[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ALONG THE TEXAS
BORDER
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 19, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-94
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-393 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�0900012008
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Lamar Smith, Texas
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Jane Harman, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Tom Davis, Virginia
Nita M. Lowey, New York Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia David G. Reichert, Washington
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Islands Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina David Davis, Tennessee
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Henry Cuellar, Texas
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Al Green, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Todd Gee, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Nita M. Lowey, New York Mike Rogers, Alabama
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of David Davis, Tennessee
Columbia Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Officio)
Islands
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex
Officio)
Craig Sharman, Director
Nichole Francis, Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Heather Hogg, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 1
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 3
Witnesses
Mr. Chris Essid, Director, Office of Emergency Communications,
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Department of
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Steve E. Landin, Deputy Chief, Emergency Management
Coordinator, Laredo, Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Mr. Alfonso Olvera Ledezma, Director of City Security, Nuevo
Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico:
Oral Statement................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
Mr. Joe M. Peters, Director, Technology Assistance Division,
Sheriffs' Association of Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
Mr. Michael Simpson, State-wide Communications Interoperability
Plan Coordinator and Technology Advisor, Texas Radio Coalition:
Oral Statement................................................. 37
Prepared Statement............................................. 39
For The Record
Hector F. Gonzalez, MD, MPH, Director of Health, City of Laredo
Health Department, Laredo, Texas:
Statement...................................................... 7
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar............................ 55
THE STATE OF INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ALONG THE TEXAS
BORDER
----------
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Laredo, TX.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
116 of the Western Hemispheric Trade Center, Texas A&M
International University, Laredo, Texas, the Hon. Henry Cuellar
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Dent, and Souder.
Also present: Representative McCaul.
Mr. Cuellar. Mayor, thank you again very, very much. The
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response will now come to order. The subcommittee meeting today
is to receive testimony regarding the state of interoperable
emergency communications along the Texas border. The Chair
would like to acknowledge that a Member of the committee who
does not sit on the subcommittee assembled today, Mr. McCaul,
has asked to participate in today's hearing. As you know, he is
a Member of Homeland Security, a Chairman of one of the
subcommittees recently, and consistent with the rules and the
practices of the committee, we're pleased to honor his request,
and I now ask unanimous consent to allow Congressman McCaul to
sit and question the witnesses at today's hearing. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Again, good morning to all of you all. On behalf of the
Members of the subcommittee, let me first welcome our panel of
witnesses that we have here today who'll work everyday to make
sure that their community and our country are prepared for any
and all threats. We applaud your efforts and we're glad that
you are here today. Also, I would like to thank the Ranking
Member of this Chair, Charlie Dent, from Pennsylvania. Both
Charlie and Mr. Souder also came a long way, Michael from the
Austin/Houston area. Souder is from Indiana and then we've got
somebody from Pennsylvania, so welcome to our warm weather down
here in south Texas, and, actually, it's cool today. I just
want you to know it's cool today. I know that--I know that
Charlie and Michael have been--I think this is their second or
third visit for both of them, and, again, for Souder, again,
welcome here today.
I also want to say to all the Members, thank you. As you
know, we're in Washington. This week we're off here in the
districts and, again, for them to take time away from Indiana,
from Pennsylvania, from the Houston/Austin area to come down
here to spend some time on an issue that's important not only
for the southern border, but for the northern border. We
certainly want to say thank you.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the continuing
challenges and highlights, successful practices toward
achieving interoperability. As you know, along our Nation's
borders that is an issue that's very, very difficult because--
again, because of the multi-dimensional issues that we have.
It's not only on the U.S. side working with State, local and
Federal partners, but on the borders you got to work with our
partners across the river which is again very important.
Specifically we will assess the cross-border emergency
communications capabilities in south Texas as well as the
coordination and planning between Federal, State and local
governments. The United States shares nearly 6,000 miles of
border with both Canada and Mexico. The communities along those
borders face very unique challenges. For instance, Laredo,
which is the largest inland port in the United States, sees
thousands of shipments of hazardous materials pass through this
port everyday. In addition, the large amount of contraband that
flows across the border and the violence associated requires a
coordinated local, State, Federal and international effort. The
ability to communicate during an emergency is key to that part
of coordination, not only for the law enforcement, but also for
health and environmental reasons also. The challenges to
achieve this interoperability are not--it's not a new
phenomena. I think if you look at the history just a few years
ago, firefighters, police and other emergency responders had
trouble talking at the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 or
during the Hurricane Katrina. So it's something that we have
seen, but we need to make sure that we take the actions so we
don't see this in the future. This is why Congress after the
Hurricane Katrina created the Office the Emergency
Communications at the Department of Homeland Security to
centralize and to coordinate emergency communications work at
the Department and make sure that public safety systems at all
level of government are able to communicate.
After a few--after a slow start, I'm hopeful that this
office can finally take the leadership role that many of us in
Congress have visioned. I know we have a new leader here. We
appreciate Mr. Essid, your work here. We're going to get an
update from Mr. Essid, the new director of the Office of
Emergency Communications at the Department, and we certainly
all of us want to make sure that we work with you. I also look
forward to having Steve Landin, Laredo's department of--deputy
fire chief and emergency management coordinator to discuss
personnel equipment, other resources, challenges that face the
border community like we have here and also the other border
communities that we have up and down the river.
I also look forward to hearing from a witness from Nuevo
Laredo, Mr. Ledezma, the director of city security. Thank you.
[Spanish.] Who'll give us a unique insight to the cross-border
of communications. Finally, we have two individuals, Mr. Peters
and Mr. Simpson, who are here to talk about the State-wide
efforts to make sure that we connect the--you know, the
planning, the governing structure that's present throughout the
State of Texas.
As you know, the State of Texas does--as you know, the
Federal Government Homeland does provide moneys--this is
important to note. Gives money not only to the individual
entities at the local level, but if you look at the numbers,
the Homeland Security gives million and millions and millions
and millions of dollars to the State to make sure that they
then distribute those dollars down whether it's our local areas
or whether it's emergency or whether it's volunteers or other
areas to make sure that we get our job done. So the Federal
dollars come two ways. One is directly to the cities and the
counties and the other way to the State so the State can then
distribute this out. Certainly I can tell you on behalf of the
Federal Government we certainly want to work with the State to
make sure that we have the best distribution system in place.
The second hearing that we're having also--this is a second
hearing, should I say, that our subcommittee has been looking
into emergency preparedness issues along the border. So, again,
it's not the first time we're doing this. It's the second time
we want to make sure that we understand the border and it is
our intention to continue raising this issue, shine lights on
any challenges or difficulties that we might have to look at
and give credit to those who have made good steps toward
ensuring that the first responders have operable and an
interoperable emergency communication system.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses again for their
testimony. The Chair now will recognize--what I'm going to do
is--usually what we do is we just recognize the Ranking Member,
but I will recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Charlie Dent, and then I'm going to ask Mr. Souder and Mr.
McCaul if they want to add testimony--I mean have an opening
statement. So, again, Charlie, again, welcome back to Laredo
again.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar. It's good to be here
again in Laredo. I was here in August 2006 and I really enjoyed
that experience, and, again, Mayor Salinas, thank you for your
wonderful hospitality. Hopefully you'll make it to eastern
Pennsylvania one of these days. Our greeting in Pennsylvania
Dutch is ``willkommen'' and we'll also give you shoo-fly pie
just to add to your cardiac problems. Very good just the same.
Also, this community--I've often heard down here that this
is one community separated by a river. I live in eastern
Pennsylvania and we border the State of New Jersey, and for the
longest time my State slogan was ``America starts here''. It
was just a slap at New Jersey, and I hope that the--I want to
get a good sense today of the state of interoperable
communications not just within Texas, but also across the
border. I'm curious to see if your efforts are better than what
we have between our two States. But before I get into my
remarks, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mike
Simpson replace Mr. Peter Collins on our panel of witnesses.
Mr. Collins is unable to be here due to an emergency, but his
deputy, Mr. Simpson, is equally knowledgeable, so I'm pleased
he is here with us this morning. I'd just like to make that
statement.
I'm also pleased to be here in Laredo today with Chairman
Cuellar to examine the critical issue of interoperable
emergency communications. First responders and public safety
officials across the country face critical challenges in
achieving interoperable communications everyday. We certainly
learned this lesson very hard after 9/11. For those on the
border communities such as Laredo the challenges can be that
much more acute due to additional international factors. For
instance, police and firefighters may encounter interference in
their radio communications because Mexico does not regulate and
enforce the use of radio frequencies the same way we do. The
increased demand for interoperable emergency communications may
also be particularly challenging due to Laredo's status as the
largest land border port of entry.
I'm pleased we have with us today Mr. Chris Essid from the
Department of Homeland Security's Office of Emergency
Communications. Mr. Essid is the first director of this new
office that was created by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006. I look forward to hearing from
Mr. Essid on how his office is reaching out to State and local
officials to help them address their interoperability
challenges. I also look forward to discussing with him how the
Federal Government is working to develop the National Emergency
Communications Plan that will help guide future spending on
interoperable communications.
Also with us today are State and local officials
representing the emergency management, law enforcement, and
information technology communities. I also look forward to
hearing their views regarding the challenges to achieving
interoperability, the transition to the use of the 700
megahertz frequency, and overall coordination throughout the
State. It's my understanding that the entire State of Texas was
involved in drafting the State's interoperable communications
plan and that the latest application for grant funding was also
coordinated across all jurisdictions. It's certainly a
tremendous achievement to bring everyone to the table to
discuss critical communications issues. I look forward to
hearing more about how this was achieved and also look forward
to hearing about the state of interoperable communications
across the river.
So, again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here
today and for sharing your expertise with us on this important
issue. I really thank you, Chairman Cuellar, for inviting me
back. It's just great to be here again. This is a wonderful
tight-knit community, very hospitable and I thank the mayor
again for all the courtesies he's extended to me each time I
have been here. It's good to know more about this wonderful
community. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thanks very much. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. I appreciate also the
opportunity to be here. It was just really great that you got
the Hotel Posada to get remodeled so that we have a wonderful
place to stay. In addition to my interests in this subcommittee
and in communications in general, my hometown, Fort Wayne,
Indiana, is the center of defense and Homeland Security
communications for the SINCGARS radio and a lot of the
interoperable systems through General Dynamics and others that
are so important, not only between trying to connect local
police and fire to Federal systems, but also looking at how we
connect people in the forest fires when we have them out West.
Often they can't talk to each other when they get in. As we
look at these emergency communications, it becomes especially
critical, and it's also critical to the employers in my
district, as we build many of these communication systems, so I
appreciate the opportunity to be here.
My primary responsibility in Homeland Security is I'm their
Republican leader on the border security and global
counterterrorism subcommittee, and I apologize for being late.
I was actually out on the river with the Border Patrol this
morning, seeing some of the challenges of not being able to see
the water as you are walking along the border trails there and
some of the challenges that we face in those areas.
I'm also co-chair and founder of the drug policy caucus in
Congress and have spent much of my career as the narcotics
chairman in Congress working in much of our--the narcotics that
flow in Indiana come across the border between here and
McAllen, and so it is a huge issue on mobile fronts in addition
to the ability to respond to emergencies. I'm taking the rest
of this week and will be going up to Eagle Pass and Del Rio,
then on to Big Bend, Marfa, and over to El Paso in this section
of the border. I spent much of my career on the north and south
borders, but Texas, particularly that zone from here over to El
Paso is--becomes more wild as it goes. In fact at the Academy
Awards this week, two of the nominated movies were filmed over
in Big Bend because it's so abandoned over there.
So I look forward to this time in Texas. I'm sorry I didn't
bring a big load of Indianapolis Colts things. I think a banner
would have been great down here and would have outrun the
supply. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much. At this time I'll
recognize--the Chair will recognize Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mayor, thank you
for all your hospitality, as always. I look forward to seeing
you in Washington. I think in a week or two from now, I think,
and let me give an advance congratulations to Chairman Cuellar
and his designation as Mr. South Texas in the Washington Day
Parade. Sorry I won't be there to celebrate with you. Let me
just--if I could comment on the Chairman. He has been a real
leader in the Congress on these issues and I am very proud to
work with him. We've been very focused on border-related issues
recently coming back from Mexico City where we met with
President Calderon for a very long period of time and the
Mexican Attorney General about drug cartels and security issues
that we have at the border. I sense that there's a real
sincerity with the Mexican Government to work with us, and
there's an opportunity--a unique one for real partnership
between the two countries, and I know that's a passion that the
Chairman shares and that I share with him, and I know that
we'll be working hard in the Congress to facilitate that.
This is an important issue and I want to thank the panel
for being here. Our ability to communicate was identified after
9/11 by the 9/11 Commission as one of the weaknesses, and we
didn't have adequate communications between Federal, State, and
local officials. We didn't--we had silos. We had turf battles.
