Order Code RL33747
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Emergency Communications Legislation:
Implications for the 110th Congress
Updated April 24, 2007
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Emergency Communications Legislation: 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.
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). The act would
also provide funding for the improvement of 911 systems. 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. The 109th Congress also passed provisions to improve emergency alerts,
incorporated in the Port Security Improvement Act (P.L. 109-347).
Among the implications for the 110th Congress, in addition to fundamental
policy issues such as standards development and funding, is the possible need to
examine DHS’s response to enacted legislation. An ongoing debate about the
management of spectrum for public safety may likely be brought before Congress.
In the 110th Congress, bills addressing some of the areas noted above include bills to
fund recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, notably: S. 4 (Senator Reid), as
amended, with provisions for funding communications; S. 74 (Senator Schumer), to
ensure adequate funding for high-threat areas; H.R. 1 (Representative Thompson),
to authorize funding to implement parts of P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D; H.R.
338 (Representative Dingell); and H.R. 863 (Representative Thompson). H.R. 863
and H.R. 338 provide the same language as H.R. 1, Title II, therefore ensuring that
all three bills are under the jurisdiction of both the Energy and Commerce and
Homeland Security committees. Other funding-oriented bills include a funding bill
for first responders (H.R. 130, Representative Frelinghuysen), with a provision that
would require DHS to conduct a study evaluating the need to assign additional
spectrum for use by public safety. S. 345 (Senator Reid) provides funding and
includes a requirement for the immediate release of spectrum for public safety use,
now scheduled for 2009. S. 385 (Senator Inouye) revisits the allocation of funds
provided by the Deficit Reduction Act; it has been included as an amendment to S.
4. H.R. 1788 would require certain public safety channels to accommodate
commercial broadband applications.

---

Contents
Introduction: Policy and Technological Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
First Responders and Emergency Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Actions in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

Emergency Communications Legislation:
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.1 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.
1 For details on emergency call centers and legislation in the 110th Congress, see CRS Report
RL32939, An Emergency Communications Safety Net: Integrating 911 and Other Service;
emergency alerts are covered in CRS Report RL32527, Emergency Communications: The
Emergency Alert System (EAS)and All-Hazard Warnings, both by Linda K. Moore.

---

CRS-2
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
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.
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 Emergency Communications
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.2
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
2 “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
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
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.3
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.4 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.5 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
3 Notably, P.L. 107-296, Sec. 201 and Sec. 502.
4 “Homeland Security Starting Over With SAFECOM,” Government Computer News, June
9, 2003.
5 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.6
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.7 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.8 The act further required the Secretary of
Homeland Security to establish at least two pilot programs in high-threat areas.9 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.10 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.11

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.
6 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.
7 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (d), ‘Sec. 510 ‘(a).
8 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (d), ‘Sec. 510 ‘(b).
9 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (a).
10 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (b).
11 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.12 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 FY2009.13
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.14 Criteria for the Plan were also provided in the act.15
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.”16
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,17
to be prepared for Congress by year end 2005.18 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.19
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
12 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (e).
13 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (3).
14 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f).
15 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f) (1 -5).
16 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (I) (2).
17 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (a).
18 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (d).
19 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (b).

---

CRS-6
allocation in the long-term to provide broadband services.”20 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.21
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.22 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.23
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.24 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 MHz25 to public safety, without providing a hard deadline for the transfer.26 The
20 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
Local 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.
21 Ibid., paragraph 100.
22 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.
23 “[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.
24 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 7502 (a).
25 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, 200927 and create a fund to receive spectrum auction proceeds and
disburse designated sums to the Treasury and for other purposes.28 The fund would
transfer $7.363 billion to the Treasury to reduce the budget deficit as specified in
H.Con.Res. 95.29 Other disbursements from the fund include advances of up to $1.5
billion to assist consumers with the transition to digital television30 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.31 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”32 spectrum at 700 MHz.33 A key criteria is that at least 20%
of the costs for acquisition and deployment come from non-federal sources.34 The
fund’s disbursements are to be administered by the NTIA, which was empowered to
borrow funds for communications interoperability grants effective October 1, 2006.35
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 FY2010.36 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, 2007.37
25 (...continued)
GHz — gigahertz, or billions of hertz.
26 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j) (14).
27 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3002 (a) (1) (B).
28 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004 (3) “(E) “(I) and (ii).
29 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004 (3) “(E) “(iii).
30 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3005 (b).
31 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006.
32 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (a) (1).
33 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (d) (3).
34 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (c).
35 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (b).
36 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].
37 P.L. 109-459, Sec. 2 (Call Home Act of 2006, Senator Stevens).

---

CRS-8
Memorandum of Understanding for Communications Grants. In
February 2007, the NTIA, designated by Congress to administer the $1 billion grant
program in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Office of Grants and Training at
DHS to administer the expenditure of the designated funds.38 The MOU includes an
overview of how the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant
Program will be administered. The overview was reiterated and explained in
testimony.39 Both the MOU and the testimony indicate that the priority will be to
fund needs identified through Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans and
Statewide Interoperable Plans developed in conjunction with SAFECOM. In
particular, tactical plans for 75 urban and metropolitan areas will be supported.

