there was a protest, it would probably come before the start of the process, so it would depend on 

how long it took to adjudicate that before we started. So the way 

we look at this is, every day or every week or every month that 

you wait is that much further out for the completion of the system. 

But when you start to finish it is 2 years. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Now, Chief, I mean, when you make this decision, 

we are talking about you and your men and women in uniform as 

well as the people you serve relying on a system that you made a 

decision upon. We know from 9/11, that can mean the difference 

between life and death; success or failure; a disaster becoming 

worse or a disaster being prevented. How confident are you in the 

process that you have begun that you are going to get to the right 

decision here, and how confident are you that, in any request for 

proposal that is put out there, that you believe you have covered 

all the bases so that the responders will not only respond within 

what we consider to be appropriate parameters financially but performance-wise? 

Chief MORSE. I am 100 percent confident that we are doing this 

the right way. We have the right methodology to do this. We have 

contracted the right expertise to take us through this process. We 

are going to continue to have peer review of this process and due 

diligence to ensure that it is the best system that we can possibly 

offer to this community. And I pledge that due diligence will be 

done in this case. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask one last question here. I have been 

trying to figure out how you would find departments that are similar to your department. And maybe this might sound a little offbeat, but I am trying to think of places that have large numbers 

of people that are funneled through small spaces, oftentimes broken up, a landscape that changes; you have got some open spaces, 

but you have a lot of buildings of different sizes; you are worried 

about, you are concerned about the convenience of the individuals 

as well as your ability to perform. And in some ways, and I don’t 

mean to make this facetious or anything, but we are more like a 

major amusement park than we are like other things; like a 

Disneyland or an Epcot or something like that that has to force 

people through. What I am trying to think of is how imaginative 

were you in reaching out to other organizations that may be similar to you in terms of their performance and in terms of the challenge that they have in terms of what kind of communication systems they might have when you have told us that people like the 

Metropolitan Police or others in this area are dissimilar very much 

in terms of the mission and the communication needs they have? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 

Chief MORSE. It is very difficult to find other agencies who are 

as unique as us. And that is why I am so proud of the hard work 

of our civilians and sworn personnel each day. 

With respect to reaching out with a radio system and finding 

similar situations, for instance, the Metro Transit system, Metro 

Transit Police and the subterrainean underground work that they 

do and the challenges that they face. So it may not be one agency 

with respect to a challenge that they face, but we sort of have all 

the different challenges of all the different agencies. So Metro 

Transit would be an example of an agency that has subterrainean, 

below-ground work in areas that typical police departments don’t 

work. 

We also obviously worked—we kept in mind that a lot of, 20 percent of our work is outdoors, so we obviously looked at agencies 

who have outdoor coverage, protective responsibilities like we do, 

building security like we do, street patrol like we do, and sort of 

tried to find a mix of agencies that captured all the different challenges that we face here on the Hill. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, you said you are 2 years out once we get 

the bid process and the bid awarded. How many years are we until 

we get to that 2 years? And maybe you shouldn’t answer that because you might be getting us more scared. I mean, are we getting 

close? And I want to say, for the record, that you do have a system 

that is in place that does work, so we are not trying to send anybody any messages out there, but we just want to make this work 

better and more efficient. But are we like getting close to that signature? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, we are. 

As you recall in testimony, we have seven phases of this project. 

We are currently in phase four, which is the acquisition phase of 

the project. Three to six months after the RFP is issued for design 

and construction, we would move into the implementation stage, 

which is phase five, which is 15 to 18 months. So we are in the 

acquisition phase. What needs to be done now is to write and complete the RFP to put out for bidding. And once that is accomplished, then we can move into the implementation phase. 

The CHAIRMAN. And whoever gets that award will have a timeframe when they have got to do their due diligence to get moving 

too quickly? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. And like I said, this is all based 

on engineers and subject matter experts in this, so it shouldn’t deviate in timeframe. 

Then you move into phase six, which is the test and acceptance 

phase, which is 2 to 3 months and then, finally, the operation and 

maintenance and lifecycle of the system. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because I find it astounding that we are moving 

faster than they are. ‘‘We’’ meaning us in Congress are pushing to 

move it quicker than they are, so let us try to get this done. 