I was in the Justice Department for a while, as was the Mayor,
and I'm sure he can tell you that the turf battles were
counterproductive. The communication didn't flow. We were not
able to connect the dots and that actually, ultimately, led to
the events of 9/11 in my view. I think that our ability to
communicate more effectively in today's world is absolutely
paramount to protecting the American people from not only a
man-made disaster, but a natural disaster, as we have seen not
only with 9/11 but also with Katrina and Rita.
I will say that the--it's really important--this is such an
unique area. I went out with a rancher yesterday to look at his
stretch of the ranch on the river. He really--I encourage
Members to come down and see it because you can't really have
an appreciation and an understanding for the border until
you've been down here to witness it and to talk to the people
that live here. It's a very unique area. It's important because
the amount of cross-border trade and the fact that such an
event, whether it be man-made or natural, could affect citizens
on both sides of the river.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 required the development
of a National Emergency Communication Plan, and in 2006 the
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act established the
Office of Emergency Communications, or the OEC, of the
Department of Homeland Security. The OEC is the principal
Federal office in charge of strengthening emergency
communications Nation-wide by coordinating with Federal, State,
and local governments, and I look forward to hearing Director
Essid's testimony about the progress that his office has been
making. The Federal Government has also been helping State and
local authorities by providing funding through the Public
Safety Interoperable Communications grant program.
I'm pleased to say that Texas has been ahead of the curve
as usual, a real leader in developing their own State-wide
Communications Interoperability Plan, and was one of the
largest recipients of the grant funding. Much of this is due to
the work, in my judgment, of the Texas Radio Coalition, an
organization that I've been personally very involved with and
look forward to hearing from Mr. Simpson and his testimony
about the work that the coalition has done and the challenges
that you have.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from Deputy Chief
Landin, who is the emergency management coordinator here in
Laredo, Director Ledezma, as well as Director Peters from the
Sheriffs' Association of Texas about what challenges you have
in communicating and coordinating and what funding you need
from the Congress to better do your job. So with that I'll go
back to Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much, Mr. McCaul. The Chair now
asks the unanimous consent to allow testimony from Dr. Hector
Gonzalez, the Director of Health from the city of Laredo Health
Department to be inserted for the record, and without
objection, his testimony--thank you very much, Hector, for your
testimony.
[The statement of Dr. Gonzalez follows:]
Statement of Hector F. Gonzalez, MD, MPH, Director of Health, City of
Laredo Health Department, Laredo, Texas
February 19, 2008
A. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Hector F.
Gonzalez, Director of Health for the city of Laredo. Today Chief Steve
Landin of our Fire Department and who is also our Emergency Management
Coordinator will address you on the importance of interoperable
communication especially as it impacts the U.S.-Mexico border. In
addition he will share some of our successes and best practices such as
the newly activated critical first responder and emergency management
interoperable communication-800 megahertz trunking radio system, which
now needs to be enhanced for public health interoperable communication.
My colleagues and I are addressing you to provide testimony on best
practices, our unique communication and emergency operations issues as
well as resources to adequately protect not only our community but the
entire Nation through our first responder system, emergency care
services and all hazards public health response on the U.S.-Mexico
border (and in particular in Laredo). I will specifically share with
you our Laredo public health response experience and the need for
critical interoperable communications.
Mr. Chairman as you know border communities and in particular
Laredo do not just respond to local disasters, incidents or public
health threats (even though resources are only provided based on local
need), the truth of the matter is that our role is both regional and
national.
B. NEW FIRST RESPONDER PARADIGM
Since 9/11, the first responder paradigm changed; no longer do we
view first responders and public health preparedness in the same way.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Laredo where the Chiefs of Police
and Fire and myself work intimately close to respond to disasters and
all hazard incidents: biological, chemical and radiological. Because of
our model both the Fire Chief and I sit on the Governor's Homeland
Security Advisory Committee and I sit on the State Communications Plan
Advisory Committee. Mr. Chairman, Laredo has developed resources and
contributed more than its fair share as we have always recognized that
it is our community but everyone's border to protect. We maximize
resources and manage all responses in a regional manner as resources
have never been sufficient. Consequently we created our own response
expertise especially for all public health threats. For us it is
routine to respond locally, regionally and in our case internationally.
We are the State and Federal responders as there is no one else to
respond.
C. POTENTIAL EMERGENCY INFECTIOUS DISEASE AND ALL HAZARDS RESPONSE
REQUIRES INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION
Just over 4 months ago we got a call from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) Quarantine Station (QS) from El Paso about
a Cuban refugee with probable Tuberculosis. Three days later we got a
call again from the QS that 3 Cuban families seeking political asylum
had children sick with ``smallpox''. Both the Public Health Chief of
Disease Control and Emergency Response and I did the actual work-up and
investigation--ruling out ``smallpox'' but also assessing over 20
additional refugees that could have gone undetected for any potential
infectious problem and served as a threat not just to Laredo but to
multiple communities along their route to Florida. If this had truly
been ``smallpox'' it would have been a bioterrorist act that required
immediate intervention of both FBI and CDC as well instant
communication with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). At the present we
would not have been able to radio emergency management preventive and
triage orders. Definitely we would not have been able to communicate
with Mexico.
D. CHALLENGES TO INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION
Rapid and efficient communication in an all-hazards emergency
response specifically for public health is critical, especially along
the U.S.-Mexico Border, among all public health jurisdictions. In fact
Public Health Data Communication Exchange takes into consideration all
of the factors that influence the health of communities and
individuals. There is a need to develop total public health data
communication integrated and interoperable systems, also considered
medical intelligence, in our case border medical and public health
intelligence. Some of the barriers that need to be addressed are:
Interference and dropped calls with cellular communications;
Local calls to Mexico are international and long distance in
some cases;
Different bands, not enough communication relay towers;
Lack of rapid efficient radio communication with State and
Federal partners as well with Mexico for public health
response;
Not enough Binational Interoperable Communication Training;
Lack of interoperable communication with other public health
departments along the U.S.-Mexico Border in the event of a
public health disaster;
Lack of multi-agency interdisciplinary approach to provide
the total disaster perspective and based on evidence;
More efficient data communication integrated links. At the
present, an overwhelming vast amount of data is available, but
we lack the ability to link different sources into one
integrated cost-effective, rapid and efficient program with
interoperable communication capacity.
E. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Enhance Laredo's 800 megahertz interoperable communication
infrastructure system for Public Health emergencies.
2. Purchase additional radios and develop special channel for
interoperable emergency rapid communication with State and
Federal partners as well with Mexico.
3. Develop rapid interoperable communication with other public
health departments from Brownsville to El Paso, Texas.
4. Assure secure communication among public health responders.
5. Develop mobile data communication capacity for public health.
6. Enhance reporting through syndromic surveillance to assist
public health officials in the field to detect and confirm as
well have the capacity for interoperable communication.
7. Increase the capacity of the Early Warning Infectious Disease
Surveillance (EWIDS) system to test, confirm and detect public
health disease threats along the U.S.-Mexico Border with
interoperable communication capacity.
8. Develop continuous training with all partners on
interoperability.
9. Acquire biological airborne permanent environmental detection
systems, such as, ``BIOWATCH'' for early detection of the
release of pathogens into the air, providing warning to the
public health community of a potential bioterrorist event. This
system then needs to be linked to interoperable systems once we
know if a hazard.
10. Link interoperable communication systems to the Laboratory
Regional Network such as at the city of Laredo Health
Department.
11. Interoperable EWIDS communication.
F. SUCCESSES AND BEST PRACTICES
Joint simulated training with all partners and Mexico with a
special emphasis on interoperable communication.
Ongoing routine meetings to enhance communication.
800 MHz radio interoperability established.
Emergency Operations Center functions with interoperability.
EWIDS Public Health expert weekly exchange of public health
disease and surveillance data.
Binational monthly public health training with limited
simulations that include some interoperable communication
testing.
G. CONCLUSION
The United States is under a constant threat of an intentional or
unintentional medical, biological or chemical attack especially along
our U.S.-Mexico Border. In Laredo we say ``When Nuevo Laredo, Mexico
coughs, Laredo, Texas gets the cold.'' Disease does not respect a
border.
When you think of the potential public health threats that can
cause epidemics, or contaminate our water or food supply, there is no
other area more vulnerable than the U.S.-Mexico Border and
interoperable communication is fundamental.
In Laredo, we are proud to provide the first line of defense for
our community, the State and the Nation. I want to thank you for
allowing me to provide this written testimony.
Mr. Cuellar. Let me--again, before we get started with the
witnesses, again, I have to again thank this Member. You will
see by the line of questioning that these folks really know
about Homeland Security. Someone from the northern part of the
United States, some of us from the southern part, but we're all
working together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we
address--I know all of them. They have all been in Homeland
Security. They know the work that they do is something that is
very important to all of us, and I certainly want to thank all
of them for being here.
Also, I would like to say that our committee works on a
bipartisan way with the Ranking Member, Peter King, and our
Chairman, Bennie Thompson. In fact, Bennie Thompson will be in
Laredo Friday, will be coming to Laredo Friday, will spend a
day here with us on Friday--this Friday, so I certainly want to
thank the Chairman and the committee staff, both the Republican
and the Democratic staff for all of us working together. I
certainly want to recognize Betty and, of course, Peter King
also, a Ranking Member.
Also, don't forget that after this, we have a 1:30 grants
seminar where we've got Homeland that will be talking to us
about the different grants that are available, what timetable,
what are the criteria to make sure that you take full advantage
of the opportunities that are available. It's a very unique
type of seminar that we'll have here, and I certainly want to
thank everybody for participating.
At this time I will go ahead and move onto the witnesses. I
first welcome the panel of witnesses. First of all, our first
witness is Mr. Chris Essid, who's the director of the
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency
Communications. Prior to his position, he served as the first
interoperability coordinator the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr.
Essid is veteran of the U.S. Army and holds a master's degree
in public administration. Again, thank you. It's good seeing
you again and welcome to our hometown.
The second witness is Mr. Steve Landin, who's the assistant
fire chief and emergency management coordinator for the city of
Laredo, has been a member of the Laredo Fire Department for 18
years, holds a Bachelor's Degree in finance, economics with an
emphasis in fire administration from the Empire State College.
Thank you, Steve, for being here with us.
Our third witness is Alfonso Olvera Ledezma, who serves as
the director of security in Nuevo Laredo for Tamaulipas. Mr.
Ledezma, again, has been a 16-year veteran of the Mexican State
Government. Thank you for being here with us. [Spanish].
Our fourth witness is Mr. Joe Peters, who serves as a
director of Technology Assistance Division of the Sheriffs'
Association of Texas in Austin covering communications
interoperability. Prior to his position he served for 30 years
as a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety as a
trooper, highway patrol sergeant and as a Texas Ranger. Mr.
Peters currently serves as a communications committee liaison
between the Sheriffs' Association of Texas and the Texas
Congressional Delegation, State legislators and State agencies.
Welcome.
Our fifth witness is Mr. Michael Simpson, the wireless
communication services manager for the city of Austin. He's
also the State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan
Coordinator and Technology Advisor for the Texas Radio
Coalition. Again, Mr. Simpson, welcome.
We're all pleased to have you here. Without objection, the
witnesses' full statements will be inserted into the record,
and now I'll ask each witness to summarize his statement for 5
minutes beginning with Director Essid.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS ESSID, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Essid. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, Congressman
McCaul and Members of the subcommittee. From its inception the
Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with
Congress and the administration to address the--to address the
human, technical and governance challenges of interoperability,
one of Secretary Chertoff's highest priorities for the
Department. Personally, I've learned a great deal about the
realities of implementing interoperability solutions at the
State and local level as Virginia's interoperability
coordinator, and I'm excited about the opportunity to apply
those lessons as we all work together to improve emergency
communications across our Nation.
Since becoming operational on April 1, 2001, the Office of
Emergency Communications has focused on the development of a
national emergency communications plan, the national
communications capability report and the integration of three
interoperability programs transferred from within DHS entities,
the Integrated Wireless Network, the Interoperable
Communications Technical Assistance Program and Elements of the
SAFECOM program.
As a coordinator of cross-governmental initiatives, OEC is
implementing shared infrastructure projects through the Federal
Partnership for Interoperable Communications, known as FPIC, a
partnership of Federal, State and local agencies with a public
safety mission to enhance the interoperability of Federal
departments and agencies.
Interoperability grant programs require States and
territories to develop State communications interoperability
plans. This requirement and the planning efforts of the States
and localities mark critical milestones in breaking down the
coordination barriers of the past and establishing a roadmap of
a future interoperability. As of December 3, all 56 States and
territories submitted State-wide communications
interoperability plans. For the first time, all States have
plans for interoperable communications and the tools to measure
their progress toward realizing their interoperability goals.
This is a very significant accomplishment. As you know, border
regions in our country face an even broader set of challenges
as they work to achieve cross-border interoperability. OEC must
collaborate closely with agencies that share responsibility for
overcoming these domestic and international challenges
including the U.S. Department of State, the National
Telecommunications and Information Agency and the Federal
Communications Commission.
