Order Code RL33747
Emergency Communications
Legislation, 2002-2006:
Implications for the 110th Congress
Updated January 8, 2007
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Emergency Communications Legislation, 2002-2006:
Implications for the 110th Congress
Summary
Since September 11, 2001, several bills introduced in the U.S. Congress have
included provisions to assist emergency communications. Key provisions from a
number of these bills have become law. This report summarizes progress in
developing legislation, especially in the 109th Congress, in three areas of emergency
communications: communications among first responders and other emergency
personnel; emergency warnings and alerts; and 911 call centers and systems. Each
area could be the subject of further consideration in the 110th Congress, through
oversight, additional legislation, or funding.
Legislation addressing communications among first responders focused first on
interoperability — the capability of different systems to connect — with provisions
in the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) provided more comprehensive language
that included requirements for developing a national approach to achieving
interoperability. Some of the legislative requirements were based on
recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States (9/11 Commission). Also in response to a Commission
recommendation regarding the availability of spectrum for radio operations, Congress
set a date to release needed radio frequency spectrum by early 2009, as part of the
Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171). In a section of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D) Congress revisited the
needs of an effective communications capacity for first responders and other
emergency personnel and expanded the provisions of P.L. 108-458.
Several bills to further the development of a more technologically advanced
warning system were introduced during the 109th Congress; some of these provisions
were incorporated in the Port Security Improvement Act, also known as the SAFE
Port Act (P.L. 109-347). The Deficit Reduction Act would also provide funding for
the improvement of 911 systems. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act
requires the Federal Communications Commission to study the capacity of 911
systems to reroute calls when their networks fail.
Among the implications for the 110th Congress, in addition to fundamental
policy issues such as standards development and funding, is the possible need to
explore DHS’s response to enacted legislation. An ongoing debate about spectrum
management to support public safety may likely be brought before Congress.
In the first days of the 110th Congress, bills to address some of the areas noted
above were introduced. These include S. 93 (Senator Stevens) to release funds for
911; S. 74 (Senator Schumer) to ensure adequate funding for high-threat areas; and
H.R. 1 (Representative Thompson). H.R. 1, to provide for the implementation of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission would, among other provisions, authorize
funding to implement parts of 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D.
This report will be updated.

Contents
Introduction: Policy and Technological Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
First Responders and Other Emergency Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Actions by the Department . . 3
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Radio-Frequency Spectrum and the Deficit Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Implications for the 110th Congress: First Responders and
Other Emergency Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Actions in the 110th Congress: First Responders and Other
Emergency Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Emergency Alerts and Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The SAFE Port Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Implications for the 110th Congress: Emergency Alerts . . . . . . . . . . . 15
911 Calls and Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Implications for the 110th Congress: 911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Actions in the 110th Congress: 911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Emergency Communications Legislation,
2002 - 2006: Implications for the 110th
Congress
Introduction: Policy and Technological Convergence
Members of the 110th Congress who support sustaining and improving
emergency communications have a body of recent legislation on which to build.
Since September 11, 2001, successive Congresses have passed legislation regarding
technology, funding, spectrum access and other areas critical to emergency
communications. These new laws have tended to address specific issues, dealing
separately, for example, with interoperability for first responders, improvements in
emergency alerts, and 911 call centers. When reviewing emergency communications
legislation, whether for oversight or new initiatives, Congress may review the pace
of technological convergence and its impact on policies for emergency
communications. What once were discrete areas of emergency response are
increasingly sharing common technologies. First responders and other emergency
workers not only have access to better tools, but also — by adopting new
technologies — find themselves confronted with the need to rethink their internal
organizational structure and the ways that they communicate with external groups.
Most emergency communications in use today have been built on core
technologies such as two-way radio for emergency responders, telephone line
switches for 911 calls, and broadcasting for emergency alerts. Operated
independently of each other, these three pillars of emergency response have
developed along separate technology tracks. Advances in information technology —
and particularly the ubiquity of the Internet — have laid the groundwork for
connecting the functions of communications for emergency responders, 911 call
centers, and public alerts. For example: digital broadcasting used for emergency
alerts can also be used to deliver information to emergency responders; the use of
Internet Protocols (IP) provides a standard for network inter-connectivity;
interoperable radio networks used by first responders can open a channel for real-
time participation by operators in 911 call centers; these same call centers can be
used to generate local alerts, over all types of communications media, to virtually any
enabled device. Developing communications technologies with common elements
provide synergies that benefit both provider and user.
Federal policy and congressional action tend to treat these three important areas
of emergency communications through different agencies and different committees.
Some observers cite cross-agency coordination at the federal level and cross-
jurisdiction cooperation at the congressional level as areas where rapprochement
could facilitate homeland security. Because the preponderance of incidents involving
emergency workers occurs at the local level, local, state and regional participation

