I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1251 
To provide grants and other support to achieve communications 
interoperability in the United States, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MARCH 10, 2005 
Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. CARDOZA, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. 
CUMMINGS, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. LEE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. 
CASE, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. 
SANDERS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. WATSON, Mr. OWENS, Mr. 
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. WEINER, Mr. 
ETHERIDGE, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. DEFAZIO, 
and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently de-
termined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To provide grants and other support to achieve communica-
tions interoperability in the United States, and for other 
purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as ‘‘Connecting the Operations 
of National Networks of Emergency Communications 
Technologies for First Responders Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) Throughout the United States, public safety 
agencies—law enforcement, firefighters, emergency 
technicians, public health officials, and others—in 
the same jurisdictions cannot now communicate ef-
fectively with one another, with agencies in neigh-
boring jurisdictions, or with other public safety 
agencies at the Federal and State level, when re-
sponding to emergencies or participating in major 
deployment. 
(2) The inability of public safety agencies in the 
United States to communicate with one another 
within and across jurisdictions and disciplines is a 
long-recognized and complex problem that threatens 
the public’s safety and security and often results in 
unnecessary loss of lives and property. 
(3) The lack of interoperability was at least 
partially responsible for the deaths of 343 fire-
fighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, 
when police could not communicate effectively with 
firefighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers.
(4) In the immediate aftermath of the Okla-
homa City bombing in 1995, studies showed that 
emergency responders had to use runners to carry 
messages from one command center to another be-
cause the responding agencies used different emer-
gency radio channels, different frequencies, and dif-
ferent radio systems. 
(5) In Littleton, Colorado, 46 public safety 
agencies responded to the shooting spree inside Col-
umbine High School in 1999. Precious minutes were 
lost because command personnel were forced to send 
runners to communicate crucial information. Incom-
patible radio communication systems were a signifi-
cant factor, according to the Columbine Review 
Commission. 
(6) There are more than 50,000 State and local 
public safety agencies. Many of these agencies are 
small or volunteer organizations with limited budg-
ets, and little or no engineering expertise. State and 
local agencies consistently cite lack of funding as a 
critical obstacle to interoperability. 
(7) State and local budget crises have made 
funding public safety communications even more dif-
ficult, and competition with other critical homeland 
security needs, such as personnel, physical facilities,
protective gear, and other kinds of equipment reduce 
the available funding for mission-critical communica-
tions infrastructures and equipment. 
(8) Funding is needed for all phases of the 
communications system life cycle: planning, system 
design and engineering, procurement and installa-
tion, operations and maintenance, and testing and 
technology development. There is clear need for a 
dedicated and consistent Federal funding source 
that is sufficient to finance comprehensive interoper-
able communications solutions. The role of Federal, 
State, and local governments and agencies in fund-
ing interoperable communications must be clear. 
(9) Achieving nationwide interoperability will 
require a significant financial commitment at all lev-
els of government. In 1998, the Public Safety Wire-
less Network estimated that developing interoperable 
communications 
nationwide 
could 
cost 
$18,000,000,000. 
(10) An Independent Task Force sponsored by 
the Council on Foreign Relations stated that 
‘‘among other things, additional funds are des-
perately needed . . . to foster interoperable commu-
nications systems for emergency responders across 
the country so that those on the front lines can com-
municate with each other while at the scene of at-
tack’’. The Task Force recommended, ‘‘conserv-
atively’’, that $6,800,000,000 over 5 years is needed 
for interoperability as well as public alert and infor-
mation systems programs. 
(11) Numerous Federal agencies provide infor-
mation or grants that can be used in the develop-
ment of interoperable communications systems. 
However, without common guidance and standards, 
funding and grants are often used in isolation of 
broader, regional communications needs and capac-
ities. There is a need to better coordinate these dis-
parate grant programs, and to provide unified and 
consistent leadership and funding from the Federal 
Government. 
(12) The partnership between the private and 
public sectors has developed numerous solutions to 
significantly improve communications interoper-
ability that can be implemented immediately. These 
solutions include deployable vehicles that contain 
crosspatch capabilities that allow radio users on sep-
arate frequencies to talk to each other; communica-
tions system overlay software and hardware that 
allow multiple disparate communications networks to 
act as one network; and the Project 25 standard for
the manufacturing of interoperable digital two-way 
wireless communications products. 
(13) Current approaches to achieving commu-
nications interoperability are also hampered by the 
fact that in many jurisdictions— 
(A) the existing radio communications in-
frastructure is old and outdated; 
(B) planning for interoperability is limited 
and fragmented among multiple agencies; 
(C) the necessary coordination and co-
operation within and among jurisdictions is dif-
ficult to achieve; and 
(D) there is limited and fragmented 
amount of radio spectrum available to public 
safety organizations. 