Currently, OEC is engaged in several activities to address
and resolve issues at the technical, operational, policy and
regulatory levels that are hindered--that have hindered the
realization of cross-border interoperability at the Federal,
State, local and tribal level on both the northern and our
southern borders.
The United States-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission
on Telecommunications Security Communications Task Group is
developing a bilateral solution that will establish a long-term
interoperability solution between the United States and Mexico
along the southwest border.
The 2010 Olympics Task Force Security Subcommittee
Communications Interoperability Working Group is coordinated
among the Federal, State, and local emergency responders along
the northwest border to develop and exercise an
interoperability plan for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, and
the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications
Southwest Border Communications working Group is working
closely with Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico to
coordinate initiatives and user needs at the Federal, State,
local and tribal levels along the southwest border.
Spectrum sharing and information assurance are two common
and important policy issues currently being addressed by these
groups. Additionally, as a former State interoperability
coordinator I recognize the important of cost-effective,
technical and operational solutions that adequately address
interoperability requirements. Finally, these solutions must be
included in operational plans and must be a key element in
operational training and exercises. We are actively working
with practitioners and planners throughout the Nation to
provide guidance, coordination and assistance at both the
technical and operational level.
In conclusion, improving interoperability on our northern
and southern borders is of paramount importance to the safety
and security of our Nation. The Office of Emergency
Communications serves as a as focal point for the coordination
of long-term cross-border interoperability solutions that
address user needs and policy requirements of all three
countries. Through FPIC and other forms, the Office of
Emergency Communications will continue to cultivate
relationships between the Canadian, Mexican and American users
and regulatory agencies across all levels of government to
better identify and address barriers to interoperability.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss OEC's activities
and I look forward to working with this subcommittee to help
meet the emergency communication needs of our Nation.
[The statement of Mr. Essid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Essid
February 19, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and Members of
the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on cross-
border interoperable communications issues. I am Chris Essid, the
Director of the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC).
OEC is a component of the Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications (CS&C) within the National Protection and Programs
Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. Assistant Secretary
for Cybersecurity and Communications Gregory Garcia is responsible for
the overarching mission of CS&C to prepare for and respond to incidents
that could degrade or overwhelm the operation of our Nation's
information technology and communications infrastructure. This mission
is part of a larger strategy to ensure the security, integrity,
reliability, and availability of our information and communications
networks.
From its inception the Department of Homeland Security has worked
with Congress and the administration to address the human, technical,
and governance challenges of interoperability. Indeed, interoperability
is one of Secretary Chertoff's highest priorities for the Department.
MISSION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND ACTIVITIES
Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act, as amended, assigns to
OEC the mission of advancing interoperable and operable emergency
communications through collaboration with Federal, State, local, and
tribal partners. Since becoming operational on April 1, 2007, OEC has
focused on meeting its various mission requirements, including the
integration of three interoperability programs transferred from other
DHS entities: the Federal wireless programs under the Integrated
Wireless Network (IWN), the Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program (ICTAP), and outreach, guidance, and tool
development by the SAFECOM program. We have also focused on working
with our key stakeholders to identify their needs and gain a better
understanding about the ever-changing interoperable communications
environment.
OEC is working to bridge interoperability gaps between Federal,
State and local governments. As a coordinator of cross-governmental
initiatives, OEC is implementing shared infrastructure projects,
through the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications
(FPIC)--a partnership of Federal, State, and local agencies with a
public safety mission to enhance the operability and interoperability
of Federal departments and agencies. OEC will continue to leverage the
groundwork established by its Federal wireless partners and build on
existing capabilities at all levels of government to enhance
interoperable emergency communications. Further, we will be working
with the National Communications System (NCS), which is also a
component of CS&C, to coordinate our responsibilities for ensuring the
continued operation of the telecommunications functions and
responsibilities of the Federal Government.
NATIONAL PLANS AND ASSESSMENTS
As directed by Congress, OEC conducts periodic assessments of the
state of interoperability across the Nation and regularly reports on
progress toward achieving national objectives as established by the
President, Congress, and DHS. Development of the National
Communications Capabilities Report of existing Federal, State, local,
and tribal government capabilities is a key first step in our
analytical efforts. The first phase of this report, currently under
departmental review, builds on the findings and conclusions of studies
and documents such as the National Interoperability Baseline Survey,
Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans, Tactical Interoperable
Communications Scorecards, and the Communications Asset Survey and
Mapping (CASM) database.
While past assessments like the Baseline Survey focused on State,
local, and tribal interoperable communications, the Capabilities Report
incorporates information from the Federal perspective to show the full
scope of interoperable communications Nation-wide. The report aims to
characterize the emergency communications challenges that must be
addressed, the capabilities that exist to address them, and any gaps in
capability availability or deployment.
OEC will use the findings and recommendations from the report to
develop a National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) later this
year. Since this will be a National Plan, OEC will be working closely
with other DHS components and other Federal agencies with emergency
communications roles and responsibilities, including the NCS, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility, in addition to our stakeholders
from regional, State, local, and tribal governments, and the private
sector. Additionally, OEC has established the preliminary framework for
activities of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, which
Congress directed to coordinate the Federal aspects in the development
of the NECP. The NECP will set goals and provide short-term and long-
term recommendations for addressing interoperability gaps and advancing
operability and interoperability.
Before we can begin building the NECP, however, we need to have a
comprehensive understanding of the interoperability capabilities needed
and those currently in use across the Nation. Thus, one of OEC's top
priorities in the near term is to develop a robust assessment of the
state of emergency communications, particularly gaps and
vulnerabilities. The Capabilities Report noted above will give us much
of this information, but we also will be gathering valuable input from
other initiatives like the State-wide Communications Interoperable Plan
(SCIP) review process, which ultimately will help us identify how OEC
can advance the emergency communications capabilities of first
responders and emergency management officials.
A key component of a Nation-wide, cross-governmental understanding
of emergency communications is the development of Communications Asset
Survey and Mapping (CASM) tool. CASM is a web-based communications
assets database that consolidates information about land-mobile radio
systems and other interoperability assets and determines how they are
being used by metropolitan and urban area public safety agencies within
a State. OEC works with participating public safety agencies to
populate CASM with their data and help them understand the
interoperability methods used by neighboring agencies so they can plan
accordingly. Recently, CASM has been upgraded to include a ``what if''
feature that allows users to see the consequences to communications
assets in a variety of man-made and natural disaster scenarios. To
date, more than 75 metropolitan/urban areas and States--representing
more than 8,000 agencies--have entered data into CASM. Through
attendance and tool demonstrations at national public safety
conferences, FPIC meetings, and ongoing coordination with other DHS
partners such as the member agencies of the National Communications
System, OEC is reaching users and policymakers at all levels of
government.
OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
OEC has participated in and supported a number of stakeholder
forums and initiatives designed to promote awareness and build
consensus among Federal, State, and local entities on policy and
technical issues affecting interoperable communications. This includes
dedicated interoperability events with groups such as the National
Governors Association's State-wide Planning Workshops and the National
Association of Counties/National League of Cities Interoperability
Policy Academies. OEC leaders attend major conferences hosted by the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, International
Association of Fire Chiefs, the Association for Public-Safety
Communications Officials and others. Additionally, a significant
portion of OEC's stakeholder engagement occurs though the SAFECOM
Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council. OEC leaders also
understand the need for private-sector engagement in support of this
mission and continue to meet with industry to learn more about new
developments in interoperable equipment and technology.
Building on these relationships, OEC provides technical assistance
services to the practitioner community to foster the development of
interoperable communications capabilities at the State and local
levels. OEC's technical assistance helps States identify gaps in their
communications infrastructure and determine technical requirements for
an interoperable communications system. Technical assistance includes
strategic and tactical communications planning, system feasibility
studies, tabletop exercises, evaluations of communications sites and
technologies, and on-site engineering support.
During the preparations in the Gulf Coast Region for the 2007
hurricane season, OEC moved from planning mode to technical-services
support mode. There, OEC coordinated the accelerated delivery of
communications equipment and training services to several hurricane-
prone States in the region well in advance of the season. The training
addressed the usage of the equipment in its designated communications
planning environment, as well as the need for coordination, governance,
and a regional set of standard operating procedures for communications.
The Office of Emergency Communications also provided on-site
support for the 2007 Golden Phoenix, an Interoperability Joint Training
Event, which had a scenario with an 8.0 earthquake in the greater Los
Angeles area. Participants in the event include Los Angeles city and
county multi-jurisdictional emergency responders, the California
National Guard, and the Department of Defense (DoD). OEC ICTAP provided
technical evaluators and planning assistance to measure and evaluate
communications interoperability across the continuum of first
responders, DoD, and participating State and local government entities
and non-governmental organizations. The event underscored the need for
training opportunities among the various response groups and the
challenges that might be encountered. OEC helped to document the
challenges and findings.
STATE-WIDE COMMUNICATION INTEROPERABILITY PLANS
Historically, limited and fragmented planning and a lack of
coordination and cooperation among disciplines and jurisdictions have
hampered the emergency response community's ability to communicate
during response efforts. To combat this problem, the DHS fiscal year
2007 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) required States and
Territories to develop locally driven, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-
disciplinary State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs).
Following coordination between DHS and the Department of Commerce's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), NTIA
has also incorporated the SCIP requirement as an element of its Public
Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. The SCIP
requirement and the planning efforts of States and localities mark
critical milestones in breaking down the barriers of the past and in
establishing a roadmap for the future of interoperability. As of
December 3, 2007, all 56 States and Territories submitted SCIPs. For
the first time States will have a plan for interoperable communications
and a baseline to assess their progress toward realizing their
interoperability goals.
OEC provided technical assistance, outreach, and guidance to States
and territories in the development of their SCIPs. The office developed
and facilitated 35 SCIP development workshops, conducted 15 document
reviews, and provided SCIP-development support to 48 of the 56 States
and territories. In addition, OEC provided States and territories with
the option of submitting preliminary SCIPs. Forty-two took advantage of
this option, and OEC conducted a peer review process in October 2007 to
provide critical feedback to those States and Territories on their
preliminary plans before the final submission deadline.
Upon final submission of the SCIPs in December 2007, OEC began
working with its partners at FEMA and NTIA to facilitate a peer-review
process to evaluate the SCIPs and supported NTIA in the evaluation of
applicants' PSIC Investment Justifications. Just last week, panels of
Federal, State, local, and tribal peers convened in St. Louis, Missouri
to provide input on the approval of SCIPs. Based on this peer input,
OEC will make decisions on whether a SCIP receives a ``pass'' or
``needs additional information'' grade. The evaluated SCIPs with
comments and recommendations will be returned to the States and
territories by March 31, 2008. Technical assistance will be available
to any State or territory that requests additional SCIP support.
Through this process, States and territories will be receiving
feedback from their peers on how to improve their planning efforts. As
a result, the Department expects that the SCIPs will require periodic
updates and enhancements. To promote the value of this process, future
DHS grant programs will continue to build upon the progress made
through the SCIPs to better target funding and ensure the State-wide
planning process continues.
INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAMS
In the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, Congress authorized the Interoperable Emergency Communications
Grant Program (IECGP) to provide grants to support projects which
improve operable and interoperable emergency communications among
Federal, State, regional, local, tribal and, in some instances,
international border communities. This grant program will fund
activities which comply with the SCIPs and with the National Emergency
Communications Plan. Once completed, the National Plan will help frame
the way-ahead for the Nation, and will be essential in helping the
Department set national priorities for emergency communications and
target-specific outcomes.
FEMA and OEC share responsibilities for the IECGP, which will
require continued coordination between the two organizations to ensure
its success in producing measurable progress in improving
interoperability. Fortunately, OEC already has an excellent working
relationship in place with FEMA through our previous collaboration on
the fiscal year 2007 HSGP, and our combined work in support of NTIA's
PSIC Grant Program. For the IECGP, we will leverage our collective
experience and expertise and build on the progress, requirements, and
lessons learned from existing programs.
CROSS-BORDER INTEROPERABILITY CHALLENGES
Ensuring the ability of public safety agencies and officials to
communicate across disciplines and jurisdictions and to exchange
information on-demand during an incident is challenging enough from a
purely domestic perspective. Interoperability challenges become even
more difficult in our country's regions that border Canada and Mexico.
As a result, OEC must collaborate closely with agencies that share the
responsibility for surmounting these challenges, including the U.S.
Department of State, NTIA, and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). OEC is working with its stakeholders and partners in several
areas to improve cross-border interoperable communications and manage
challenges.
Spectrum Management
The proper management of spectrum resources is key to achieving
cross-border interoperability. The use of different spectrum bands
among border communities in different countries is a significant hurdle
to overcome: our emergency response partners in Canada and Mexico do
not use U.S. frequency allocations, which results in the use of
disparate frequencies. Establishing cross-border interoperability
requires the use of additional technology solutions to bridge these
disparate frequencies, or new cross-border agreements to allow
emergency communications operations in the appropriate bands. OEC has
established a close relationship with the Department of State, and
continues to make headway on the issue.