CRS-2
and coordination are included in federal solutions. Encouraging the right balance of
cooperative policy and federal leadership — to support both daily operations and
national response in catastrophic situations — is one of the goals of Congress.
Through legislation, Congress has proposed methods for blending the use of
advanced technology with the changes in organization that shifts in technology tend
to foster.
The organization of this report reflects the status quo in emergency
communications policy, which tends to be separated by function. Within the time
span of the 110th Congress, the convergence of communications technology may lead
to new approaches in policy making and oversight based on a recognition that both
function and technology are interconnected.
First Responders and Other Emergency Personnel
Congressional interest in the federal government’s support of interoperable
emergency communications capability has increased since September 11, 2001.
Chaotic situations at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were exacerbated by
inadequate communications support for local, state, and federal responders at the
sites. Radio communications systems, in particular, were not interoperable,
hampering coordination of rescue efforts. The different types of technology,
operating on different radio frequencies, could not interface with each other. The
plight of firefighters trapped in a collapsing tower at the World Trade Center is
generally attributed to the failure of out-dated wireless communications equipment
used by firefighters.1
Congress first addressed interoperability in the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-296). Then, responding to recommendations of the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), Congress included
a section in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
458) that expanded its requirements for action in improving interoperability and
public safety communications. Also in response to a recommendation by the 9/11
Commission, Congress set a firm deadline for the release of radio frequency
spectrum needed for public safety radios as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-171). These laws provide the base from which the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) can develop a national public safety communications
capability as required by the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-
295). Title VI, Subtitle D of the act, cited as the 21st Century Emergency
Communications Act of 2006, placed new requirements on DHS as well as
reaffirming key passages in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
The act has created the position of Director of Emergency Communications within
the Department of Homeland Security. Deadlines established in the act include
giving DHS 120 days (by February 2007) to complete an assessment on the resources
1 “Fatal Confusion: A Troubled Emergency Response . . .” New York Times, July 7, 2002;
the chaos at both sites of the attacks is also described in several sections of The 9/11
Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States
, The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Washington: GPO, 2004.

CRS-3
and staff necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the Office of Emergency
Communications established in the law.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Actions by the Department.
Provisions of the Homeland Security Act 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.2
The newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed
responsibility for interoperable communications within the Directorate for Science
and Technology, reasoning that the focus of DHS efforts would be on standards and
on encouraging research and development for communications technology.
Responsibility to coordinate and rationalize federal networks, and to support
interoperability, had previously been assigned to the Wireless Public SAFEty
Interoperable COMmunications Program — called Project SAFECOM — by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an e-government initiative. With the
support of the Administration, SAFECOM was placed in the Science and Technology
directorate and became the lead agency for coordinating federal programs for
interoperability.3 The Secretary of Homeland Security assigned the responsibility of
preparing a national strategy for communications interoperability to the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), which DHS created, an organizational
move that was later ratified by Congress in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act.4 SAFECOM continued to operate as an entity within the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility, which assumed the leadership role. The director
of SAFECOM was promoted to head the OIC.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. 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
(P.L. 108-458).
The Commission’s analysis of communications difficulties on September 11,
2001 was summarized in the following recommendation.
Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited
and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.
Furthermore, high-risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington,
D.C., should establish signal corps units to ensure communications connectivity
2 Notably, P.L. 107-296, Sec. 201. and Sec. 502.
3 “Homeland Security Starting Over With SAFECOM,” Government Computer News, June
9, 2003.
4 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2).

CRS-4
between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National
Guard. Federal funding of such units should be given high priority by Congress.5
Congress addressed both the context and the specifics of the recommendation
for signal corps. The act amended the Homeland Security Act to specify that DHS
give priority to the rapid establishment of interoperable capacity in urban and other
areas determined to be at high risk from terrorist attack. The Secretary of Homeland
Security was required to work with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
the Secretary of Defense, and the appropriate state and local authorities to provide
technical guidance, training, and other assistance as appropriate.6 Minimum
capabilities were to be established for “all levels of government agencies,” first
responders, and others, including the ability to communicate with each other and to
have “appropriate and timely access” to the Information Sharing Environment, an
initiative treated elsewhere in the act.7 The act further required the Secretary of
Homeland Security to establish at least two pilot programs in high-threat areas.8 The
process of development for these programs was to contribute to the creation and
implementation of a national model strategic plan; its purpose was to foster
interagency communications at all levels of the response effort.9 Building on the
concept of using the Army Signal Corps as a model, the law directed the Secretary
to consult with the Secretary of Defense in the development of the pilot projects,
including review of standards, equipment, and protocols.10