Chief MORSE. We agree, and we always appreciate all your support in helping us accomplish these tasks to safeguard the campus. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
22 

Mr. CAPUANO. Chief, one last question. When this is all built out, 

how many people will be using this system, about? 

Chief MORSE. Well, within our agency, we have about 2,000 employees plus and, from a sworn standpoint, around 1,700 that 

would be using this. But this also has the capability of adding additional users, which is why it is such a great system. You know, the 

interoperability part where we can bring in other law enforcement 

agencies; other entities within the congressional community who 

use radio systems, can use this system. So one of the reasons that 

we use the leg branch radio system with this is that its capability 

is to bring on as many users as you want. 

Specifically with us, they have given me a number of 2,400 units/ 

subscribers, and could go up to 5,000 users/subscribers. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So, at the moment, the estimation is to begin with, 

give or take, 2,000 members of the Capitol Police and immediately 

allow the use, give or take, of 400 non-Capitol Police but yet employees of the Capitol. 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. And it also allows other leg branch 

entities to use the system as well. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thanks. 

I think we are all set, Chief, now. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

If I could ask the second panel to take positions. 

Thank you. 

The second panel, we were going to have Chief Cathy Lanier of 

the Metropolitan Police Department, but my understanding is she 

has more pressing demands for her immediate attention at the moment. And we are honored to have Commander James Crane join 

us, and I believe Mr. Travis Hudnall is with you as well. 

We also have Mr. David Boyd from the Department of Homeland 

Security and Mr. Steve Souder, who is the director of Public Safety 

For Communications for Fairfax County and a representative of the 

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials. 

STATEMENTS OF JAMES CRANE, COMMANDER, SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY TRAVIS HUDNALL, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER; DAVID G. BOYD, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTEROPERABILITY SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND STEVE SOUDER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, FAIRFAX 

COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND MEMBER, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. CAPUANO. And with that, I believe we will start with you, 

Commander Crane. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CRANE 

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, staff and 

guests, on behalf of Chief Cathy L. Lanier, thank you for the opportunity to present the statement on the need for upgrades to radios 

used by the United States Capitol Police. 

My name is James Crane. I am Commander of the Metropolitan 

Police Department, Special Operations Division. From 2002 to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

2007, I was director of D.C. Police Communications. To my right 

is Mr. Travis Hudnall, our Chief Information Officer. 

The Metropolitan Police Department believes this upgrade is 

vital to the safety of those who work in and visit the U.S. Capitol 

and therefore is of interest to both the District of Columbia and the 

entire Nation. The specific operational relationship between the 

Metropolitan Police Department and the U.S. Capitol Police regarding voice communication has a long history of partnership. 

In 1992, our Department and the U.S. Capitol Police entered into 

a memorandum of understanding allowing for reciprocity in radio 

programming. At the time, both agencies used an analog-based system. Selected units with adjacent patrol areas were cross-programmed, allowing members to monitor and communicate on each 

agency’s channels. However, the system shared a common trait of 

analog systems with poor signal strength, especially in many large 

buildings, inherent noise and heavy static and the inability to communicate in the subway system. 

In 2003, the District of Columbia built a digital trunk radio network for all city agencies. This replaced MPD’s analog system and 

now provides redundant service within a 35-mile radius. Interoperability is one of the most important joint issues between local and 

Federal partners. 

In September of 2006, a mandatory Federal interoperability exercise was conducted by the Department of Homeland Security with 

National Capital Region agencies. The NCR partners, including 

MPD and U.S. Capitol Police, received one of the highest marks in 

the Nation. Our city system can also be viewed as a regional system. 

Because of the digital platform, there is the ability to program 

access with additional users from partner agencies, both local and 

Federal. However, agencies using an analog platform are at a disadvantage. They cannot be programmed to have direct connections 

to a digital system. 

Any upgrade to the U.S. Capitol Police radio system will have a 

direct positive impact on MPD operation and city events. Our agencies are daily partners and maintain a security event such as protest and large scale events such as national special security events. 

With the Presidential inauguration several months away to be followed by the State of the Union Address, the need for improvement 

is paramount. It is also very common for events to involve not only 

our two agencies but many other partners, such as the U.S. Park 

Police or the United States Secret Service. 

Both of our agencies are parties to the National Capitol Region’s 

Police Mutual Aid Operational Plan. An integral part of this agreement involves response and unified command when faced with 

multi-jurisdictional responsibility, a common factor for law enforcement in the District. Voice interoperability is a key to achieving efficient operations in the spirit of this agreement. 