Regulation
The Federal Communications Commission and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regulatory
requirements must be met when establishing domestic interoperability
among Federal, State, local, and tribal public safety agencies. To
establish cross-border interoperability on the Canadian and Mexican
borders, the requirements of Industry Canada \1\ and the Mexican
Secretariat for Communications and Transportation (SCT) with support
from the Federal Commission on Telecommunications (COFETEL) must also
be met. Differing regulatory requirements in these agencies increases
the amount of time and effort required to establish interoperability
and coordinate spectrum use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Industry Canada is the spectrum regulatory body for Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordination
In an effort to ensure harmonious spectrum sharing along our common
borders, the United States has entered into bilateral agreements with
Canada and Mexico. As interoperability solutions are adopted, new
bilateral agreements may be required to protect these solutions or
exemptions to existing agreements may be needed to preserve the
legality of the solution. These negotiations are conducted in
conjunction with the Department of State; its early involvement is
critical to the success of any interoperability solution that may be
inconsistent with existing international telecommunications agreements.
Security
Information assurance is a priority for public safety agencies.
Many interoperability solutions, particularly those providing data
interoperability, require multiple systems to interface, which creates
several security concerns. These system security concerns must be
factored into any cross-border interoperability solutions.
Geographic and Demographic Factors
The immense size, varying terrain, and differing population
densities of the U.S. border regions require interoperability solutions
to be tailored to the implementation locales. For example, the most
effective solution in a rural, desert location will not be appropriate
for a mountainous, metropolitan area.
Operations
Without comprehensive operational and exercise plans, the best
technical interoperability solution may not realize its optimum
effectiveness; therefore, all interoperability solutions must address
operational interoperability. Additionally, the United States, Mexico,
and Canada do not have a common incident management terminology, and in
some instances there are language barriers to overcome.
OEC INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE CROSS-BORDER INTEROPERABILITY
The United States-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission on
Telecommunications Security Communications Task Group
The United States-Mexico High Level Consultative Commission on
Telecommunications Security Communications Task Group (HLCC SCTG) was
established in 2006 to address the need for security communications
between the United States and Mexico. The SCTG is jointly chaired by
OEC and the Mexican Secretary of Public Security. Initially, a short-
term solution was implemented that negotiated an exemption to an
existing telecommunications protocol to allow the use of ten Mexican
public safety radios in the State of Arizona. The SCTG's recommended
long-term solution will provide voice and data interoperability between
the United States and Mexico by establishing ten broadband microwave
links between Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sites in the United
States and the Centers for Control, Command, Communications, and
Computers (C4) sites in Mexico. The SCTG finalized its recommendations
and presented them to the HLCC in early February 2008.
The identification of mutually acceptable frequencies has proven to
be a challenge. Thanks to OEC's leadership, the SCTG has successfully
worked with SCT and NTIA to license the frequencies for its long-term
solution.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Currently, the SCTG and Mexico C4 have identified five of the
six frequency pairs required for Phase I of the crossborder microwave
project. The latest frequencies submitted by Mexico C4 for the Agua
Prieta to Douglas microwave link are currently under consideration by
the NTIA. The frequencies will be in the 7 GHz to 8 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCTG will be recommending the establishment of a protocol by
the High Level Consultative Commission on Telecommunications (HLCC) to
ensure the interference protection of the frequencies. Additionally,
the protocol will establish a users group to address the development of
standard operating procedures and other operational issues once the
long-term solution is no longer under the purview of the High Level
Consultative Commission on Telecommunications. The SCTG will also
determine whether communications over the solution will occur in
English or Spanish along the southern border.
The 2010 Olympics Task Force Security Subcommittee, Communications
Interoperable Working Group
The 2010 Olympics Task Force Security Subcommittee, the
Communications Interoperable Working Group (CIWG) is developing an
integrated interoperability plan in preparation for the Olympics in
Vancouver. The Interoperability Continuum \3\ is being used as a basis
to develop a robust interoperability solution. Efforts to date have
involved the identification of existing communications assets and
required participants. The next steps in the process include the
development of interoperable protocols, policies, procedures, and
tactical communication strategies. The CIWG will also develop a multi-
year training and exercise plan and schedule. Spectrum issues are also
anticipated to be a challenge in the implementation of the
International Border Community Interoperable Communications
Demonstration Project and the 2010 Olympics CIWG. The participating
agencies operate in a wide range of disparate frequency bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Interoperability Continuum is a tool devised to measure
progress in public safety interoperability using five elements:
Governance, Standard Operating Procedures, Technology, Training and
Exercises, and Usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic and demographic factors will come into play during the
2010 Olympics. The influx in the number of tourists and public safety
officials has the potential to stress existing communications systems.
OEC sees this as a good opportunity to identify cross-border
interoperability solutions to be used for a large-scale international
event.
The Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications Southwest
Border Communications Working Group
The Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC)
Southwest Border Communications Working Group is a domestic initiative
intended to effectively use the region's scarce critical resources to
identify and leverage interoperability opportunities among Federal,
State, and local agencies implementing wireless infrastructure along
the United States-Mexico border and to help programs succeed in meeting
end-users' needs.
Additionally, this group is working to ensure coordination among
public safety agencies on the U.S. side of the border. While this
effort does not directly create cross-border interoperability, it works
to establish domestic interoperability in a critical region as a
precursor to cross-border interoperability.
CONCLUSION
Improving interoperability on our northern and southern borders is
of paramount importance to the safety and security of our Nation. OEC
will continue to serve as the focal point for the coordination of
robust cross-border interoperability solutions that address user needs
and policy requirements of all three countries. Through FPIC and other
forums, OEC will continue to cultivate relationships with Canadian,
Mexican, and American users and regulatory agencies across all levels
of government to better identify and address barriers to
interoperability.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss OEC activities look
forward to working with this subcommittee to help meet the emergency
communications needs of our Nation.
Mr. Cuellar. Director, I say thank you again for your
testimony. At this time I now recognize Chief Landin to
summarize a statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE E. LANDIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, LAREDO, TEXAS
Mr. Landin. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and
Members of the subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness and Response. Good morning. I'm Steve Landin and
I've been a proud member of the Laredo Fire Department since
1990. The Laredo Fire Department is a 348-uniform personnel
department. Like my father before me, my professional career
has been as a first responder on the border, having worked as a
firefighter and sheriff's deputy and now as the acting
assistant fire chief and current emergency management
coordinator.
Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take a
moment on behalf of my fellow border first responders in Laredo
to thank Chairman Cuellar and this committee for the focus you
have brought to the challenges we face. Chairman Cuellar sat
down with Laredo public safety leaders to craft a U.S.-Mexico
border public safety and public health response paper. The
conclusion of that paper, a copy of which is attached to my
testimony, is that there is a need for a Federal and local
partnership. While I was not part of the committee that
authored the paper, I do endorse the content.
On the border, because we are often so isolated from any
surrounding communities on the U.S. side, we understand better
than most that we are on our own to address threats, not only
to the people, property and economy of Laredo, but increasingly
to the United States. For instance, while my colleagues in New
York City or the District of Columbia may rely upon joint
assistance programs which are surrounding communities in times
of challenge, in Laredo, are nearest U.S. support is over an
hour's drive away. Despite Nuevo Laredo, a city of 600,000,
being just across the river and while the Federal agents
manning the border points have point responsibility for
security, Laredo does bear the burden with respect to
protection of life, health and property.
While the Chairman is well aware of Los Dos Laredos or the
two Laredos and the role that we play on the border, let me
take a moment to share some insights about my community with
the subcommittee and outlining Laredo's role on the border. I
am also seeking to answer the question that many of you may
have. Why should Federal resources be used to support
inoperable communications that are typically provided by every
local government?
Laredo is at the center of the primary trade route
connecting Canada to the United States and Mexico. We are the
Gateway to Mexico's burgeoning industrial complex. The two
Laredos are actually one city divided by only a river. Laredo
became the first official port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico
border in 1851. In fact, the United States Consulate in Nuevo
Laredo, Mexico is America's oldest continually active
diplomatic post established in 1872. Today the Laredo customs
district handles more trade than the land ports of southern
California, Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas combined.
The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the
Nation a comprehensive public safety and public health response
to threats at the border. Laredo provides the largest
communications infrastructure in the region. A unified approach
to police, fire and public health first responders to ensure
safety, security and public health disease control and
preparedness. We provide training, planning and support for
disease control and prevention through its public health
authority, and we support for our Federal and State partners in
responding to the public safety hazard challenges such as
primary response to river rescue and recovery as well as
response to bomb threats at our international bridges to
conduct searches for weapons of mass destruction.
Despite Laredo providing these national defense services,
Laredo is not a direct beneficiary of any of the new DHS
programs because Federal funding for Homeland Security has been
limited to U.S. census data. Funding formulas must be changed
to address threat levels and services provided to the Nation by
border communities. Laredo is providing these services. It is
time that the Nation provides Laredo with a fair share of the
resources needed for these efforts.
As first responders on the U.S. border we face a myriad of
challenges in delivering emergency services. An example of this
is our current need of enhancing our regional communications
operation. Although our region has joined forces--as first
responders on the U.S. border we face challenges and although
our region has joined forces for this important task, we have a
long road ahead of us. Our geographical location dictates that
we must consider two important aspects of our overall
preparedness and strategy. We must ensure that the regional
communications is adequate and functional, and we must ensure
that we can do the same to our current Mexican counterparts.
We do provide some Federal solutions. Regional radio
communication infrastructure upgrades, specifically the
addition of radio towers in our region. Regional upgrades to
the 800 megahertz frequency, continued trading for local or
regional interoperability and cross-border communication
capabilities to include training and equipment. This should
include the sharing of the spectrum with our first responder
colleagues and the ability to communicate several miles into
Mexico.
Training and equipment for first responder HAM radio
operators and UASI should be changed to make proximity to the
board a threat criteria and funding should be available for
people and equipment required to meet the threats of the
Nation's health and safety. Laredo provides more public health
first responders and public safety responders on the border
than the Federal Government, yet it is not eligible for direct
funding.
The Port Security initiative must be modified to include
all major ports, not specifically water ports. The city of
Laredo is the Nation's largest inland port on the U.S.-Mexican
border, yet it is not eligible for port security funding.
International bridges should be included in the protective
class of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses
would have a major impact on the Nation's economy. Creative
border security initiatives such as the Laredo River Vega
project that enhances national security by clearing lines of
site and building river retaining walls with the result being
an integrated national security project should being supported.
All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund
first responders such as the SAFER grant and the COPS grant
must be fully funded and the role the community plays in
supporting national security must be included in the funding
criteria.
In conclusion, Laredo is the only southern border city
strategically positioned at the convergence of all land
transportation systems. While this location results in Laredo
being our Nation's largest inland port on the southern border,
it also means that Laredo's public safety and health programs
are heavily burdened with a flow of such commerce. Laredo is a
shipping and receiving dock for the urban centers and seaports
in your States. There are studies and statistics of the amount
of cargo that flows or returns to your States in Mississippi,
Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana and the Carolinas
and beyond.
Laredo and other border communities strive for healthy and
safe communities. Sometimes we are asked to bear too large a
burden in keeping our Nation healthy and safe. We look to this
committee to assist us obtain the resources we need to meet the
challenges that we face on a daily basis. Thank you, and I look
forward to any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Landin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve E. Landin
February 19, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and Members of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response--
good morning. I am Steve E. Landin and have been a proud member of the
Laredo Fire Department since 1990. The Laredo Fire Department is a
three hundred and forty-eight (348) uniformed personnel department.
Like my father before me, my professional career has been as a first
responder on the border, having worked as a firefighter and sheriff's
deputy and now as the Acting Assistant Fire Chief and current Emergency
Management Coordinator.
LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN CUELLAR
Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take a moment
on behalf of my fellow border first responders in Laredo to thank
Chairman Cuellar and this committee for the focus you have brought to
the challenges we face. Chairman Cuellar sat down with Laredo's public
safety leaders to craft a U.S.-Mexico Border Public Safety and Public
Health Response paper. The conclusion of that paper, a copy of which is
attached to my testimony, is there is a need for a Federal-local
partnership. While I was not a part of the committee that authored that
paper, I endorse the content.
ISOLATION & COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
On the border, because we are so often so isolated from any
surrounding communities on the U.S. side, we understand better than
most that we are on our own to address threats not only to the people,
property and economy of Laredo, but increasingly to the United States.
For instance, while my colleagues in New York City or the District of
Columbia may rely upon joint assistance programs with surrounding
communities in times of challenge, in Laredo, ``our nearest U.S.
support'' is over an hour's drive away, despite Nuevo Laredo, a city of
600,000 being just across the river. And while the Federal agents
manning the border posts have point responsibility for security, Laredo
bears the burden with respect to protection of life, health and
property.