Congress also raised the bar for performance and accountability. Section 7303
(a) (1) set program goals for the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretary of Commerce and the FCC. Briefly, the goals were to:
! Establish a comprehensive, national approach for achieving
interoperability;
! Coordinate with other federal agencies;
! Develop appropriate minimum capabilities for interoperability;
! Accelerate development of voluntary standards;
! Encourage open architecture and commercial products;
! Assist other agencies with research and development;
! Prioritize, within DHS, research, development, testing and related
programs;
! Establish coordinated guidance for federal grant programs;
! Provide technical assistance; and
! Develop and disseminate best practices.
5 The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11
Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States
, (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 397.
6 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (d), ‘Sec. 510 ‘(a).
7 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (d), ‘Sec. 510 ‘(b).
8 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (a).
9 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (b).
10 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (d).

CRS-5
Other provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
permitted federal funding programs to make multi-year commitments for
interoperable communications for up to three years, with a ceiling of $150 million
for future obligations.11 The act authorized annual sums for a period of five years to
be used for programs to improve interoperability and to assist interoperable capability
in high-risk urban areas; the FY2005 authorization was $22,105,000; the amount
rises each year to $24,879,000 in FY2009.12
The act included a requirement that any request for funding from DHS for
interoperable communications “for emergency response providers” be accompanied
by an Interoperable Communications Plan, which must be approved by the
Secretary.13 Criteria for the Plan were also provided in the act.14
The act conveyed the sense of Congress that “interoperable emergency
communications systems and radios should continue to be deployed as soon as
practicable for use by the first responder community, and that upgraded and new
digital communications systems and new digital radios must meet prevailing
national, voluntary consensus standards for interoperability.”15
Spectrum allocation, needed for radio communications by first responders and
other emergency workers, is also an important issue. The act required two studies
on spectrum and communication networks for public safety and homeland security,16
to be prepared for Congress by year end 2005.17 The FCC was designated to lead a
study on spectrum needs for emergency response providers. The Secretary of
Homeland Security, with the FCC and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), was required to prepare a study on strategies to
meet public safety and homeland security needs for first responders and all other
emergency response providers.18
The FCC report was released December 2005. For the study, the FCC sought
comment on whether additional spectrum should be made available for public safety,
possibly from the 700 MHz band. Comments received from the public safety
community overwhelmingly supported the need for additional spectrum, although
other bands besides 700 MHz were also mentioned. The FCC did not make a
specific recommendation for additional spectrum allocations in the short-term
although it stated that it agreed that public safety “could make use of such an
11 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (e).
12 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (3).
13 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f).
14 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f) (1 -5).
15 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (I) (2).
16 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (a).
17 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (d).
18 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (b).

CRS-6
allocation in the long-term to provide broadband services.”19 It qualified this
statement by observing that spectrum is only one factor in assuring access to mobile
broadband services for emergency response. It further announced that it would move
expeditiously to see whether the current band plan for the 24 MHz at 700 MHz
currently designated for public safety could be modified to accommodate broadband
applications.20
The second required study, to be conducted by DHS in cooperation with the
FCC and the NTIA, has not been released in final form. In addition to the
requirement from Congress, the Secretary of Homeland Security had also been
ordered by a Presidential Executive Memorandum to participate in a national study
of spectrum policy.21 The Presidential Spectrum Policy Initiative planning process
is moving forward under the direction of the NTIA and will apparently incorporate
information intended to meet the congressional study requirement.22
The act also included a sense of Congress provision that the 109th Congress
should pass legislation supporting the Commission’s recommendation to expedite the
release of spectrum.23 This was addressed by the 109th Congress in the Deficit
Reduction Act, discussed below.

