Public safety agencies include the nation's first responders (such as firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services), 911 call center staff, and a number of local, state, federal—and sometimes regional—authorities. Communications, often wireless radios, are vital to these agencies' effectiveness and to the safety of their members and the public. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within specified frequency ranges. Different operations, different applications, different rules and standards, and different radio frequencies are among the problems first responders face in trying to communicate with each other. Interoperability, also referred to as compatibility or connectivity, refers to the capability for different systems to readily connect to each other. Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public safety officials for a number of years. However, public safety agencies—especially at the local level—tend to rely on vendors for technical expertise. Interoperable solutions, therefore, are often based on proprietary systems, limiting the scope of connectivity. One way to bypass the vendor-driven planning that characterizes, and limits, public safety communications could be to implement a national plan that encouraged resource-sharing and standardized interfaces, while promoting the transition to open source architecture. At the level of national policy for emergency planning and response, for example, goals for interoperability could include interchangeability, assuring that equipment from any agency, state, or community could be used to replace or supplement equipment in any area of the country, as needed. Since September 11, 2001—when communications failures added to the horror of the day—achieving interoperability for public safety communications has become an important policy concern for Congress. The damage to communications infrastructure caused by Hurricane Katrina and subsequent flooding has revealed the extent to which the concerns of Congress, as expressed in legislation, have yet to be acted upon. Although many replacements for lost communications equipment were rushed to critical sites in the Gulf Coast states, they were usually different systems using different radio frequencies, with little or no capability for cross-communication. Although interoperability in communications is correctly perceived as a subset of the larger problem of providing comprehensive communications support, it is a pivotal solution. Interoperability provides redundancy and back-up capacity, key elements for a robust network. Some have suggested that the current definition widely used in discussing interoperability may be too general, and that a fuller articulation of planning goals should be developed to guide policy. Many experts agree that—at this point in what can only be described as an ongoing crisis in communications capacity—a critical missing element is planning at the national level. In this view, national planning—whether undertaken at the federal level, through a consortium of states, or other means—is needed to transcend proprietary solutions and bring about consensus on common interfaces with uniform standards that permit full interoperability and interchangeability for newer, digital equipment. Federal policy also could guide public safety communications purchases toward a transition to open source platforms. Standardized interfaces can link existing, non-standard (e.g. proprietary) systems and networks; for planning purposes this could require, for example, a federal mandate for interoperable standards for "cross talk" systems provide by companies such as M/A Com, Motorola and Raytheon. Open architecture standards would ensure that systems were fully interoperable, with equipment that was fully interchangeable; an example of planning would be a program to encourage the development and use of open source architectures. Federalization of emergency response for disasters or catastrophic events could become inevitable unless states and communities have adequate resources to act in a timely manner. Current disaster response plans of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are built on the assumption that local resources will be adequate after a disaster strikes until additional resources arrive. The destructive chaos that followed in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita revealed many weakness in current assumptions and plans, such as those in the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System. Two critical pieces of infrastructure failed early on: electrical power and communications. A well-planned and robust emergency communications system should be sustainable at reasonable levels of operation even after electrical power is lost. Resources to sustain operations include back-up generators and fuel, redundant systems, self-healing networks, access to multiple communications channels, common radio frequencies for wireless communications, sufficient spectrum bandwidth to support communications needs, and the proper equipment and infrastructure to make it all work. As testimony before Congress has regularly substantiated, industry plans for disasters, prepares to the best of its capacity, and carries out the plans as needed; similar levels of planning and capacity to respond need to be achieved for emergency communications (and other public safety services) in communities. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed important legislation to respond to problems revealed after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, including problems of communications at the disaster sites. Provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) instruct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address some of the issues concerning public safety communications in emergency preparedness and response and in providing critical infrastructure. Telecommunications for first responders is mentioned in several sections, with specific emphasis on technology for interoperability. Acting on recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), Congress included several sections regarding improvements in communications capacity—including clarifications to the Homeland Security Act—in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 ). By requirements it included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act—for studies on interoperability strategies, use of technology, spectrum use, and more—Congress has assigned itself a number of specific tasks of oversight regarding emergency communications. Congress also has recognized the many dilemmas faced by its constituents in supporting communications interoperability. It has in many ways taken on the role of champion in support of programs for interoperability that benefit local communities, states and tribes. Some steps have been taken, particularly within DHS, and Congress has demanded further advances. Despite indications of progress, much remains to be done. Issues that could be addressed—collectively or singly—by Congress, the Administration, the private sector, or others include the development of a long term strategy that coordinates both public safety spectrum needs and interoperable communications needs, and the coordination of the various studies requested by Congress and by the Administration. The findings and recommendations from these studies could be valuable in the advancement of policy for public safety. The achievement of a comprehensive set of solutions for interoperability outside the federal government's own communications needs appears to remain elusive. Participation of the federal government in a national solution for interoperability does not necessarily require federal ownership. The federal government is an important component, however, of any network that might be put in place to provide interoperable communications. In light of the critical role of federal participation, Congress could decide to extend its oversight role; proposed legislation also includes provisions that set higher standards for performance from federal agencies, notably the Department of Homeland Security. Two reports from Congressional investigations into shortcomings in planning and response for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina have been published. The administration also has released an account of the federal response to the disaster. All of these reports recognize the need for a national strategy for emergency communications and data networks. The devastation caused by the 2005 hurricane season, especially the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast states, brought home to many how large the gap is between intentions and execution. As noted in another CRS report, after FEMA was absorbed by DHS it was effectively "stripped" of responsibilities for planning for emergency communications. The leadership role for preparing a national strategy for communications interoperability was assigned to the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within DHS, resting primarily with the SAFECOM program. The decision was made at the executive level that SAFECOM would be the lead agency for communications interoperability, a position that was strengthened by organizational changes within DHS, and ratified by Congress with the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. With the passage of the 21 st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 ( P.L. 109-295 , Title V, Subtitle D), this authority is shifted to a new Administrator for Emergency Communications—within a newly fortified FEMA—that has authority for the direction of most of SAFECOM's programs as well as the Department's responsibilities for the Integrated Wireless Network (see below). The 9/11 Commission has proposed using a signal corps solution to improve communications capacity, without elaborating on how this might be achieved. (Some information on signal corps organization and technology appears later in this report.) Many experts familiar with the macro-level concepts of signal corps communications support suggest that one approach for public safety could be to upgrade the type of emergency communications equipment that can be brought to a disaster site so that it resembles the far-reaching capabilities and capacity of the Army Signal Corps yet is readily accessible to local first responders and other officials "on the ground." In many situations, search and rescue teams in New Orleans and other devastated communities could not communicate with each other because their radios did not use the same frequencies. The difficulties in coordination placed an extra burden on relief efforts. Rescue efforts improved after military forces arrived in part because of their units' superior communications resources. Effective command-and-control operations depend on communications links. Just as the 9/11 Commission looked at the Army Signal Corps as a possible resource for improving interoperable communications, many are now weighing the possibility of giving a greater role to the military for emergency response within the United States. Bottom line, in this view, today the military has the communications equipment to do the job of emergency response while FEMA, the states, and first responders do not. The technology exists, but it has not been deployed at meaningful levels.