(14) The lack of universally recognized, fully 
open, and implementable standards for public safety 
agency needs has limited the cost efficiencies of 
interoperability, and has delayed the adoption of new 
technologies by public safety agencies. 
(15) Solutions can only be achieved through co-
operation among all levels of government, and the 
Federal Government, through the Department of 
Homeland Security, must provide nationwide leader-
ship, coordination, and a substantial share of re-
sources necessary to purchase appropriate tech-
nologies and create seamless communications among 
United States public safety agencies. 
(16) The Federal Government has made very 
little progress in addressing its overall objective of 
achieving national wireless communications inter-
operability among first responders and public safety 
systems at all levels of government, principally due 
to— 
(A) a lack of consistent executive commit-
ment and support; and 
(B) an inadequate level of interagency col-
laboration. 
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to— 
(1) require the Department of Homeland Secu-
rity to provide effective leadership, coordination, and 
technical assistance for the purposes of enhancing 
communications interoperability, and to establish 
and implement a strategy to ensure the achievement 
of communications interoperability for public safety 
agencies throughout the United States; 
(2) authorize appropriations for interoperable 
communications grants to State and local govern-
ments and public safety agencies; and
(3) support the effective acquisition, installa-
tion, and maintenance of short-term and long-term 
interoperable communications equipment for home-
land security at all levels of government. 
SEC. 3. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR INTEROPERABLE COM-
MUNICATIONS. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi-
nitions shall apply: 
(1) COMMUNICATIONS
INTEROPERABILITY.— 
The term ‘‘communications interoperability’’ means 
the ability of public safety service and support pro-
viders, including emergency response providers, to 
communicate with other responding agencies and 
Federal agencies if necessary, through information 
technology systems and radio communications sys-
tems, and to exchange voice, data, or video with one 
another on demand, in real time, as necessary. 
(2) PUBLIC
SAFETY
AGENCIES.—The term 
‘‘public safety agencies’’ includes emergency re-
sponse providers and any other persons that the Sec-
retary determines must communicate effectively with 
one another to respond to emergencies. 
(b) NATIONAL STRATEGY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in co-
operation with State and local governments, Federal
agencies, public safety agencies, and the private sec-
tor, develop a national strategy to achieve commu-
nications interoperability, which shall— 
(A) provide for the development of national 
voluntary standards for the purchase and use 
by public safety agencies of interoperable com-
munications equipment and technologies; 
(B) identify the appropriate interoperable 
communications capabilities necessary for Fed-
eral, State, and local public safety agencies to 
adequately protect the people of the United 
States; 
(C) address both short-term and long-term 
solutions to achieving Federal, State and local 
communications interoperability, including pro-
vision of commercially available equipment that 
facilitates interoperability, coordination, and in-
tegration among existing emergency commu-
nications systems; 
(D) identify how the Federal Government 
can work effectively with State and local gov-
ernments, public safety agencies in all States, 
and such other entities as are necessary to im-
plement the strategy;
(E) include measures to identify and over-
come all obstacles to achieving interoperability; 
and 
(F) set goals and establish time frames for 
the achievement of communications interoper-
ability across the United States, and develop 
performance measures to determine whether 
these goals are being met. 
(2) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and each year 
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
Congress— 
(A) detailing the progress of the Depart-
ment in carrying out the purposes of this sec-
tion; 
(B) detailing the progress in achieving 
communications interoperability; and 
(C) making any recommendations nec-
essary to expedite the fulfillment of the pur-
poses of this section. 
SEC. 4. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY 
GRANT PROGRAM. 
Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(6 U.S.C. 238) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(e) INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS.— 
‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the fol-
lowing definitions shall apply: 
‘‘(A) 
COMMUNICATIONS
INTEROPER-
ABILITY.—The term ‘communications interoper-
ability’ means the ability of public safety service 
and support providers, including emergency re-
sponse providers, to communicate with other re-
sponding agencies and Federal agencies if nec-
essary, through information technology systems 
and radio communications systems, and to ex-
change voice, data, or video with one another on 
demand, in real time, as necessary. 
‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE STATE.—The term ‘eligible 
State’ means a State that— 
‘‘(i) has submitted a plan under para-
graph (4); and 
‘‘(ii) the Secretary determines has not 
achieved adequate statewide communica-
tions interoperability. 
‘‘(C) PUBLIC
SAFETY
AGENCIES.—The 
term ‘public safety agencies’ includes emergency 
response providers and any other persons that 
the Secretary determines must communicate ef-
fectively with one another to respond to emer-
gencies. 