Radio-Frequency Spectrum and the Deficit Reduction Act. The
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required the FCC to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum at
700 MHz24 to public safety, without providing a hard deadline for the transfer.25 The
19 Report to Congress on the Study to Assess Short-term and Long-term Needs for
Allocations of Additional Portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Federal, State and
Lxcal Emergency Response Providers,
Federal Communications Commission, December
19, 2005, at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262865A1.pdf].
(Paragraph 99). Viewed November 21, 2006.
20 Ibid., paragraph 100.
21 Presidential Determination: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, November 30, 2004, available
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041130-8.html]. Viewed
November 16, 2006.
22 “[The Federal Strategic Assessment Plan] will address the fragmentation, shortage,
interference and security issues related to spectrum used by public safety organizations.”
Written testimony of John M. R. Kneuer, Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications
and Information, NTIA before Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, “Wireless Issues and Spectrum Reform,” March 14, 2006. See also
[ h t t p : / / w w w . n t i a . d o c . g o v / o s m h o m e / s p e c t r u m r e f o r m / i n d e x . h t m l ] a n d
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2006/specadvisory_110306.pdf] for program
background and status. Viewed November 16, 2006.
23 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (a).
24 Radio frequency spectrum is measured in hertz. Radio frequency is the portion of
electromagnetic spectrum that carries radio waves. The distance an energy wave takes to
complete one cycle is its wavelength. Frequency is the number of wavelengths measured
at a given point per unit of time, in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Typical designations
are: kHz — kilohertz or thousands of hertz; MHz — megahertz, or millions of hertz; and
(continued...)

CRS-7
channels designated for public safety are among those currently held by TV
broadcasters; they are to be cleared as part of the move from analog to digital
television (DTV). The 9/11 Commission urged that Congress take prompt action to
assure the release of spectrum at 700 MHz — allocated for public safety, but not
released — to support needed interoperable network and more robust
communications capacity.
Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 plan for the release of spectrum
by February 18, 200926 and create a fund to receive spectrum auction proceeds and
disburse designated sums to the Treasury and for other purposes.27 The fund would
transfer $7.363 billion to the Treasury to reduce the budget deficit as specified in
H.Con.Res. 95.28 Other disbursements from the fund include advances of up to $1.5
billion to assist consumers with the transition to digital television29 and a grant
program of up to $1 billion for public safety agencies to deploy systems on the 700
MHz spectrum they will receive as part of the transition.30 The grants are to go for
“the acquisition of, deployment of or training for the use of interoperable
communications systems that utilize, or enable interoperability with communications
systems that can utilize”31 spectrum at 700 MHz.32 A key criteria is that at least 20%
of the costs for acquisition and deployment come from non-federal sources.33 The
fund’s disbursements are to be administered by the NTIA, which was empowered
to borrow funds for communications interoperability grants effective October 1,
2006.34 The Congressional Budget Office projected that the grants program for
public safety will receive $100 million in FY2007, $370 million in FY2008, $310
million in FY2009 and $220 million in FY2010.35 However, the 109th Congress, in
its closing hours, passed a bill with a provision requiring that the grants program
receive “no less than” $1 billion to be awarded “no later than” September 30, 2007.36
24 (...continued)
GHz — gigahertz, or billions of hertz.
25 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j) (14).
26 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3002 (a) (1) (B).
27 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004 (3) “(E) “(I) and (ii).
28 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004 (3) “(E) “(iii).
29 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3005 (b).
30 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006.
31 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (a) (1).
32 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (d) (3).
33 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (c).
34 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (b).
35 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
January 27, 2006, p. 21, [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7028&sequence=0].
36 Call Home Act of 2006, S. 2653, S.Amdt. 5218 (Senator Stevens).

CRS-8
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007. The destruction
caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August-September 2005 reinforced the
recognition of the need for providing interoperable, interchangeable communications
systems for public safety and also revealed the potential weaknesses in existing
systems to withstand or recover from catastrophic events. Testimony at numerous
hearings following the hurricanes suggested that DHS was responding minimally to
congressional mandates for action, most notably as expressed in the language of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Bills subsequently introduced
in both the House and the Senate proposed strengthening emergency communications
leadership and expanding the scope of the efforts for improvement.37 Some of these
proposals were included in Title VI of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2007 (P.L. 109-295). Title VI — the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006 — reorganized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
gave the agency new powers, and clarified its functions and authorities within DHS.38
Subtitle D — the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 —
created an Office of Emergency Communications and the position of Director,
reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications.39 The
Director is required to take numerous steps to coordinate emergency communications
planning, preparedness, and response, particularly at the state and regional level.
These efforts are to include coordination with Regional Administrators40 appointed
by the FEMA Administrator to head ten Regional Offices.41 Among the
responsibilities of the Regional Administrators is “coordinating the establishment of
effective regional operable and interoperable emergency communications
capabilities.”42
Two major programs previously supported by other sections of the Department
of Homeland Security are included in the responsibilities of the Director of
Emergency Communications — SAFECOM43 and participation in the Integrated
Wireless Network (IWN).44 IWN was planned as a joint law enforcement network
for the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland Security. DHS has been
37 A discussion of key bills introduced during the 109th Congress regarding public safety
communications appears in CRS Report RL32594, Public Safety Communications Policy,
by Linda K. Moore.
38 Information on the FEMA reorganization is provided in CRS Report RL33729, Federal
Emergency Management Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory
Provisions
, by Keith Bea et al., Government and Finance Division.
39 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b) ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(a) and ‘(b).
40 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b) ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(7).
41 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 611, ‘Sec. 507 ‘(a) and ‘(b).
42 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 611, ‘Sec. 507 ‘(c) ‘(2) ‘(C).
43 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(2).
44 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(3).