As we move toward a unified force in crime prevention and law 

enforcement within the National Capital Region, it has become 

more prudent now than ever before to effectively communicate with 

our law enforcement partners. 

There is hardware that exists, and we do use it to create temporary patches, that can communicate with the U.S. Capitol Police. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

However, this involves notification to the respective communication 

centers, and it is best served for planned or prolonged events. 

Taken into account the need to continue rapid voice communications for unfolding situations and direct notifications, MPD did 

allow a select number of radios that were purchased by the U.S. 

Capitol Police to be programmed with MPD channels that allowed 

two-way communication with MPD’s patrol districts and city-wide 

units. 

However, an upgrade by U.S. Capitol Police would allow for our 

agencies to implement direct channel integration. MPD has similar 

connections with D.C. Fire and emergency medical services and the 

Metro Transit Police. It would also allow for selected U.S. Capitol 

Police users to have MPD channels programmed into their radios 

without having to purchase additional radios. And depending on 

the type of system, U.S. Capitol Police may be able to facilitate 

voice communication in Metro subways when needed. 

All of our efforts are for one common goal, which is to protect the 

citizens, residents and visitors to the National Capital Region. 

Voice interoperability is an integral part of reaching these goals. 

And the Metropolitan Police Department supports any efforts to 

improve the communication systems for the United States Capitol 

Police. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. 

[The statement of Chief Cathy L. Lanier follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 44909A.007
26 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 44909A.008
27 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 44909A.009
28 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 44909A.010
29 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you,Commander. 

And we will have Dr. Boyd from the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BOYD 

Dr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. 

As the members of this subcommittee are well aware, the ability 

to communicate is essential to the success of any emergency response operation. For that reason, a key mission of the Department 

of Homeland Security is to strengthen interoperability by developing tools such as technologies, reports and guidelines, best practices, methodologies, and voice and data messaging standards, and 

by testing communications equipment to those standards. 

But any successful interoperable communication solution requires a focus on user needs and requirements, so we rely on both 

practitioners and policymakers across disciplines, jurisdictions and 

levels of government to ensure that our work is aligned with actual 

responder needs. We believe this focus on the practitioner level has 

done much to improve interoperability since the attacks of 2001, 

but more remains to be done. 

We developed the Interoperability Continuum to outline what it 

takes to achieve interoperability, which the House Homeland Security Committee tells us they have seen in virtually every communication center in the country and which has also been adopted by 

Canadian public safety. 

We completed a National Interoperability Baseline Survey and 

published the first national Statement of Requirements for Public 

Safety Wireless Communications and Interoperability to serve as a 

guide for agencies developing their own requirements. Each major 

urban Metropolitan area now has a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan scored by DHS, and all 56 States and territories 

have Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans. 

The DHS Office of Emergency Communications will shortly release the first National Emergency Communications Plan which is 

informed by national principles developed by practitioners at every 

level of government, and we are initiating pilot evaluations of a 

multi-band radio capable of bridging all the public safety spectrum 

and modes. 

Our core strategy aims at building a system of systems so that 

separate agencies can join together using interface standards and 

compatible procedures and training without having to discard huge 

investments in existing infrastructure. 

Our experience working with practitioners has led us to believe 

there are a number of issues agencies must understand in building 

any communication systems, among which are these: 

Agencies must be able to articulate exactly what they need in requests for proposals and contracts. This will be especially important for any new system in the Capitol, because the nature of the 

Capitol campus and its construction makes communications within 

and between buildings and in tunnels and subways particularly 

challenging and because the National Capital Region has one of the 

most difficult radio frequency interference environments in the 

world. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
30 

Agencies must not assume digital systems are always superior to 

analog systems, that digital systems are somehow immune to interference, or that systems must necessarily be all digital or all analog. In some situations, digital systems can be more susceptible to 

interference than analog systems, and interference can often have 

more severe consequences for digital signals. And sometimes hybrid 

systems may offer more reliable capabilities. Digital systems are 

the future of communications, but they are not a panacea. Effective 

requirements gathering and sound systems engineering principles 

remain the most fundamental elements of any successful system 

development. 