LOS DOS LAREDOS AND THE ROLE WE PLAY ON THE BORDER
While the Chairman is well aware of ``Los Dos Laredos,'' or ``The 2
Laredos'' and the role we play on the border, let me take a moment to
share some insights about my community with the subcommittee. In
outlining Laredo's role on the border, I am also seeking to answer the
question that many of you may have--why should Federal resources be
used to support interoperable communications that are typically
provided by every local government?
A. Largest and Oldest Southern Inland Port
Laredo is at the center of the primary trade route connecting
Canada, the United States and Mexico. We are the gateway to Mexico's
burgeoning industrial complex. The two Laredos are actually one city,
divided only by a river. Laredo became the first ``official'' Port of
Entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in 1851. (In fact, the United States
Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is America's oldest continuously
active diplomatic post, established in 1872.) Today, the Laredo Customs
District handles more trade than the land ports of Southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas combined.
B. Services We Provide Laredo and Nation
The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a
comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats at
the border. Laredo provides:
The largest communication infrastructure in the region.
A unified approach of police, fire and public health first
responders to ensure safety, security and public health disease
control and preparedness.
Training, planning and support for disease control and
prevention through its public health authority.
Support for our Federal and State partners in responding to
the public safety hazard challenges such as primary response
for river rescue and recovery as well as response to bomb
threats at our international bridges to conduct searches for
weapons of mass destruction.
Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo is
not a direct beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because Federal
funding for homeland security has been limited to U.S. census data.
Funding formulas must be changed to address threat levels and services
provided to the Nation by border communities. Laredo is providing the
services. It is time that the Nation provides Laredo with a fair share
of the resources needed for these efforts.
CHALLENGE
As first responders on the U.S. border we face a myriad of
challenges in delivering emergency services. An example of this is our
current need of enhancing our regional communications operation.
Although our region has joined forces for this important task, we have
a long road ahead.
Our geographical location dictates that we must consider two
important aspects of our overall preparedness and response strategy:
First, we must ensure that our regional communications
system is adequate and functional as well as possess the
capability of communicating with other jurisdictions during an
emergency. The need for this was evident during the recent
Cotulla, TX wild land fires that consumed more than 17,000
acres and destroyed 20 homes. Several fire departments,
including our own, were on the fire ground and experienced the
difficulties that accompany a lack of proper communications.
Second, we must ensure that we can do the same with our
Mexican counterparts. There are emergency situations that know
no boundaries. It is crucial that we are able to maintain radio
contact among responding personnel, as well as with our
dispatch, when responding to emergencies in Mexico.
SOLUTIONS
Federal funding for homeland security and public health response
initiatives must compensate local communities that are providing
protection to the Nation. The easiest way to accomplish this goal is to
create a border category in all funding formulas.
There are also specific steps that the Congress can take to address
these challenges:
Regional Radio Communications Infrastructure; specifically
the addition of radio towers in our region for enhanced
communications capability, as well as the necessary support
resources.
Regional upgrades to 800 MHz frequency radio systems.
Continued training for local and regional interoperability
radio operations.
Cross Border communications capabilities to include training
and equipment. This should include the sharing of spectrum with
our first responder colleagues and the ability to communicate
several miles into Mexico.
Training and equipping for first responder HAM radios.
UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a
threat criterion and funding should be available for people and
equipment required to meet threats to the Nation's health and
safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and
public safety responders on the border than the Federal
Government, yet it is not eligible for direct funding.
The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all
major ports, not simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the
Nation's largest inland port on the U.S.-Mexico border, yet it
is not eligible for port security funding.
International Bridges should be included in the protected
class of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses
would have a major impact on the Nation's economy.
Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo's
``River Vega'' project that enhance national security by
clearing lines of sight and building river retaining walls with
the result being an integrated national security project should
be supported.
All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund
first responders (i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and
the role a community plays in supporting national security must
be included in the funding criteria.
CONCLUSION
Laredo is the only southern border city strategically positioned at
the convergence of all land transportation systems. While this location
results in Laredo being our Nation's largest inland port on the
southern border, it also means that Laredo's public safety and health
programs are heavily burdened with the flow of such commerce. Laredo is
the shipping and receiving dock for the urban centers and seaports in
your States. There are statistics of the amount of cargo that flows
from, or returns to, your States of Mississippi, Washington, New York,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, the Carolinas, Alabama and beyond. Laredo and
other border communities strive for healthy and safe communities.
Sometimes we are asked to bear too large a burden in keeping our Nation
healthy and safe. We look to this committee to assist us to obtain the
resources we need to meet that challenge.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Appendix A.--Supplemental Testimony of Hector Gonzalez, M.D., Director
of Health, City of Laredo
1. INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Cuellar and Members of the Subcommittee on
Emergency Communication, Preparedness and Response. My name is Doctor
Hector F. Gonzalez; I am the Director of Health for the city of Laredo.
My colleague Chief Steve Landin, Acting Assistant Fire Chief for the
city of Laredo Fire Department is addressing you today in person to
provide testimony on our unique needs based issues as first responders
and emergency care on the border. I am submitting this addenda to the
Chief's testimony. I have every confidence that Chief Landin can
address any immediate questions you may have on public health threats
and our unified response in Laredo, a Texas-Mexico Border City.
I have provided public health care for over 30 years. In contrast
to private medicine, public health keeps our community disease-free and
promotes wellness and prevention. We want to keep people well.
2. CHALLENGES ON THE BORDER
Nowhere are these activities more vibrant and yet challenging than
on the Texas-Mexico Border.
Infectious diseases and co-morbidities are critical. Laredo
has one of highest rates of Tuberculosis in Texas.
There is a critical lack of access to health care (over 50
percent of our citizens are un/underinsured).
There is a critical lack of access to health care
professionals. We are a HRSA health professions shortage area
and we lack appropriate equipment for services and adequate
communication which all add to the challenges.
Yet our resiliency has assisted border communities like Laredo to
flourish despite the odds. From El Paso to Brownsville, Texas first
responder responsibility includes addressing infectious and all hazards
threats.
3. THE NEW FIRST RESPONDER PARADIGM
After September 11, the first responder paradigm changed. This is
especially so after the anthrax attacks. No longer do we view first
responder and preparedness in the same way. Nowhere is this more
evident than in Laredo where the Chief of Police, Fire Chiefs and I
work intimately close to respond to all hazards: biological, chemical
and radiological. Yet Laredo has always worked in this manner,
maximizing, regionalizing and being innovative because we have always
recognized that it is our community but everyone's border to protect.
Most importantly however, resources have always been insufficient and
therefore we created our own response expertise. We respond to all
hazards to contain disease, prevent the spread and provide immediate
care of individuals affected as well to protect the public. For us, it
is routine to respond locally, regionally and internationally. We are
the State and Federal responders, as there is no one else to respond,
and we recognized this a long time ago. On the border, issues may be
international in scope, but the response to the threat will always be
local! This is why we developed our own team of experts especially for
an all-hazards and public health response.
4. LOCAL RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL THREATS
Let me share a few examples of interventions.
(1) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
During the worldwide Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
threat, there were five mainland Chinese nationals traveling through
Mexico City and entering the United States illegally through the Freer,
Texas border post. The Customs and Border Patrol called us in Laredo to
inform us that two of Chinese nationals had a fever. (Please note, it
was not a Laredo Border crossing but individuals in Freer, Texas, an
hour's drive.) We respond and conduct a rapid and immediate thorough
investigation, instituting quarantine and isolation procedures for the
prevention and protection of all. This effort included a response to
protect over 30 Federal agents, 25 Mexican and Central Americans
(caught with the Chinese) as well the well-being of all Laredoans. We
also had to deal with Federal and State health and immigration
authorities from both countries. The city of Laredo Health Department
(CLHD) made it our immediate responsibility to assure the protection of
all and the disease containment to prevent a potential spread of a
highly communicable disease that could have impacted the nation. This
was the responsibility of Federal authorities but we are the only ones
able to respond. While we have a Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) quarantine station in El Paso that covers New Mexico
and Texas, they only have 3 persons. We work wonderfully in partnership
with them but in the end we provide all of the local investigations and
response, training and prevention efforts not only for Laredo but for
the region as we care for four other counties as well. Both Chief Sosa
and our staff are continuously responding to all hazards including
assuring the appropriate storage of Cobalt 60, assuring the safety
management of illegally discarded hazardous materials and the safety of
food and water supplies.
(2) TB
Finally I am sure all of you have heard about the quarantine and
isolation of the person with TB with XDR who traveled worldwide. The
whole Nation is concerned and I understand there are hearings on this
matter. Well this is an everyday threat for us on the border. We don't
need any exotic or biological weaponized threat; there are everyday
communicable disease threats to the public that are equally lethal.
One of our cases in 2006 involved two family members (one in Laredo
and one in Nuevo Laredo Mexico). We immediately intervened
(internationally) since members lived on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico
border to get all family members tested, confirmed, treated and
followed. When we finished the investigation, we had tested over 40
family members and three were positive. These were immediately
confirmed, treated and followed as active TB which needs treatment for
at least 6 months with multiple medications. It is imperative to assure
compliance to avoid drug resistance which is a problem today and in
some cases (as in the case all of you have heard about) there is a rare
extremely multi-drug resistant strain. In our situation, the three
cases were family members in San Antonio (150 miles away) Dallas (over
400 miles away) and in Chicago. If we did not have the surveillance
detection system to intervene quickly, test, confirm, treat and follow
these cases, they would have gone undetected putting hundreds if not
thousands of people at risk.
Yet we have faced a 30 percent reduction in funds over the last 2
years affecting our public health response infrastructure. Today we do
not have adequate infection control response staff, equipment for
services with an isolation and response vehicle and appropriate
communication systems is still lacking. Our staff responds with limited
resources and equipment and in their own vehicles which are not
appropriate for our terrain and protection against potentially
communicable diseases and hazardous exposure. This is not an
appropriate response. If our staff fall and fail to protect and prevent
not only is Laredo at risk but the State and Nation as well.
We ask that you consider providing adequate resources for services,
staff and equipment not based on formulas and standards that are used
for the rest of the Nation. Our United States-Mexico Border and in
particular the Texas-Mexico Border, specially Laredo as the major
inland port of entry, must have adequate resources to respond based on
our unique response responsibilities to all threats. We must have the
appropriate staff, equipment, vehicles to respond as well the proper
tools to isolate and quarantine, after all what happens in Laredo
affects the entire Nation. If we protect and respond appropriately in
Laredo, we protect the public's health and well-being of the country.
5. CONCLUSION
The United States is under a constant threat of an intentional or
unintentional medical or biological attack. In Laredo we say: ``When
Nuevo Laredo, Mexico coughs, Laredo gets the cold.'' Disease does not
respect a border, a wall or even the most professional of custom and
border patrol agents.
When you think of the potential public health threats that can
cause epidemics, contaminate our water or food supply, there is no area
more vulnerable than the U.S.-Mexico border. In Laredo, we are proud to
provide a first line of defense for our community and the Nation. We
just need help with the resources to meet these demands.
I want to thank you for allowing me to provide this written
testimony. I know Chief Sosa is providing immediate answers to any of
your questions but I will glad to answer any additional questions you
may have as well.
Appendix B.--U.S.-Mexico Border Public Safety and Public Health
Response; The Need for a Federal-Local Partnership
BACKGROUND
The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a
comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats at
the border. Laredo provides:
A unified approach of police, fire and public health first
responders to ensure safety, security and public health disease
control and preparedness.
Training, planning and support for Radio Interoperability
issues.
Support for our Federal and State partners in responding
public safety hazards challenges.
CHALLENGE
Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo is
not a direct beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because Federal
funding for homeland security has been limited to U.S. census data.
Funding formulas must be changed to address threat levels and services
provided to the Nation. Laredo is providing the services. It is time
that the Nation provides Laredo with a fair share of the resources
needed for these efforts.
SOLUTIONS
Federal funding for homeland security, radio interoperability
projects and public health response initiatives must compensate local
communities that are providing protection to the Nation. The easiest
way to accomplish this goal is to create a border category in all
funding formulas.
There are also specific steps that the Congress can take to address
these challenges:
Reinforcing regional radio communications infrastructure;
specifically the addition of radio towers in our region for
enhanced communications capability, as well as the necessary
support resources.
Continued training for local and regional interoperability
radio operations
Cross-border communications capabilities to include training
and equipment. This should include the sharing of spectrum with
our first responder colleagues and the ability to communicate
several miles into Mexico.
Regional upgrades to 800 MHz frequency radio systems.
Training and equipping for first responder HAM radios.
UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a
threat criterion and funding should be available for people and
equipment required to meet threats to the Nation's health and
safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and
public safety responders on the border than the Federal
Government, yet it is not eligible for direct funding.
The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all
major ports, not simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the
Nation's largest inland port on the U.S.-Mexico border, yet it
is not eligible for port security funding.
International bridges should be included in the protected
class of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses
would have a major impact on the Nation's economy.
Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo's
``River Vega'' project that enhance national security by
clearing lines of sight and building river retaining walls with
the result being an integrated national security project should
be supported.