CRS-9
represented in the IWN Joint Program Office through the Wireless Management
Office of the Chief Information Officer.45
Another important organizational shift required by the new law is the
requirement that the Director of Emergency Communications coordinate, with the
cooperation of the National Communications System (NCS), the establishment of a
national response capability. The NCS has been designated the Primary Agency and
Emergency Support Function Administrator for the Communications Annex of the
Federal Response Plan.46 Originally created to assure continuity of the federal
government and its operations, NCS has a small role in state and local response and
recovery. The Secretary of Homeland Security created the executive position of
Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Telecommunications.47 Responsibilities
reportedly included NCS and the National Cyber Security Division.48 It is not clear
whether these responsibilities will transfer to the Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity
and Communications, created by statute.49
The law also instructs the Director of Emergency Communications to work with
the Director of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC). The
responsibilities of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility are clarified
regarding standards development, research, developing and assessing new
technology, coordination with the private sector, and other duties.50 The
development of a comprehensive research and development program is required.51

Among the key responsibilities assigned to the Director of Emergency
Communications is to assist the Secretary for Homeland Security in carrying out the
program responsibilities required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act in Sec. 7303 (a) (1) [6 U.S.C. 194 (a) (1)], summarized on page 4,
above. Other responsibilities of the Director include conducting outreach programs,
providing technical assistance, coordinating regional working groups, promoting the
development of standard operating procedures and best practices, establishing non-
proprietary standards for interoperability, developing a National Communications
Plan, working to assure operability and interoperability of communications systems
45 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury Regarding a Joint Tactical
Wireless Communications System, at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html].
Viewed November 21, 2006.
46 National Response Plan, ESF #2-1, Department of Homeland Security, December 2004
at [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_FullText.pdf]. Viewed October 19, 2006.
47 “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for
Department of Homeland Security,” Homeland Security Press Room, July 13, 2005 at
[http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0703.shtm]. Viewed November 21,
2006.
48 “DHS Names Cyber-Security Chief,” by Ryan Naraine, eWeek.com, September 18, 2006.
49 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 611, ‘Sec. 514 ‘(b).
50 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 672.
51 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 673.

CRS-10
for emergency response, and reviewing grants.52 Required elements of the National
Emergency Communications Plan53 include establishing requirements for
assessments and reports,54 and an evaluation of the feasibility of developing a mobile
communications capability modeled on the Army Signal Corps.55 General
procedures are provided for coordination of emergency communication grants,56 and
for a Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC) Working Group.57
An Emergency Communications Preparedness Center is to be established.58 Specific
provisions are included covering urban and other high risk communications
capabilities that closely resemble the provisions of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act.59
The formation of the regional working groups, the RECCs, responded in part to
requests from the public safety community to expand interoperable communications
plans to include the second tier of emergency workers. Non-federal members of the
RECC include first responders, state and local officials and emergency managers, and
public safety answering points (911 call centers).60 Additionally, RECC working
groups are to coordinate with a variety of communications providers (such as
wireless carriers and cable operators), hospitals, utilities, emergency evacuation
transit services, ambulance services, amateur radio operators, and others as
appropriate.61
Implications for the 110th Congress: First Responders and Other
Emergency Personnel. Some of the provisions included in the Homeland
Security appropriations act (P.L. 109-295) amplify or reiterate Congressional
requirements — first established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act — that have not been acted upon or not fully met by DHS. By raising
the profile of the management of emergency communications within DHS, the act
has given Congress more measurable objectives to assess the development of a plan,
and other elements critical to achieving operable and interoperable communications
capabilities across the nation. In addition to addressing fundamental policy issues
such as standards development and funding, the 110th Congress could explore DHS’s
response to legislative requirements, such as planning and coordination at the state
and regional level. Congress has also required assessments of emergency
52 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801.
53 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1802.
54 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803.
55 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803 ‘(d) ‘(4) ‘(A).
56 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1804.
57 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1805.
58 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1806.
59 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1807.
60 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII,‘Sec. 1805 ‘(b) ‘(1).
61 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII,‘Sec. 1805 ‘(c).