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.40 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.41
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.42 The
Director is required to take numerous steps to coordinate emergency communications
planning, preparedness, and response, particularly at the state and regional level.
38 MOU at [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/psic/PSICMOU_Executed_2-16-2007.pdf].
Viewed March 14, 2007.
39 Testimony of Corey Gruber, Acting Assistant Secretary for Grants and Planning, Office
of Grants and Training, Department of Homeland Security at hearing on “Public Safety
Interoperable Communications Grants: Are the Departments of Homeland Security and
Commerce Effectively Coordinating to Meet our Nation’s Emergency Communications
Needs?”House of Representatives, Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response, March 14, 2007.
40 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.
41 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.
42 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b) ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(a) and ‘(b).

---

CRS-9
These efforts are to include coordination with Regional Administrators43 appointed
by the FEMA Administrator to head ten Regional Offices.44 Among the
responsibilities of the Regional Administrators is “coordinating the establishment of
effective regional operable and interoperable emergency communications
capabilities.”45
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 — SAFECOM46 and participation in the Integrated
Wireless Network (IWN).47 IWN was planned as a joint law enforcement network
for the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland Security. DHS has been
represented in the IWN Joint Program Office through the Wireless Management
Office of the Chief Information Officer.48
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.49 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.50 Responsibilities
reportedly included NCS and the National Cyber Security Division.51 It is not clear
whether these responsibilities will transfer to the Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity
and Communications, created by statute.52
43 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b) ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(7).
44 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 611, ‘Sec. 507 ‘(a) and ‘(b).
45 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 611, ‘Sec. 507 ‘(c) ‘(2) ‘(C).
46 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(2).
47 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(3).
48 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.
49 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.
50 “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.
51 “DHS Names Cyber-Security Chief,” by Ryan Naraine, eWeek.com, September 18, 2006.
52 P.L. 109-296, Title VI, Sec. 611, ‘Sec. 514 ‘(b).

---

CRS-10
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.53 The
development of a comprehensive research and development program is required.54

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
for emergency response, and reviewing grants.55 Required elements of the National
Emergency Communications Plan56 include establishing requirements for
assessments and reports,57 and an evaluation of the feasibility of developing a mobile
communications capability modeled on the Army Signal Corps.58 General
procedures are provided for coordination of emergency communication grants,59 and
for a Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC) Working Group.60
An Emergency Communications Preparedness Center is to be established.61 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.62
The formation of the regional working groups, the RECCs, responded in part to
requests from the public safety community to expand interoperable communications
planning 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).63 Additionally, RECC working
groups are to coordinate with a variety of communications providers (such as
53 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 672.
54 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 673.
55 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801.
56 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1802.
57 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803.
58 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803 ‘(d) ‘(4) ‘(A).
59 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1804.
60 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1805.
61 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1806.
62 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1807.
63 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII,’Sec. 1805 ‘(b) ‘(1).

---

CRS-11
wireless carriers and cable operators), hospitals, utilities, emergency evacuation
transit services, ambulance services, amateur radio operators, and others as
appropriate.64
Implications for the 110th Congress. 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 communications capabilities,65 including an inventory that identifies
radio frequencies used by federal departments and agencies.66
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.67 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.”68
The 110th Congress may reevaluate the funding needed to meet the Commission
64 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII,’Sec. 1805 ‘(c).
65 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803 (a).
66 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803 (a) (5).
67 “Command, Control, and Communications,” op. cit. pp. 396-397.
68 P.L. 109-295, Title III, Preparedness and Recovery, Office of Grants and Training, state
and local programs (2) (A).

---

CRS-12
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
license that would support public safety with a broadband wireless backbone.69 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.70
Actions in the 110th Congress. Bills 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). The Improving Communications
Interoperability Grant Program Act appears in two bills identical in substance to
Title II of H.R. 1. These are H.R. 338 (Representative Dingell), referred to the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and H.R. 863 (Representative
Thompson), referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the
Committee of Homeland Security. The existence of repetitive bills would seem to
indicate a leadership battle between jurisdictions.71 Title II of H.R. 1, H.R. 338, and
H.R.863 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
69 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.
70 Ibid., paragraph 34. For a more detailed discussion of the FCC proposal, see CRS Report
RL33838, Emergency Communications: Policy Options at a Crossroads, by Linda K.
Moore.
71 A discussion of emergency communications policy is available in CRS Report RL33838,
Emergency Communications: Policy Options at a Crossroads, by Linda K. Moore.