A thorough testing, evaluation, and acceptance process should be 

carefully spelled out in both RFPs and contracts, and demanding 

testing must be conducted before acceptance, not in a laboratory or 

factory but in actual operational use. When new systems fail in the 

field, it is generally because they were accepted from the vendor 

without adequate testing. 

Whenever possible, agencies should purchase proven technologies 

that have been fully tested and piloted by the vendor in environments that are as much as possible like that of the purchasing 

agency, and that are early enough in the technology lifecycle to 

both meet current interoperable communications standards and to 

continue to be supported for at least 10 to 15 years after acceptance. 

Agencies should consider broader requirements, and design the 

system so it can support other critical functions such as encryption 

and the transmission of critical text imagery and other information. 

Agencies should develop a lifecycle strategy that allows for graceful updates as enhanced technologies and capabilities become available. Such a strategy will allow the agency to extend the life of the 

system by making more gradual infrastructure investments over 

time instead of being forced to make a wholesale replacement once 

the system is so old it verges on collapse. 

Finally, all of the critical factors for a successful interoperability 

solution identified in the continuum—governance, standard operating procedures, training and exercises, and integration of the system into daily operations—as well as technology—must be addressed in agency planning. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Dr. Boyd follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
31 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 44909A.011
32 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 44909A.012
33 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 44909A.013
34 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 44909A.014
35 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 44909A.015
36 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. Souder, the Director of Public Safety and Communications 

for Fairfax County. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE SOUDER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA, MEMBER, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. SOUDER. Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Capitol Security, 

for the opportunity this afternoon to speak with you about my 

knowledge regarding the efforts of the United States Capitol Police 

to upgrade their current and legacy radio system. 

On June 10th of this year, I had the opportunity to meet with 

several representatives of the United States Capitol Police. At that 

time, based on the detailed information they provided me to upgrade their current radio communications system, I am prepared 

today to testify before the subcommittee in the following seven 

areas: 

One, the need for adequate and reliable and secure command 

and control radio communications for law enforcement and security 

applications presently and in the future for what is by anyone’s 

standard one of the most important and most unique law enforcement agencies in the United States of America, the other one being 

16 blocks away. 

Number two, current and rapidly expanding data communications applications in fixed, mobile, and portable devices. 

Third, interior and exterior radio signal propagation coverage 

and quality within the Capitol building, the associated buildings on 

this Hill, including below ground areas, garages and tunnels, and 

an acceptable above ground wider area coverage within the National Capital Region. 

Interagency radio communications, interoperability, including 

local and Federal partner public safety, law enforcement, fire-rescue, emergency management, and emergency medical service agencies. Compliant with the standards and the recommendations contained in APCO Project 25 relating to interoperability and disparate radio systems and technologies. 

Six, scalable and expandable radio system design, equipment, 

and capability. 

And lastly, to address the chairman’s comments earlier, incorporate proven and effective project management, contract compliance, vendor performance expectations, and change order and cost 

containment safeguards. 

I hope that the information that I can provide today will be helpful both to the subcommittee and the United States Capitol Police 

in our collective effort to secure the best possible radio communications system in furtherance of protecting the public and legislative 

branch of our great country, the United States. 

[The statement of Mr. Souder follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 44909A.016
38 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 44909A.017
39 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Souder. I just have what I consider to be basic questions. And I guess the first question I am 

going to ask of each of you, first of all, whether you know enough 

about the specific proposal the Capitol Police are discussing or considering to comment? And if you don’t, you don’t. That is fine. But 

if you do, I would like to know what you think of the system. And 

if you were to become the Chief of the Capitol Police tomorrow 

would you pursue a similar or comparable effort to purchase the 

system that is under consideration? 

And we will start with you, Commander Crane. 

Mr. CRANE. No, I have not seen the specs or proposal for the current system, but if I was in a leadership position here I would try 

and look and see if anything could be reviewed. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Boyd. 

Dr. BOYD. I also don’t have all of the detailed specs, although we 

have been briefed by the Capitol Police. I can tell you two things. 

One is that it looks to me like the methodology and the process 

they are following is exactly the sort of thing that I taught in those 

days when I taught at the university about how to go about building a system. So I think they are going through the right steps, 

and I think they are doing the right thing. 