CRS-11
communications capabilities,62 including an inventory that identifies radio
frequencies used by federal departments and agencies.63
9/11 Commission Recommendations. As noted above, Congress
responded to the 9/11 Commission recommendation about emergency
communications with provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act.
In addition to the recommendation, which urged the release of spectrum,
creation of better communications connectivity in high-risk urban areas, and high
priority for federal funding for communications capacity, the section containing this
recommendation mentioned other concerns.64 The Commission report commented
on the impact on emergency response capacity when “an attack is large enough” and
the need for “Teamwork, collaboration, and cooperation” as well as “regular joint
training sessions.” The report states that “Public safety organizations, chief
administrative officers, state emergency management agencies, and the Department
of Homeland Security should develop a regional focus ....” The Commission
expressed the opinion that the problems of communications at all three crash sites
provided “strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among
public safety organizations at the local, state, and federal levels remains an important
problem.”
Both the 108th and 109th Congresses provided authorities and funds to address
the Commission’s concerns. P.L. 109-295, for example, specifies that $770 million
in discretionary grants “shall be for use in high-threat, high-density urban areas.”65
The 110th Congress may reevaluate the funding needed to meet the Commission
recommendation and concerns, as well as additional funding both for stand-alone
programs for emergency communications and for the planning and coordination goals
required by existing law.
Spectrum Policy. The requirements for studies on spectrum needs, as stated
in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, have apparently not met
the expectations of the public safety community, which continues to urge Congress
to take more substantive steps. For example, the 110th Congress might find itself
facing calls to reallocate for public safety use channels at 700 MHz that were
designated for auction by the Deficit Reduction Act. There is also the issue of
creating a structure where spectrum could be shared between the private sector and
public safety. The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes
to turn over management of the 24MHz of spectrum designated for public safety to
a not-for-profit group that would, among other responsibilities, hold a national
62 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803 (a).
63 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803 (a) (5).
64 “Command, Control, and Communications,” Op. Cit. pp. 396-397.
65 P.L. 109-295, Title III, Preparedness and Recovery, Office of Grants and Training, state
and local programs (2) (A).

CRS-12
license that would support public safety with a broadband wireless backbone.66 The
FCC has responsibility for auctions and also for managing spectrum use by state and
local first responders. Responsibility for managing federal use of radio frequencies
rests with the NTIA. Congress could review the efforts of these two agencies to better
coordinate spectrum policy, possibly in the context of the FCC proposal for a single,
national license holder to manage a key network for emergency communications that
would be accessible to state and local users and might be opened to federal users,
including the Department of Defense.67
Actions in the 110th Congress: First Responders and Other
Emergency Personnel. A key bill from the new Democratic majority would
implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 1 (Representative
Bennie G. Thompson), responds to the 9/11 Commission recommendation for public
safety communications and interoperability with a funding measure that would assist
in meeting the goals set for the Office of Emergency Communications in the 21st
Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle
D). Title II of H.R. 1 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish
an Improve Communications for Emergency Response Grant Program through the
Office of Grants and Training in cooperation with the Office of Emergency
Communications, which was created in P.L. 109-295. The funds would be made
available in the first fiscal year that DHS meets three goals set in P.L. 109-295:
completion of National Emergency Communications Plan; baseline assessment of
interoperability; and progress report to Congress affirming “substantial progress” in
developing standards.68 The grant program would make grants at the state and
regional level to carry out initiatives at the state, regional, national, and international
level.69 Uses of the funds would include planning, systems design and engineering,
equipment procurement, and exercises, modeling, simulation, and other training
activities.70
In the Senate, Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced a bill to ensure adequate
funding for high-threat areas (S. 74). In the 108th Congress, Senator Schumer had
sponsored similar legislation, some of which found its way into the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in the form of requirements for at least two
pilot programs in high-threat areas.71 Also in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid
introduced a bill (S. 4) that would state the sense of Congress in support of
implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.72

66 FCC, Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. WT 96-86, released December
20, 2006 at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2278A1.pdf]; see
paragraph 4 for summary.
67 Ibid, paragraph 34.
68 H.R. 1, Sec. 201, (b) (1) (A - C).
69 H.R. 1, Sec. 201, ‘Sec. 522, ‘(a).
70 H.R. 1, Sec. 201, ‘Sec. 522, ‘(b).
71 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (a).
72 S. 4, Sec 2.