‘‘(2) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 
‘‘(A) make grants on a competitive basis 
directly to local governments (including a con-
sortium of local governments) and public safety 
agencies within eligible States, in consultation 
with the chief executives of the State or States, 
for the purpose of assisting in the development 
of interoperable communications systems at any 
stage, including— 
‘‘(i) planning, system design, and en-
gineering; 
‘‘(ii) procurement and installation of 
equipment; 
‘‘(iii) operations and maintenance of 
equipment; and 
‘‘(iv) testing and technology develop-
ment; and 
‘‘(B) make grants to eligible States for ini-
tiatives necessary to achieve communications 
interoperability within each State, including— 
‘‘(i) statewide communications plan-
ning; 
‘‘(ii) system design and engineering;
‘‘(iii) procurement and installation of 
equipment; 
‘‘(iv) operations and maintenance of 
equipment; and 
‘‘(v) testing and technology develop-
ment initiatives. 
‘‘(3) COORDINATION.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 
ensure that grants administered under this sub-
section are coordinated with the activities of 
other entities of the Department and other Fed-
eral entities so that grants awarded under this 
subsection, and other grant programs related to 
homeland security, facilitate the achievement of 
the strategy developed under section 3 of the 
Connecting the Operations of National Net-
works of Emergency Communications Tech-
nologies for First Responders Act of 2005. 
‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING GRANT 
PROGRAMS.—Nothing in this Act shall provide 
for the combination of grant funds among the 
grant program established under this subsection 
and any other grant programs administered by 
the Department of Homeland Security, includ-
ing the State Homeland Security Grant Pro-
gram of the Department, or any successor to 
such grant program, and the Urban Area Secu-
rity Initiative of the Department, or any suc-
cessor to such grant program. 
‘‘(4) ELIGIBILITY.— 
‘‘(A) SUBMISSION OF PLAN.—To be eligi-
ble to receive a grant under this subsection, 
each eligible State, or local governments or pub-
lic safety agencies within an eligible State or 
States, shall submit a communications inter-
operability plan to the Secretary that— 
‘‘(i) addresses any stage of the devel-
opment of interoperable communications 
systems, including planning, system design 
and engineering, procurement and installa-
tion, operations and maintenance, and test-
ing and technology development; 
‘‘(ii) if the applicant is not a State, 
includes a description of how the applicant 
addresses the goals specified in any appli-
cable State plan or plans submitted under 
this section; and 
‘‘(iii) is approved by the Secretary. 
‘‘(B) 
INCORPORATION
AND
CONSIST-
ENCY.—A plan submitted under subparagraph
(A) may be part of, and shall be consistent 
with, any other homeland security plans re-
quired of the submitting party by the Depart-
ment. 
‘‘(5) AWARD OF GRANTS.— 
‘‘(A) 
CONSIDERATIONS.—In 
approving 
plans and awarding grants under this sub-
section, the Secretary shall consider— 
‘‘(i) the nature of the threat to the eli-
gible State or local jurisdiction; 
‘‘(ii) the location, risk, or vulnerability 
of critical infrastructure and key national 
assets; 
‘‘(iii) the number, as well as the den-
sity, of persons who will be served by inter-
operable communications systems; 
‘‘(iv) the extent of the partnerships, 
existing or planned, established between 
local jurisdictions and agencies partici-
pating in the development of interoperable 
communications systems, and their coordi-
nation with Federal and State agencies; 
‘‘(v) the level of communications 
interoperability already achieved by the ju-
risdictions;
‘‘(vi) the extent to which the commu-
nications interoperability plan submitted 
under paragraph (4) adequately addresses 
steps necessary to implement short-term or 
long-term solutions to communications 
interoperability; 
‘‘(vii) the extent to which eligible 
States and local governments, in light of 
their financial capability, demonstrate their 
commitment to expeditiously achieving 
communications 
interoperability 
by 
supplementing Federal funds with non- 
Federal funds; 
‘‘(viii) the extent to which grants will 
expedite the achievement of interoperability 
in the relevant jurisdiction with Federal, 
State, and local agencies; and 
‘‘(ix) the extent to which grants will 
be utilized to implement advanced commu-
nications technologies to promote inter-
operability. 
‘‘(B) COST SHARING.— 
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share 
of the costs of an activity carried out with
a grant to an applicant awarded under this 
section shall not exceed 75 percent. 
‘‘(ii) IN-KIND
MATCHING.—Each re-
cipient of a covered grant may meet the 
matching requirement under clause (i) by 
making in-kind contributions of goods or 
services that are directly linked with the 
purpose for which the grant is made, in-
cluding personnel overtime, contractor 
services, administrative costs, equipment 
fuel and maintenance, and rental space. 
‘‘(6) REIMBURSEMENT.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Unless otherwise re-
quested by the recipient of a grant under this 
subsection, grants shall not be awarded to reim-
burse the recipient for prior expenditures re-
lated to achieving communications interoper-
ability. 
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary shall re-
imburse public safety agencies directly for costs 
incurred for expenditures related to achieving 
communications interoperability, if— 
‘‘(i) the public safety agency expended 
funds after September 11, 2001, and be-