As for cost, without looking at and doing a detailed survey that 

is hard to do. But what I did ask my staff to do was to not look 

just at the places the Capitol Police have gone to, but to look at 

a couple of other places that I thought might give you some notion 

of what reasonable cost ranges are. One, I can give you is an example of a traditional, typical department that is not going to be analogous to the Capitol because it doesn’t have a number of the problems the Capitol does. The Portland, Oregon area, where one subset of that system, the Clark Regional Emergency Services Agency, 

which they are in the process of moving to an 800 megahertz system with about the same number of subscribers is an example. But 

it is a terrestrial system, it is not in tunnels, and it doesn’t have 

the building campus kinds of issues. Their estimate is that they 

will need about $36 million. 

One that is probably a little closer but still doesn’t have all the 

same issues that the Capitol Police have, is WMATA, the Metro 

system here in D.C. If you think of that one with its tunnel systems and the parking garages that it has to worry about, their estimate right now is about $86 million. And I would suggest that they 

do not have some of the cost issues there that you will have here. 

Nobody cares a whole lot whether you drive a nail in the wall in 

the subway or in a parking garage and hang a cable on it. But you 

are not going to do that in these buildings. So when you think 

about what it is going to take in historic buildings like this to install a system and its infrastructure, and when you consider that 

fiber links between buildings require excavation in a notoriously 

complicated area, with traffic that can’t be blocked very much and 

all of the other things that will go with that, I suspect there are 

some cost issues here that no matter how diligently they design the 

project may surprise you as you go forward. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. And I also only know what I have been briefed on. 

But what I have been briefed on gives me a high level of comfort 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

that the approach that has been taken to date, that of doing a 

strong analysis about what the current problems are and what the 

needs are in the future, combined with obtaining the outside expertise of the consulting firm that has a lot of experience in this field, 

as well as looking at some of the pitfalls that have befallen some 

systems that have been installed throughout the Nation where this 

same very deliberate approach was not taken, and the end result 

was not as expected, it would seem to me from what I have been 

briefed on and what I have read that those lessons have been well 

learned by this group both within the Capitol as well as within the 

consultant they have acquired the services of, and that the plan 

that has been put forward as a solution to these legacy problems 

that the Capitol Police are dealing with is a strong plan. But I 

think it is only as strong as the vendor’s ability to meet that expectation and to ensure that what the consulting vendor has recommended the installation vendor, whatever company that may be 

that is actually put under contract to install this system, can fulfill 

that expectation so that there aren’t the surprises that unfortunately have occurred elsewhere in the country when it comes to did 

the system really provide what the end user needed and did it provide what the RFP, if you will, said it should provide. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you very much. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. I would ask all three of you this question. And that is, is there any dispute that they ought to be moving 

from analog to digital? 

Dr. BOYD. No. I personally think you have to go to a digital environment. That is the future. It provides features you can’t get in 

an analog world. The only comment I make about the analog piece 

is that there are sometimes issues where you may want to think 

about a hybrid linkup. For example, fire services are discovering 

some real difficulties with the existing line of vocoders. I think we 

will be able to fix that. We are working with the community now 

to try to come up with better standards, but current vocoder distortion makes communications very, very difficult for fire personnel. 

What I am suggesting is that as you go through the engineering 

and the requirements design, it is imperative you do testing and 

surveys to make sure you have the right solution. Ultimately, it 

must be a digital system. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Any disagreement with that, Mr. Souder? 

Mr. SOUDER. Not at all. In fact, everybody in the metropolitan 

area that is either at an interoperable radio system, usually in the 

800 megahertz frequency, and they may have done that early on 

before digital became a solid option, or making a conversion from 

their analog to digital, and those newer sometimes that are being 

installed; namely, in Prince Georges County and elsewhere, including Arlington, are going digital. 

So clearly, as the doctor said, it is the wave of the future, no pun 

intended. And clearly, to invest in any system other than a digital 

system would not be a step forward. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You concur, Commander? 

Mr. CRANE. Yeah, I concur with the approach that Dr. Boyd mentioned about a hybrid. When we converted to digital we had many 

partners, Federal and local, on analog systems. We had to keep an 

analog transmitter up for several years so that we could patch 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 

them back into our digital system. So I agree that moving forward 

with digital and other methods is the best, but you have to always 

remember that some of your partners might not be able to come up 

to speed yet. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If you have a situation in which, as I understand 

what the Chief said, that some costs were estimated out of there 

by NavAir that was sort of, as I understand it, upgrading the current system as opposed to bringing a new system in, is there any 

argument that could be made that we ought to upgrade the current 

system as opposed to moving into a newer system because upgrading the current system will get you at least incrementally—make 

some incremental progress in a shorter time span than putting in 

an entirely new digital-based system? 