CRS-13
Emergency Alerts and Warnings
The current Emergency Alert System (EAS) was originally created as
CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation) in 1951, as part of America’s
response to the threat of nuclear attack. In 1963, the system was opened to state and
local participation. Through most of its existence, the alert system was known as the
Emergency Broadcast System. The name was changed in 1994, when new,
automated technology was established.73 Much of the development of the new
technology was undertaken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Digitized signal technology for EAS is the same as that used for the
NOAA Weather Radio (NWR).74
In 1995 Congress placed responsibility for civil defense measures that include
the present-day EAS with the Director of FEMA.75 The FCC has been designated
by FEMA to manage broadcaster involvement in EAS. The FCC currently provides
technical standards and support for EAS, rules for its operation, and enforcement
within the broadcasting and cable industries. FEMA works with the emergency
response officials who, typically, initiate an EAS message for a state or local
emergency. Non-federal EAS operational plans are developed primarily at the state
and local level. DHS has proposed that FEMA and DHS “should be the primary
point of contact” and act as the “Executive Agent” in managing alerts and warning
information. In this proposal, the FCC would continue its regulatory role for
broadcasting and wireless communications.76
Working with the Association of Public Television Stations, DHS has
completed successful pilots to test the implementation of digital technologies as the
Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS). They have jointly announced that DEAS
capabilities will be installed in all Public Television stations by year-end 2007.
DEAS uses the additional capacity that digital technology provides for broadcasting
to send digitized alerts to almost any communications device, including wireless.77
The rollout is part of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). It
has been a joint effort of FEMA, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection directorate at DHS, and the Association of Public Television Stations
(APTS). Through modification to the technology used for digital TV broadcasting,
73 A history of EAS is provided at an FCC website at [http://www.fcc.gov/eb/eas/].
74 See CRS Report RL32527, Emergency Communications: The Emergency Alert System
(EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
, by Linda K. Moore.
75 P.L. 103-337, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Title XXXIV -
Civil Defense, Sec. 603 (42 U.S.C. § 5196), amending the Federal Civil Defense Act of
1950 (64 Stat 1245).
76 Letter dated November 5, 2004 from Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency
Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, FCC, EB Docket 04-296.
77 “The Association of Public Television Stations and the Department of Homeland Security
Put Digital Emergency Alert and Warning System to the Test,” Association of Public
Television Stations, press release, July 12, 2006 at [http://www.apts.org/news/deas.cfm].
Viewed November 21, 2006.

CRS-14
APTS stations are providing a digital backbone for emergency alerts at the national
level.
Bills — notably S.1753, Senator Jim DeMint, and H.R. 5785, Representative
John Shimkus — introduced in the 109th Congress supported the development of
DEAS. Key parts of proposed legislation would have expanded digital alerts
through a National Alert Office established within the Department of Homeland
Security. A nationwide alert system — the National Alert System — would have
been developed with the assistance of a National Alert System Working Group.
Responsibilities of the Director of the National Alert Office would have included
implementing the Working Group’s recommendations, setting up and conducting a
program of research and development, and managing the credentialing of public
officials who would have been authorized to initiate alerts. This step would
federalize the procedures for designating federal, state, local, and tribal officials
authorized to request an emergency alert in the new National Alert System.
The above proposals were considered in S.Amdt. 4927 of the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act (SAFE Port Act) but eliminated during conference
negotiations. Other language in the Senate amendment was retained, however, and
enacted as part of the SAFE Port Act, P.L.109-347.
The SAFE Port Act. The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act
(WARN Act) as signed into law as Title VI of P.L. 109-347, will require the
establishment of a Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee by the
FCC.78 Members will come from state, local and tribal governments, from industry
and associations, and will include representatives of persons with special needs.79
This committee, within a year of formation, is to provide the FCC with
recommendations on technical requirements, standards, regulation and other matters
needed to support the transmittal of emergency alerts by commercial mobile service
providers to their subscribers.80 The FCC, alone or in consultation with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce, has
the responsibility of adopting proceedings that will be used in the promulgation and
enforcement of rules reflecting the conclusions of the committee.81 The digital
broadcasting capacity of public television stations, described above, will be used to
“enable the distribution of geographically targeted alerts by commercial mobile
service providers,” based on recommendations that will come from the committee.82
These provisions will assure the development of a new national warning system at
the federal level, for presidential alerts, and will support development of alerts to
commercial mobile devices. The WARN Act also includes provisions for commercial
78 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (a).
79 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (b).
80 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (c).
81 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (a).
82 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (c).