All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund
first responders (i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and
the role a community plays in supporting national security must
be included in the funding criteria.
Appendix C.--Detailed Statement of Chief Landin on the State of
Interoperability Communications Along the Texas Border
BACKGROUND
Border Security and safety is an essential component of our
Nation's homeland security. It is a duty that we gladly and proudly
accept each time we report for our shifts. Although our task is
challenging, we realize its importance, for we as first responders, are
the front line of defense for our Nation against intentional or
unintentional threats. A sobering reality is that the number of threats
in this post-9/11 world has increased along the U.S.-Mexico border and so
has the number of incidents that can potentially escalate into major
emergencies.
The county of Webb, in which Laredo is located, is the sixth-
largest county of the 254 counties in the State of Texas. It covers
3,360 sq. miles or 2,139,217 acres. As the second-fastest growing city
in the Nation, Laredo has outgrown its boundaries. The city of Laredo,
thru a contractual agreement, provides emergency services to all of
Webb County. The county of Webb has 4 cities that the Laredo Fire
Department services: Mirando City, Bruni, Oilton, and Aguilares. The
Laredo metropolitan area posted the largest gain in population of any
other city along the Texas border. Laredo has an approximate population
of 250,000 residents and its sister city, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, has a
population of 600,000 residents.
While all local governments have security issues, border
communities have special challenges. Consider Laredo, Texas, the
largest land port in the United States for people and goods arriving
from Central and South America. Every day, 13,000 trucks bring parts
and supplies across the border, and 30,000 people cross its four
bridges, a process that takes 1\1/2\ hours on a normal day.
Our frontier community is a booming one, having doubled its
population in the past 10 years, from 100,000 to more than 200,000.
Nuevo Laredo, our sister city across the border in Mexico, has a
population of 600,000. During a serious emergency, the closest support
from any U.S. locality, State government, or Federal Government agency
is 150 miles away. An existing bi-national aid agreement between Laredo
and Nuevo Laredo includes an understanding of hazardous-materials
responses, bomb threats and SWAT tactics among other public safety
disciplines. Historically, the aid provided has been to assist Nuevo
Laredo emergency agencies to properly mitigate threat in our sister
city. Also we experience an average of three or four bomb threats each
week at our international bridges.
CHALLENGES
As first responders on the U.S. border we face a myriad of
challenges in delivering emergency services. An example of this is our
current need of enhancing our regional communications operation.
Although our region has joined forces for this important task, we have
a long road ahead.
Our geographical location dictates that we must consider two
important aspects of our overall preparedness and response strategy:
First, we must ensure that our regional communications
system is adequate and functional as well as posses the
capability of communicating with other jurisdictions during an
emergency. The need for this was evident during the recent
Cotulla, TX wildland fires that consumed more than 17,000 acres
and destroyed 20 homes. Several fire departments, including our
own, were on the fire ground and experienced the difficulties
that accompany a lack of proper communications.
Second, we must ensure that we can do the same with our
Mexican counterparts. There are emergency situations that know
no boundaries. It is crucial that we are able to maintain radio
contact among responding personnel, as well as with our
dispatch, when responding to emergencies in Mexico.
In outlining Laredo's role on the border, it is important to answer
the question that many of you have: why should Federal resources be
used to support what are typical services provided by every local
government as well as other special services that may not be typical to
other jurisdictions? Listed below are two reasons why:
A. International
Largest and Oldest Southern Inland Port
Laredo is at the center of the primary trade route connecting
Canada, the United States and Mexico. We are the gateway to Mexico's
growing industrial complex. Los Dos Laredos (the Two Laredos) are
actually one city, divided only by a river. Laredo became the first
``official'' Port of Entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in 1851. (In fact,
the United States Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is America's oldest
continuously active diplomatic post, established in 1872.) Today, the
Laredo Customs District handles more trade than the ports of Southern
California, Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas combined.
B. Domestic
The city of Laredo is a hub for emergency response with assets and
expertise to manage emergencies in a 150-mile radius. The city has
executed mutual aid agreements with several jurisdictions to offer aid
in the event they should be needed. Local resources could be quickly
exhausted should there be a need to respond to a major emergency. As a
border community we face a wide variety of threats given our strategic
location and as such we must recognize that emergencies in our sister
city could lead to a potential emergency in ours.
Structure Fires
With 60 million square feet of warehouse space to protect on our
side of the border, we must consider the vast amount of warehouse space
to the south. The limited means of our counterparts puts our community
at risk should a fire in their commercial/warehouse districts become
uncontrollable. An existing bi-national agreement with Nuevo Laredo
would require our fire department to render aid.
EMS
Laredo Fire Department Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded
to close to 17,000 calls in 2006. Many of these were responses to our
international bridges to render aid to patients coming in from Nuevo
Laredo. The patients arrive to our bridges via personal vehicles or by
foot. Additionally, many attempts by foreign nationals to cross our
borders illegally generate a response by our EMS system to render aid
in the hostile terrain that surrounds our community. These patients
become dehydrated or suffer trauma while attempting to cross via rail
car or by vehicles transporting illegal aliens that are involved in
accidents.
Mass Casualty Incidents
In addition to offering protection to our community from mass
casualty incidents, we consider other factors that increase the
potential for these types of incidents. A major corridor named IH-35,
passes through our city and so does a tremendous amount of traffic.
This includes passenger buses as well multi-occupant vehicles. This
highway is also a major thoroughfare for the transportation of illegal
aliens. Many times while chased by law enforcement, these vehicles
become involved in accidents with as many as 50 people. Recently, the
fire department was called to assist a neighboring border county,
Zapata, when a passenger van transporting 50 aliens rolled over killing
one. This incident placed a significant burden on our resources as
several ambulances were dispatched to assist, render aid and transport
the injured back to local hospitals.
HAZ-MAT Incidents
Laredo is the main NAFTA corridor for the United States and
correspondingly in Texas for international trade. Laredo has four
international bridges and is currently in the process of applying for a
Presidential Permit to build a fifth international bridge. Laredo
carries 50 percent of all NAFTA-related trade. It is further estimated
that 50 percent of the trade that crosses through Laredo is hazardous
material. The United States, Mexico, Central and South America's
economies depend on secure bridges (the artery through which life flows
for the business-trade sector). Terrorist actions or any disruptive
situations would be detrimental to local, State, national and
international economies. According to Laredo Development Foundation's
2001 data, Laredo is the No. 1 inland port in the United States with
2,772,537 annual tractor-trailer crossings and an additional 350,620
rail car crossings through our single railroad bridge. Almost half of
the cargo that travels through the Laredo Corridor by land and rail
carry hazardous materials. The Laredo Airport, a former U.S. Air Force
Base, had 226 million pounds of freight land in 2001.
The situation our community faces today is the increasing volume of
commercial traffic with hazardous cargo passing through our city via
road and rail. In addition, we are experiencing an expansion of
commercial warehousing that store the hazardous materials transported
by commercial traffic. This reflects an increase for calls our
department makes to hazmat incidents.
Of note are recent emergency calls that posed a threat to our
community and contained all of the necessary elements to escalate to a
major disaster.
A tractor-trailer overturned on Hwy 359 spilling a
significant amount of highly toxic sodium hydroxide. The
highway was closed for several hours. Prevailing winds
threatened to carry fumes toward the city.
A tractor-trailer was found to be leaking an unknown
chemical. The trailer contained several pallets of AG Oxycom,
an oxidizer corrosive that causes irritation of the respiratory
track when inhaled.
A train derailment caused several boxcars containing
petroleum alkalate and benzene 10 percent to burn exposing one
boxcar with tetrachchloroethylene. Residents in the immediate
area were evacuated. Wind conditions threatened to carry fumes
toward a populated area.
There is also the challenge of rail yards in the midst of a heavily
populated area of town. These boxcars transport a huge amount of cargo
throughout the day at the risk of derailment.
All these numbers translate into a single conclusion: Laredo's Fire
Department must be prepared to address a hazmat challenge due to the
volume of Hazmat cargo, commerce, and tourism present on both sides of
the border. Data compiled from the U.S. Department of Commerce
indicates that in 2004, the total share of U.S.-Mexico trade passing
through the port of Laredo was 58.9 percent. All other ports on the
U.S.-Mexico Border totaled only 41.1 percent. This commercial traffic
has only increased over the past decade as more commerce is utilizing
the Port of Laredo's strategic location. The significant increase has
offered many opportunities for the potential of a major hazardous
material incident that would affect the lives of many families on both
sides of the border as well as those that reside in the surrounding
communities. Additionally, Laredo has over 60 million square feet of
warehouse space and at least a quarter of that space contains hazardous
materials and is highly vulnerable to Terrorism and Bio-Chemical
Terrorism.
River Rescue and Body Recoveries
The Laredo Fire Department is the primary responder to river
rescues and body recoveries along the Rio Grande. As the increase in
attempts to cross our border illegally so do the number of rescues and
recovery of drowning victims. We lack the equipment and training to
safely conduct these services on international waters.
Bomb Threat at Bridges
911 Dispatch receives on average 3 bomb threats a week to our
international bridges alone. The Fire Department responds to these bomb
threats and conducts a search for any suspicious packages and explosive
devices without any protective equipment or ordinance training.
Despite Laredo providing these national defense services, Laredo is
not a direct beneficiary of any of the new DHS programs because Federal
funding for homeland security has been limited to U.S. census data.
Funding formulas must be changed to address threat levels and services
provided to the Nation by border communities. Laredo is providing the
services. It is time that the Nation provides Laredo with a fair share
of the resources needed for these efforts. Additionally, we would like
to mention some of the other challenges we face along the border:
Additional Services We Provide Laredo and the Nation
The city of Laredo provides its local citizens and the Nation a
comprehensive public safety and public health response to threats at
the border. Laredo provides:
The largest first responder communication infrastructure in
the region.
A unified approach of police, fire and public health first
responders to ensure safety, security and public health disease
control and preparedness.
Training, planning and support for radio interoperability.
Support for our Federal and State partners in responding
public safety hazards challenges such as primary response for
river rescue and recovery as well as response to bomb threats
at our international bridges to conduct searches for weapons of
mass destruction and emergency response to the region when
needed.
SOLUTIONS
Homeland security is about the integration of a nation, everyone
pledged to freedom's cause, everyone its protector, and everyone its
beneficiary. It's about the integration of our national efforts, not
one department or one organization, but everyone tasked with our
Nation's protection. To accomplish this task, Federal funding for
homeland security, radio interoperability projects and public health
response initiatives must compensate local communities that are
providing protection to the Nation. The easiest way to accomplish this
goal is to create a border category in all funding formulas.
There are also specific steps that the Congress can take to address
these challenges:
Regional Radio Communications Infrastructure; specifically
the addition of radio towers in our region for enhanced
communications capability, as well as the necessary support
resources.
Continued training for local and regional interoperability
radio operations.
Cross-border communications capabilities to include training
and equipment. This should include the sharing of spectrum with
our first responder colleagues and the ability to communicate
several miles into Mexico.
Regional upgrades to 800 MHz frequency radio systems.
Training and equipping for first responder HAM radios.
UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a
threat criterion and funding should be available for people and
equipment required to meet threats to the Nation's health and
safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and
public safety responders on the border than the Federal
Government, yet it is not eligible for direct funding.
The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all
major ports, not simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the
Nation's largest inland port on the U.S. Mexico border, yet it
is not eligible for port security funding.
International bridges should be included in the protected
class of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses
would have a major impact on the Nation's economy.
Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo's
``River Vega'' project that enhance national security by
clearing lines of sight and building river retaining walls with
the result being an integrated national security project should
be supported.
All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund
first responders (i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and
the role a community plays in supporting national security must
be included in the funding criteria.
Additionally, we would like to respectfully submit the following
points:
(1) The city of Laredo has been a major contributor of resources to
create a regional mutual aid agreement. As the largest source
of assets and experience in our region, we are looked to in the
event of a significant emergency occurring in any of the
participating jurisdictions. Support and training for regional
preparedness is essential to our border communities.
(2) Our city has invested heavily in the creation of a state-of-
the-art fire and law enforcement training facility. This
facility has trained first responders from around the globe.
Students have trained here from different parts of Mexico,
Central and South America, Europe and Canada. Another benefit
to first responders from around this region is the close
proximity and accessibility to world class training.
Standardized training for public safety officials on both sides
of our border is essential for a uniformed response to an
emergency that would affect communities on the U.S.-Mexico
border.
(3) We must be recognized as a hub for public safety and homeland
security for the region and for the front gate of our Nation.
Although we are the largest community in the region with public
safety assets, it is important to remember that we are the
closest entity for emergency response in 150 miles.
(4) UASI should be changed to make proximity to the border a threat
criterion and funding should be available for people and
equipment required to meet threats to the Nation's health and
safety. Laredo provides more public health responders and
public safety responders on the border than the Federal
Government, yet it is not eligible for direct funding.
(5) The Port Security initiative must be modified to include all
major ports, not simply water ports. The city of Laredo is the
Nation's largest inland port on the U.S.-Mexico border, yet it
is not eligible for port security funding.