---

CRS-13
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.72 The grant program would make grants at the state and regional level to
carry out initiatives at the state, regional, national, and international level.73 Uses of
the funds would include planning, systems design and engineering, equipment
procurement, technical assistance and exercises, modeling, simulation, and other
training activities.74
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.75 S. 4 was subsequently amended in committee to provide
detailed language on meeting those recommendations. As regards emergency
communications, the amended bill adds substantially to requirements provided in the
21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295, Title VI,
Subtitle D). The bill provides detailed instructions to the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency on grants programs for communications,
consistent with planning requirements set out in P.L. 109-295. Uses of the funds
would include planning, systems design and engineering, equipment procurement,
technical assistance, and exercises, modeling, simulation, and other training
activities. Among specific requirements for administering grants are: minimum
contents of grant applications such as identifying “critical aspects of the
communications life cycle,” describing how the proposed use of funds would meet
various goals, demonstrating consistency with already mandated Statewide
Interoperable Communications Plan, and including a capital budget and timeline;
specific considerations to be taken into account when approving applications and
awarding grants; establishment of a review panel; minimum amounts for grants;
availability of funds; state responsibilities; certifications; and reports on spending.
Authorization of appropriations for the grants are $400 million in FY2008, $500
million for FY2009, $600 million for FY2010, $800 million for FY2011, $1,000
million for FY2012, and such sums as are necessary for subsequent years.76
S. 4 passed the Senate on March 13, 2007 with additional amendments. These
include additional requirements for interoperable communications plans established
in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (6 U.S.C. 194); and a
requirement that would mandate the establishment of a date by which interoperable
communications will be achieved as part of the National Emergency
Communications Plan established in Title VI Subtitle D of P.L. 109-295.77 Included
as an amendment was the text of S. 385 (Senator Inouye). This would revise
provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act regarding the nature of programs eligible for
72 H.R. 1, Sec. 201, (b) (1) (A - C).
73 H.R. 1, Sec. 201, ‘Sec. 522, ‘(a).
74 H.R. 1, Sec. 201, ‘Sec. 522, ‘(b).
75 S. 4 (IS), Sec 2.
76 S. 4 (ES), Title III, Sec. 301 (a) (1).
77 S. 4 (ES), Title III, Sec. 301 (a) (2).

---

CRS-14
grants from the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund, making funds
generally available for planning, system designing, and purchasing decisions related
to achieving interoperability. Up to 10% of the funds might be allocated for grants
to establish strategic reserves. The bill would also require the FCC to study feasible
ways to set up a backup system for emergency communications with the objective of
developing “a resilient interoperable communications system.” The requirement for
funding the billion-dollar program in FY2007, as required by the Call Home Act, was
reaffirmed in the text.78
Senator Reid also introduced the Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007 (S.
345). This bill would establish and fund a Homeland Security and Neighborhood
Safety Trust Fund. Expenditures from the fund would go for grants to support
programs that fulfill recommendations by the 9/11 Commission. In particular,
provisions are made for $1 billion annually in grants for fiscal years 2007 through
2011 for state and local interoperable communications, to be distributed through the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The bill also contains a
requirement for the immediate release of the 24 MHz of spectrum for public safety
use, now scheduled for 2009, discussed above. Also 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.79
In the House, H.R. 130 (Representative Frelinghuysen), Smarter Funding for All
of America’s Homeland Security Act of 2007, provides additional formulas for
assuring funding, but does not specifically address interoperability. Two provisions
of the bill relate to the law creating the Office of Emergency Communications. H.R.
130 would create an Advisory Council on First Responders (Sec. 4). Among the
responsibilities of the Advisory Council would be to advise the Secretary on
“whether there is a need for a Federal standard with respect to any particular first
responder equipment or training.” H.R. 130 would also require the Under Secretary
of Science and Technology within DHS to conduct a study evaluating the need to
assign additional spectrum for use by public safety (Sec. 7). The Re-Channelization
of Public Safety Spectrum Act (H.R. 1788, Representative Ferguson) would require
the FCC to provide a band plan for public safety use of channels at 700 MHz to
accommodate commercial broadband applications.
Reconciliation of H.R. 1 and S. 4. Although the two bills have similar
goals — implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission — the Senate
bill contains requirements governing programs to be funded that go beyond the
requirements of the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
295, Title VI, Subtitle D). There are also differences in the timing of funding. The
Congressional Budget Office, in providing an estimate for H.R. 1, placed the
cumulative cost of funding interoperable communications at nearly $3.2 billion for
78 S. 4 (ES), Title XIV, Subtitle C, Sec. 1481.
79 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (a).

---

CRS-15
fiscal years 2009 through 2012.80 S. 4 authorizes a total of $3.3 billion for fiscal
years 2008 through 2011.81 The Senate bill also carries amendments that pertain to
other laws, notably the Deficit Reduction Act, not touched upon in H.R. 1.
crsphpgw
80 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1, February 2, 2007, p. 4; and H.R.
1, Title II.
81 Also see CRS Report RL33859, Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program,
H.R. 1 and S. 4: Description and Analysis, by Shawn Reese and Steven Maguire.

---