Mr. CRANE. I don’t think upgrading an analog system, which you 

said was 25 years old, would show much improvement because of 

the age of the system. I am thinking of the transmitters involved. 

Dr. BOYD. I think you would be throwing largely good money 

after bad. I would limit the Band-Aids to what you absolutely must 

do to cover what you need for that transition period, because you 

are not going to turn the existing system off until you are absolutely certain the new system can meet those requirements. But I 

would try to limit the investments in those Band-Aids only to what 

I absolutely had to have. 

Mr. SOUDER. And I would concur with that also. There was an 

analogy made earlier in this testimony relative to buying a car. 

Clearly, we would not go to a dealership and expect to buy a 1985 

model of car with a new digital dashboard. We would look to upgrade the entire vehicle. And that is exactly I think the approach 

that should be taken here. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Dr. Boyd, I think you said something to the effect 

that you ought not to get unproven technology, you ought to get 

proven technology. Is there any lack of proven technology to put 

into a system such as would be required to meet the needs here 

of the Capitol? 

Dr. BOYD. No, I don’t think so. I think there is more than enough 

sufficient proven technology out there. Back in my Army days, before I retired, we used to refer to different levels of technology. You 

don’t want bleeding edge technology. That is the stuff that you are 

going to put in place then and figure out if it really works well. You 

want something that has already worked somewhere. But you also 

want to make sure that it is early enough in its lifecycle that it has 

been well established, and that you know for sure will really work 

in environments that are as similar to yours as possible. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just appreciate that 

we are sitting in one of two places in the country that has had really a very effective intergovernmental effort to address interoperability. And the National Capital Region, I mean I have been very 

critical in some aspects of the Department of Homeland Security, 

as Mr. Lungren knows. But I think the National Capital Area’s 

interoperability project deserves a lot of credit. I credit it. I mean 

it has really been very good. And the other project that has had 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
42 

similar success is the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability 

Project that is identified as a pilot program by DHS. 

So here is the question. There are really two questions, I guess, 

for this upgrade. One, do we want to have a communications system for the Capitol Police that works for them communicating with 

each other, that can be heard in the tunnels, that works? And I 

think the answer has to be yes. And that has to be a modern digital system. And the testimony we had both from you and the chief 

himself, you know, gives us the answer. But then there is a second 

question, which is the interoperability with other types of emergency personnel, other police agencies. We don’t have a U.S. Capitol fire department. We don’t need to be interoperable with them. 

We don’t have a U.S. Capitol hospital system. I mean we need to 

be interoperable, and that is the thing, Mr. Souder, that you have 

worked on and others. So here is the question. I don’t know that 

we have had the same working relationship with the Capitol Police 

that we have had with other police entities in the region. Would 

you envision a closer cooperation and support for the Capitol Police 

in the future on the interoperability issues? Could they become 

part of this regional team? Would that be a possible thing to do? 

Mr. SOUDER. During the briefing that I was provided a week and 

a half ago, the issue of interoperability was raised by me because 

of the very question that you posed. And I was informed that interoperability was given a lot of consideration by both the Capitol Police in its initial internal analysis as well as in conjunction with the 

consulting firm that they ultimately hired. And there is interoperability provided for within the proposed system with those key 

stakeholder and partner agencies that this unique police department operates with on a daily basis and would most often have to 

operate with in an exceptional basis. That does not include the entire metropolitan region, if you will. But it does include entities, as 

you suggest, the District of Columbia Fire and EMS Department, 

the U.S. Park Police, and those other key agencies that are so 

much a part of the Federal family and presence here on the Hill 

and immediately adjacent to that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would suggest that you always when you have 

an emergency is not the time to say I wish that we had had this 

discussion before, because if there were a major disaster you might 

also have a need to communicate with Fairfax County and Arlington County, for example, depending upon what happened. I am not 

suggesting that there is anything deficient in what has happened 

to date, but moving forward I think that it would be a helpful thing 

to have ongoing support and communication on the interoperability 

issue, it seems to me. 