(6) International bridges should be included in the protected class
of infrastructure of national significance. Their losses would
have a major impact on the Nation's economy.
(7) Creative border security initiatives such as Laredo's ``River
Vega'' project that enhance national security by clearing lines
of sight and building river retaining walls with the result
being an integrated national security project should be
supported.
(8) All other DHS and Department of Justice programs which fund
first responders (i.e. SAFER, COPS) must be fully funded and
the role a community plays in supporting national security must
be included in the funding criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
Laredo is the only U.S.-Mexico border city strategically positioned
at the convergence of all land transportation systems. While this
location results in Laredo being our Nation's largest inland port on
the southern border, it also means that Laredo's public safety and
health programs are heavily burdened with the flow of such commerce.
Laredo is the shipping and receiving dock for the urban centers and
seaports in your States. There are even statistics of the amount of
cargo that flows from or returns to your States of Mississippi,
Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, the Carolinas, Alabama and
beyond. Laredo and other border communities strive for healthy and safe
communities. Sometimes we are asked to bear too large a burden in
keeping our Nation healthy and safe. We look to this committee assist
us obtain the resources we need to meet that challenge.
Every day, we work to make our border and America more secure.
Every day, the memories of September 11 inspire us to live our vision
of preserving our freedoms, protecting America, enjoying our liberties,
and securing the homeland
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Landin, for your testimony. I
now recognize Director Ledezma to summarize his statement for 5
minutes. My understanding is [Spanish].
STATEMENT OF ALFONSO OLVERA LEDEZMA, DIRECTOR OF CITY SECURITY,
NUEVO LAREDO, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO
Mr. Ledezma. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
committee. The Mexican government in regards to international
bridge operating procedures are carried out in case of a high-
risk contingencies by the Mexican Federal authorities. The
Mexican bridges are Federal precincts. The State authorities,
we do not have access to the international bridges, but the
Mexican government as Director Ledezma.
In case of municipal situations, high-risk contingencies
are dealt by the Civil Safety Direction. It operates with 511
police officers with 30 vehicles. The area determines the exact
nature of the problem and decides an immediate response.
Exchange of information of any crimes or criminals is vital to
monitor the case of establishing of both cities. The
communication between both nations is priority for the Mexican
government and the U.S. Government.
Our mutual safety, we have considered all bilateral
programs and agreements and strategies for both nations as the
case of bomb threats, toxic spills--sorry--on international
bridges, includes if there's any bomb threats, Mexican
government intervenes with protection of civil rights and,
also, with the fire department. The fire department actually
counts right now with two fire--two fire trucks that will
automatically help international bridges in case of an
emergency in the United States. Right now the only problem we
have are the fire--the fire members right now. They are not--
they are all certified by the U.S. Government right now.
In case of an emergency, the International Bridges I, II
and the railroad bridge as well as the commercial international
bridge will be automatically closed to any access international
from the United States into Mexico or from Mexico into the
United States. The civil protection--fire department operates
with 114 elements, time response for each contingency point
occurs, it's approximately about 7 minutes along the Rio Grande
and the limits in between Mexico and the United States. The
contingencies assists and offers as well as former specialized
squads and task forces.
Our fire department has, as I said, two fire engines, a
model 2004 Freightliner, with a capacity of 1,260 gallons of
water in case of general fires. We also have the boat rescue
units that aid to the migrants from the Rio Grande. This also--
we also come with a HAZMAT certification program safety for
chemicals discharges that attend contingencies of this nature.
We are certified by the Laredo, Texas Department of Training.
For better communication between both cities is to
establish a rate of communication frequency for either--it
could be phone-wise through Nextels. That's mostly what we use.
Right now the federal government in case of a contingency
automatically goes by the Secretary of Communicacion. After the
Secretary of Communicacion counts the information, it goes to
different Mexico corporations as Sedena. That would be the
Mexican Army, [Spanish], that will be the Attorney General,
[Spanish], the Federal police, [Spanish], the State attorney
general and State police that will be [Spanish] as well as the
Mexican authorities.
[The statement of Mr. Ledezma follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alfonso Olvera Ledezma
February 19, 2008
Regarding all international bridge crossings, operating procedures
that are carried out in case of high-risk contingencies by the Mexican
Federal Authorities consider these areas as FEDERAL PRECINCTS.
Notification of any contingency, by the U.S. Government to the
Mexican authorities are received through the National Secretary of the
Interior (Secretaria de Gobernacion) in Mexico, and it is then passed
on to the Central of Control, Command and Compute (C4). It then
properly identifies the incident and does the precise evaluation of the
incident for all international crossings between Laredo, Texas and
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas.
C4 is coordinated with different Mexican Corporations such as
SEDENA (Mexican Army); PROCURADURIA GENERAL OF THE REPUBLICA, (Attorney
General); POLICIA FEDERAL (Federal Police); PROCURADURIA GENERAL OF
JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF TAMAULIPAS (State Attorney General); State of
Tamaulipas Police (POLICIA MINISTERIAL); SEGURIDAD CIUDADANA (Civic
Safety) and SEGURIDAD VIAL (Traffic Police).
C4 classifies the incident and then accordingly assigns it to the
corresponding authority. Mexican protocols establish that the first
action is to secure national assets, as refineries, electrical
stations, water supply stations, food banks, international crossings
and State and national highways.
The above-mentioned cases are the responsibility of the Mexican
Federal Government.
In case of Municipal situations, high-risk contingencies are dealt
by the Civil Safety Direction, which operates with 511 policemen, with
30 patrol cars and a 5-minute response time to any part of the city.
This area determines the exact nature of the problem and decides an
immediate response. Exchange of information of the crime and the
criminals is vital to monitor the case and establish the search
parameters.
For our mutual safety we have to consider all bilateral programs
and agreements that are strategic for both our nations, as are the
cases of bomb threats, toxic spills on or near international bridges,
as well as inside city limits. Other cases are reports to search for
abducted or disappeared persons and river rescues.
This concludes issues related to Civil Safety.
Regarding traffic-related issues, the Traffic Department has 225
officers and a response time of 4 to 5 minutes inside city limits.
Other responsibilities are to control traffic fluency, privilege rapid
movement of ambulances and public safety or emergency units to the
place of the contingency.
Municipal Traffic Authorities considers the following areas as a
strategic perimeter for all cases and types of contingencies:
International Bridge I, (Bridge of the Americas). Closing of
Streets or Avenues in the following way: (1.) On the Street 15
of Junio and Avenue Guerrero: the total closing of the
structure of the International Bridge, to channel vehicle
circulation by the Avenue Guerrero to the South of the City.
(2.) On Matamoros Street and 15 of Junio: to provide traffic
fluency on Guerrero Avenue to the South of the City. (3.) On
Street 15 of Junio and Juarez to give traffic fluency to
Guerrero Avenue to the South of the City. (4.) On the Street 15
of Junio and Obregon to provide traffic fluency on Guerrero
Avenue to the South of the City.
International Bridge II, (Juarez--Lincoln Bridge) and the
closing of Streets or Avenues in a rank of two (2) blocks all
around its main access. (1.) On the Street 15 of Junio and
Santos Degollado Avenue: The closing of vehicles that try to
enter to the International Bridge. (2.) On the Street 15 of
Junio and Avenue Jesus Carranza: to relieve the traffic along
the Street Jesus Carranza to the South. (3.) On the Street
Nicolas Bravo and Avenue Jesus Carranza: to give preference to
Jesus Carranza street for vehicles that be come from the
International Bridge (II). (4.) On Bravo Street and Santos
Degollado Avenue: We do not permit the entrance of vehicles to
the International Bridge (II) by Santos Degollado Avenue and
proceed to send them to the Bravo Street and send the
circulation to Boulevard Luis Donaldo Colosio. (5.) On Bravo
Street and 20 of Noviembre Street to send circulation to the
Boulevard Luis Donaldo Colosio. (6.) International Bridge III,
(World Trade Bridge) has an answering time of 10 to 15 minutes
and closes the access to Mex 2 highway, and the entrance to the
same road and the internal area that is of federal
jurisdiction.
Certifications and Qualifications
Our personnel is certified and qualified by the Laredo, Texas Fire
Department, in the following specialties: (1.) Fireman 1, (2.) Rescue,
(3.) HAZ-MAT, (4.) Emergency Management Units. The Red Cross,
Certification in ER Techniques, Medicaid, Health Sector updating for
hospital Pre-Techniques; Michou Mau Foundation (for treatment and
transportation of burned children).
Direction of Civil Protection and Firemen (DIRECCION DE
PROTECION CIVIL Y BOMBEROS) operates with 114 elements, with a
response time of 7 minutes for any type of contingency that
occurs in city limits and along the Rio Grande.
1.- 2 (two) Operating Units for Civil Protection.
2.- 2 (two) Utility ATVs for Off-road Needs.
Consequently in these subjects immediate assistance is offered as
well as formation of specialized squads and task forces.
Our Fire Department has two 2004 Freightliner Fire Engines with a
capacity of 1,260 gallons of water for cases of general fires that can
be presented within city limits, as well at the disposal for the
Laredo, Texas authorities.
We also have a Boat Rescue Unit to lend aid in the margins of the
Rio Grande to people in risk; or for searching or monitoring corpses,
by georeference of the conditions in which the margins of the Rio Bravo
are found, to locate, diagnose and establish joint strategies.
This area also counts with HAZ-MAT certification (Program of
Security) for chemical discharges that attend contingencies of this
nature, with personnel specialized attention in high-risk zones, where
it is necessary to jointly establish routes for the transit of vehicles
that carry dangerous materials.
For a better communication between both cities, it is possible to
establish a radio communication frequency, or either use Nextel phones
(PTT) between both cities authorities to achieve full binational
collaboration.
As a last note, it is important to establish that a possible
problem that could exist is the need of passport and visas approval by
the U.S. Government in order to allow Mexican authorities that need to
cross to the United States, basically civil protection and fire
department personnel.
Mr. Cuellar. Muchos gracias for your testimony [Spanish]. I
said that in Spanish. In English, it's a pleasure that you are
here with us. We do understand in this area that the Rio Grande
River does not divide us, but actually unites us in a community
up and down the Rio Grande. Thank you on both sides.
At this time. I would like to go ahead and recognize Mr.
Peters to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. Director
Peters.
STATEMENT OF JOE M. PETERS, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE
DIVISION, SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS
Mr. Peters. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, Mr. McCaul. My name is Joe Peters. I serve as
director of the Technology Assistance Division of the Sheriffs'
Association of Texas and as director of the Border Research and
Technology Center, a program of the National Institute of
Justice. I'm also a founding member of the Texas Radio
Coalition. I retired after 30 years of service with the
Department of Public Safety as a Texas Highway patrol trooper,
highway patrol sergeant and the last 18 years of my career as a
Texas Ranger.
I grew up in Zavala County and spent a good portion of my
career as a Texas Ranger working in the border regions. It's my
pleasure to appear before you today, and to thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the state of interoperable border
emergency communications along the Texas border.
One of the most significant challenges to emergency
communications along the Texas-Mexico border has been and
continues to be a lack of operability in many areas. This is
not to downplay the importance of interoperability, but without
the ability to communicate at all because of a lack of adequate
coverage provided by the antiquated systems in place in many of
the rural areas along the border, interoperability becomes a
moot point. Due to the much appreciated congressional support
for the Homeland Security effort, many of the first responders
serving in the border region are beginning to have some hope
that relief is finally on the way in the historically
underserved region. Some jurisdictions along the border have
begun to utilize their Homeland Security Grant program funding
to begin improvements in their emergency communication system.
Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant funding
anticipated later this year will provide a much needed boost in
those improvements. Resolutions to the emergency communications
problems are just beginning, but much work remains to be done.
A second challenge to achieving a desired level of
operability and interoperability has been a lack of
cooperation, planning and coordination between jurisdictions.
I'm pleased to report that we are making progress in that area
due in large part to grant funding requirements that encourage,
if not require, planning and cooperation.
A third and significant challenge to establishing and
maintaining interoperable emergency communication systems along
the Texas border is a lack of reliable recurring funding
mechanism for operations and maintenance of the systems being
or about to be deployed. Again, many of the border area
agencies lack the tax base to support operations in maintenance
of a state-of-the-art communication system they so richly
deserve to put them on par with their counterparts in the more
affluent areas of the State.
The funding committee of the Texas Radio Coalition is
looking at possible solutions such as a small increase in the
911 service fee charged to customers in the public switched
telephone network. This fee in Texas is currently set at 50
cents per telephone line up to 100 lines per subscriber. The
fee is used to operate and maintain the 911 system across the
State. A small increase in this fee would serve to fund the
operation and maintenance of the public safety emergency
communication systems across the State. This or almost any fee
increase will require a tremendous amount of grassroots support
across the State to overcome the efforts of the lobby whose
clients, the service providers, would not support such
increases.