CRS-15
wireless service providers to opt in or out of the emergency alert service, with
requirements for informing consumers.83
Programs specified in the law may be funded from the $106 million that will be
made available through the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund established in
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). The WARN Act authorizes the
advancing of these funds effective October 1, 2006.84 The fund is to be used to
reimburse broadcast stations for reasonable costs incurred in complying with
requirements for alerts under the program to be established by the committee.85
These monies and other appropriations could be used to provide up to $10,000,000
for grants to communities that are unserved or underserved by commercial mobile
services, to acquire “outdoor alerting technologies.”86 Funds also could be used to
pay for a research and development program established under the act. This program
is to support the development of technologies that can be used to expand the reach
of alerts to commercial mobile devices. The program will be headed by the
Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science andTechnology, in consultation with
NIST and the FCC.87
Implications for the 110th Congress: Emergency Alerts. The WARN
Act appears to support DEAS as the future backbone of public warning systems.
However, the role of this backbone in providing standardized alerts and all-hazard
warnings at the state and local level is not addressed. The focus of the new law is
almost exclusively on developing regulations and technology that could effectively
send geo-targeted alerts to commercial cell phones. The 110th Congress could choose
to review the issue of assuring state and local access to the new emergency alert
networks or possibly reconsider the federal role in assuring a fully-developed national
network.
911 Calls and Systems
The viability of 911 networks is briefly addressed in the FY2007 Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, with a requirement for the FCC to report to Congress
on plans for rerouting 911 calls when 911 capabilities are impaired after a disaster.88
The report is due within 180 days of enactment, by April 2007 (the bill was signed
into law October 4, 2006). This provision is in response to failures in 911 systems
in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. From reports received, it appears that
emergency communications and 911 call centers in the Gulf Coast states were
overwhelmed after Hurricane Katrina and subsequent flooding took out radio
83 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (b).
84 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 606 (c).
85 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 606 (b).
86 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 605.
87 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 604.
88 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 674.

CRS-16
systems, cell towers and back-up generators.89 Testifying before Congress in
September 2005 about courses of action to improve emergency communications,
FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin proposed that 911 systems be made more robust,
with better backup capacity and recovery capabilities.90
911 systems and call centers are typically operated at the state, county or
community level. Federal laws that cover 911 include the Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-81) — intended to make 911 technology
universally available throughout the United States — and the ENHANCE 911 Act
of 2004 (P.L. 108-494). This legislation creates a federal program for 911
implementation and coordination and authorizes funds for a matching grant program.
The program would be jointly administered by the NTIA and the Department of
Transportation (DOT). Appropriations for the program have yet to be allocated,
although some funding is available through other programs. Support for the program
is also promised from the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund, created by the
Deficit Reduction Act.91
Implications for the 110th Congress: 911. Most 911 funding occurs at the
state and local level. At the federal level, DOT assists wireless E-911 as an extension
of its highway safety programs. Among other actions, a partnership between DOT
and three public safety associations was formed in support of a Wireless
Implementation Program.92 During the 109th Congress bills were introduced, but not
voted into law, in several key areas. These included moving forward with the federal
program specified in the ENHANCE 911 Act, supporting the development of an IP-
based network capability for 911, strengthening call centers with federal funding, and
legislating requirements for 911 compliance for calls placed with Voice Over Internet
Protocol. These issues could be revisited with new legislation in the 110th Congress.
Actions in the 110th Congress: 911. Senator Ted Stevens has introduced
S. 93 to release funds for 911 designated in the Deficit Reduction Act. The bill
would authorize the NTIA to borrow against the $43 million from spectrum auction
proceeds designated for 911 improvements, making the funds available immediately.
crsphpgw
89 See CRS Report RL32939, An Emergency Communications Safety Net: Integrating 911
and Other Services
, by Linda K. Moore.
90 For example, House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, “Public Safety Communications
from 9/11 to Katrina: Critical Public Policy Lessons,” September 29, 2005.
91 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3011.
92 For details on DOT programs, see [http://nena.org/dot/]. Viewed November 17, 2006.