Dr. BOYD. I agree. And I think that needs to be designed in as 

they develop the system. What we tell agencies across the country, 

and all of our materials point at, is trying to work out how it is 

you are going to do this as you upgrade your systems. Probably the 

toughest nut to crack in this whole thing is governance. The Capital Region has done a pretty good job with this, and the Silicon 

Valley project, which runs out of my office, also has done a pretty 

good job in this arena. The hardest of all the pieces to crack has 

nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with governance. It has to do with whether you really want to work together, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

and the degree to which you are willing to do so, so that you can 

build a viable system of systems. 

You are right that the Capital Region, just to give you an idea, 

has done a pretty good job with interoperability. I have been involved in it since about 1992. But I would suggest that if you think 

about when the initiative started, with the Air Florida crash in 

1982, it has taken a longtime. When that crash happened they 

couldn’t communicate because they didn’t even share the same language, much less the same radios. They couldn’t, for example, call 

for a HAZMAT unit and be certain they weren’t going to get a pickup truck with two guys with push brooms and kitty litter. So they 

had to come up with a common language, as well as all of the technical solutions that go together. That means they have had 24 

years to make all of this work. We don’t want the rest of it to take 

that long, but it is important to understand that it is pretty complicated bringing so many different players together, as nobody 

knows as well as you do when you try to work on legislation. That 

human piece is going to be the toughest piece. My impression in 

the briefings I got from the Capitol Police is that they understand 

that, and that they are intensely interested in making that work. 

I would suggest, just as an outside observer, that the hardest part 

of this piece may very well be developing your internal Capitol governance over the different players that need to make use of this 

system. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I would think 

that as we move forward on this, the communication not only between the local agencies, but also the other Federal agencies; for 

example, the Secret Service and some other key elements, could 

also be a subject of improvement as we proceed. And I thank you 

and I yield back. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. Gentlemen, I would like 

to ask a further question. And I am not sure, I don’t know whether 

you are familiar with the letter that has been kind of making the 

rounds relative to the suggestion we should be saving a lot of 

money by piggybacking on the DOD system. And if you aren’t familiar with it, if you are familiar with the concept. And I am particularly interested in your opinions, Commander. My understanding is the Metro just kind of upgraded a few years ago. And 

I am just curious, when that happened did you look at 

piggybacking on somebody else’s system? 

Mr. CRANE. No, Mr. Chairman. It is an entirely brand new system for the entire city agencies, not only the law enforcement agencies and fire department, but other agencies such as Emergency 

Management Department and Health, all the city agencies that use 

two-way communication. This is their radio system, and have all 

built new transmitters in the District of Columbia. So it was an entirely new system at a cost of $40 million. And about $28 million 

of that was through Homeland Security funds. 

In terms of the letter circulating, I haven’t seen it. I would feel 

uncomfortable if someone approached me about piggybacking on 

someone else’s system, because then I am dependent on their engineers, their technical abilities. I would have to really see what that 

system is and what it can do. I think it is better to have what we 

have, is a unified system for the city, where we have a separate 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

agency, not the police department and not the fire department, but 

there is a separate city agency that was tasked with maintaining 

that system. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Boyd. 

Dr. BOYD. I am not familiar with the specific letter, but I am a 

retired soldier who served on the Joint Staff and spent a full career 

in the military, and I would discourage that. I would discourage it 

for many of the same reasons the Chief has just talked about. But 

another one is that both the defense approach and defense priorities are necessarily different. The system would fall under a command that may have a set of missions that may require it to redirect the system just where the Capitol Police need it. The Defense 

agencies do not operate in the same way that police do. In fact, 

Capitol Police operations and the way they will use their communications systems are much more like the way the D.C. Metropolitan Police or the Fairfax Police will use it than they are like any 

other Federal agency, including the Department of Defense. That 

means you really need to think about building a system that meets 

your specific requirements and that is tailored to your very specific 

situation. The military approach is ideally suited for military applications, and military units. It is rarely properly suited for the kind 

of things public safety does. 

Mr. SOUDER. And I would like to make the opinion of the panel 

unanimous. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate it. 

And I again thank everybody who came. And I appreciate all the 

candor and the insight, because though I wasn’t a radio expert 

when I started, I am now. And again thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
45 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 44909A.018
46 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 44909A.019
47 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 44909A.020
48 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85/100 44909A.021