Even as the emergency communications infrastructure is
replaced in the border region, many of the smaller agencies,
especially fire departments and law enforcement, still have
been unable to afford to purchase adequate number of mobile and
especially portable radios, so their responders will be able to
communicate whenever and wherever they may have the need.
As grant funding is made available to the border region, a
significant concern is that many of the local jurisdictions,
particularly those in economically depressed areas, and those
are many, will be unable to meet the cash max requirements of
those grants and thus be deprived of the opportunity to upgrade
their emergency communication systems. Even when funding is
identified for system upgrades, a lack of available radio
spectrum could still prevent some jurisdictions along the
Texas-Mexico border from deploying upgraded systems. The vast
majority of the geographic expanse of the Texas-Mexico border
is currently served by emergency communication systems
operating in the VHF band which offered very limited spectrum
availability for the public safety user. This band is also
played by interference from both sides of the border. In
instances where the interference is identified as originating
from the Mexican side of the border, fortunately the responder
community in some areas along the border has established local
relationships with Mexican regulatory authorities and in many
cases those interference issues are resolved quickly and
efficiently with often no more than a short visit or a phone
call to those authorities.
Spectrum in the 700 megahertz band that will soon be
available to most of the United States will not be available to
public safety along the Texas border until the appropriate
agreements with Mexico are negotiated. That process is underway
with no estimate of when that very lengthy process will be
completed, but a significant impediment to you of utilization
of those frequencies along the border. The need for effective
reliable cross-border communications is significant and
increasing. Once again, the resourcefulness of local first
responders has helped mitigate this issue in some areas, but a
long-term fixed solution must be identified and implemented.
This solution is important not only in the case of catastrophic
incidents, but in the day-to-day response on both sides of the
border. Establishing cross-border mutual aid channels with
regulatory authority to operate on either side of the border
may well be an efficient step in the right direction.
The formation of the Texas Radio Coalition has been
instrumental in providing a venue for public safety
communications users across Texas to come together in many
cases for the first time in a spirit of cooperation and
coordination. The Radio Coalition membership includes
representatives of all public safety disciplines from local,
tribal, State and Federal agencies. The TxRC, by the way, owes
much of its success to Mr. Peter Collins and to Mr. Mike
Simpson, the wireless communication manager for the city of
Austin for their unprecedented support for the Radio Coalition.
As a result of having attend the regularly scheduled
meetings of the Coalition, representatives of the five councils
of government with counties contiguous to the Texas-Mexico
border have been working cooperatively to form the Texas Border
Communications Project. The goal of this project is to maximize
utilization of the anticipated PSIC funding to establish a
common shared infrastructure within those five councils of
government areas of responsibility from El Paso to Brownsville.
This group has accomplished more toward cooperation and
coordination in the last few months to further emergency
communications than likely has ever been accomplished in the
border region.
The border project was born of the effort of the Middle Rio
Grande Development Council under the leadership of their
executive director, Leodoro Martinez, and with project
oversight by their Homeland Security director, Forrest
Anderson.
The Middle Rio Grande Regional System is a state-of-the-
art, Project 25-compliant, spectrum-efficient, VHF-trunked
infrastructure currently being shared with local, tribe, State
and Federal users. The system is switched via a master site
owned and maintained by the city of Austin. Once again, the
city of Austin stepped up to the plate and offered excess
capacity on their switch at no cost to assist the Middle Rio
Grande establish their regional system.
Most entities across the Texas-Mexico border region
currently utilize radio communications towers that are either
expensive leased towers or they are 30- to 35-year-old towers
purchased with LEAA funding in the 1970's. As the experience in
the Middle Rio Grande deployment will show, these older towers
must now be budgeted for replacement. Some of these towers were
bound to be in serious need of significant repair or
replacement due to corrosion and/or a lack of routine
preventative maintenance. Some of them are quite simply
overloaded with antennas and transmission line and may be in
danger of collapse due to overloading.
Several entities within the border region have recently
acquired mobile communications vans or trailers equipped to
provide communications gateway functionality to achieve
interoperability at incident scenes as may be required from
time to time. These investments in technology have proved to be
quite useful already, these often during critical incident. The
first 2 hours of the response is the most critical period where
interoperability is required. Systems must be designed and
deployed so that interoperability is always on and at the
ready. Another advantage of having this always-on capability is
that the emergency communications user community is intimately
familiar with the equipment because it is their primary means
of communication and is in use during their day-to-day
response.
In conclusion, it's safe to say that the state of
interoperability communications along the Texas border is on
the verge of significant improvement due in no small part to
the foresight of local leaders and the unwavering support of
leaders such as Chairman Cuellar, the Members of this
subcommittee and other Members of Congress. The work has only
begun and much remains to be done and, fortunately, many of the
entities along the border are only able to provide their
demonstrated willingness to plan, coordinate and cooperate to
ensure that whatever Federal funding they receive will result
in a substantial return on investment for the Federal
Government.
Again, a sincere thank you for the opportunity to discuss
border communications with you, and I look forward to the
opportunity to respond to any questions the subcommittee may
have.
[The statement of Mr. Peters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe M. Peters
February 19, 2008
Chairman Cuellar and Members of the committee, my name is Joe
Peters, and I serve as the Director of the Technology Assistance
Division of the Sheriffs' Association of Texas and as Director of the
Border Research and Technology Center, a program of the National
Institute of Justice. I am also a founding member of the Texas Radio
Coalition. I retired after 30 years of service with the Texas
Department of Public Safety (DPS) as a Texas Highway Patrol Trooper,
Highway Patrol Sergeant and the last 18 years of my DPS career as a
Texas Ranger. I grew up in Zavala County and spent a significant
portion of my career in the Texas Rangers working in the border region.
It is my pleasure to appear before you today and I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the state of interoperable emergency
communications along the Texas Border.
CHALLENGES WE FACE
One of the most significant challenges to emergency communications
along the Texas-Mexico border has been and continues to be a lack of
``operability'' in many areas. This is not to downplay the importance
of ``interoperability'' but without the ability to communicate at all,
because of lack of adequate coverage provided by the antiquated systems
in place in many of the rural areas along the border, interoperability
becomes a moot point. Due to the much appreciated congressional support
for the Homeland Security effort, many of the first responders serving
the border region are beginning to have some hope that relief is
finally on the way in the historically underserved region. Some
jurisdictions along the border have begun to utilize their Homeland
Security Grant Program funding to begin improvements in their emergency
communications systems. Public Safety Interoperable Communications
grant funding anticipated later this year will provide a much-needed
boost in those improvements. Resolutions to the emergency
communications problems are just beginning and much work remains to be
done.
A second challenge to achieving the desired level of operability
and interoperability has been a lack of cooperation, planning and
coordination between jurisdictions. I am pleased to report that we are
making progress in that arena, due in large part to grant funding
requirements that encourage if not require such planning and
cooperation.
A third and significant challenge to establishing and maintaining
interoperable emergency communications systems along the Texas border
is the lack of a reliable recurring funding mechanism for operations
and maintenance of the systems being or about to be deployed. Again,
many of the border area agencies lack the tax base to support
operations and maintenance of the state-of-the-art communications
systems they so richly deserve to put them on par with their
counterparts in the more affluent areas of the State. The funding
committee of the TxRC is looking at possible solutions such as a small
increase in the 911 service fee charged to customers on the public
switched telephone network. This fee in Texas is currently set at 50
cents per telephone line up to 100 lines per subscriber. This fee is
utilized to operate and maintain the 911 system across the State. A
small increase in this fee would serve to fund the operation and
maintenance of public safety emergency communications systems across
the State. This or almost any fee increase will require a tremendous
amount of grassroots support across the State to overcome the efforts
of the lobby whose clients, the service providers, would not support
such increases.
Even as the emergency communications infrastructure is replaced in
the border region, many of the smaller agencies, especially fire and
law enforcement, still have been unable to afford to purchase an
adequate number of mobile and especially portable radios so their
responders will be able to communicate whenever and wherever they may
have the need.
As grant funding is made available to the border region, a
significant concern is that many of the local jurisdictions,
particularly those in economically depressed areas, and those are many,
will be unable to meet the cash match requirements of those grants and
thus be deprived of the opportunity to upgrade their emergency
communications systems.
Even when funding is identified for system upgrades, a lack of
available radio spectrum could still prevent some jurisdictions along
the Texas-Mexico border from deploying upgraded systems. The vast
majority of the geographic expanse of the Texas-Mexico border is
currently served by emergency communications systems operating in the
VHF band which offers very limited spectrum availability for the public
safety user. This band is also plagued by interference from both sides
of the border. In instances where the interference is identified as
originating from the Mexican side of the border, fortunately, the
responder community in some areas along the border has established
local relationships with Mexican regulatory authorities and in many
cases, those interference issues are resolved quickly and efficiently
with often no more than a short visit or a phone call to those
authorities.
Spectrum in the 700 MHz band that will soon become available to
most of the United States will not be available to public safety along
the Texas border until the appropriate agreements with Mexico are
negotiated. That process is underway with no estimate of when that very
lengthy process will be completed.
CROSS-BORDER COMMUNICATIONS
The need for effective, reliable cross-border communications is
significant and increasing. Once again, the resourcefulness of local
first responders has helped mitigate this issue in some areas but a
long-term fixed solution must be identified and implemented. This
solution is important not only in the case of catastrophic incidents
but in day-to-day response. Establishing cross-border mutual aid
channels with regulatory authority to operate on either side of the
border may well be an efficient step in the right direction.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
The formation of the Texas Radio Coalition (TxRC) has been
instrumental in providing a venue for public safety communications
users across Texas to come together in many cases for the first time in
a spirit of coordination and cooperation. The TxRC membership includes
representatives of all public safety disciplines from local, tribal,
State and Federal agencies. The TxRC, by the way, owes much of its
success to Mr. Peter Collins and to Mr. Mike Simpson, Wireless
Communications Services Manager for the city of Austin for their
unprecedented support for the TxRC.
As a result of having attended the regularly scheduled meetings of
the TxRC, representatives of the five Councils of Government (COGs)
with counties contiguous to the Texas-Mexico border have been working
cooperatively to form the Texas Border Communications Project. The goal
of this project is to maximize utilization of the anticipated PSIC
funding to establish a common, shared infrastructure within those five
COG areas of responsibility from El Paso to Brownsville. This group has
accomplished more toward cooperation and coordination in the last few
months to further emergency communications than has ever been
accomplished in the border region.
This border project was born of the effort of the Middle Rio Grande
Development Council (MRGDC) under the leadership of their Executive
Director, Leodoro Martinez with project oversight by their Homeland
Security Director, Forrest Anderson.
MRGDC leadership recognized in 2001 that the first responder
community across the entire economically depressed nine-county, almost
15,000-square-mile region was in desperate need of emergency
communications system improvements. Many of their agencies were totally
dependant upon communications infrastructure that was purchased with
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant funding in the early
1970's, was unreliable and obsolete, making repair parts acquisition
difficult if not impossible. There were many instances of radio
technicians being forced to cannibalize the base station radios
installed in the 1970's intended solely for interagency communications
State-wide, obviously rendering that limited method of interoperability
totally useless. In some cases, agencies were unable to afford the
repair costs for their equipment and certainly could not afford to
purchase replacement equipment. In some cases, agencies were forced to
purchase substandard equipment that could not long withstand the rigors
of the sometimes harsh public safety environment. This situation may
have placed the safety of the first responders and the citizens they
serve in jeopardy because of poor or nonexistent emergency
communications.
The MRGDC emergency communications community came together and
after studying their options, elected to seek funding to establish a
region-wide, multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction shared state-of-the-art
interoperable communications infrastructure to be deployed across all
nine counties of the region. Their first attempts to acquire grant
funding to start the project failed. Several members of the first
responder community approached their congressional and legislative
representatives at the time to seek advice on how they might enhance
their chances at securing grant funding. Ultimately, congressionally-
directed funding was secured to begin the project. It was established
as a multi-phase project to be deployed over 4 years. The originally
planned MRGDC Regional Communications Project infrastructure should be
completed and fully operational by the end of calendar 2008, pending
receipt of requested PSIC funding later this Spring.
The MRGDC regional system is a state-of-the-art, Project 25-
compliant, spectrum-efficient, VHF-trunked infrastructure currently
being shared with local, tribal, State and Federal users. The system is
switched via a master site switch owned and maintained by the city of
Austin. Once again, the city of Austin stepped up to the plate and
offered excess capacity on their switch, at no cost, to assist the
MRGDC establish their regional system. This infrastructure, while
shared across the entire nine-county region, still affords each agency
the opportunity to have their own private talk groups as their needs
may dictate. There are a number of local and region-wide interoperable
talk groups available in every radio on the system for use when the
need arises. One of the pitfalls encountered with this project is that
only a limited amount of the budget was dedicated to the purchase of
subscriber radio equipment for the first responder community across the
region. Consequently, a number of agencies have not been able to fully
utilize the system due to the fact they cannot afford to provide their
entire fleet with the required mobile and handheld radio equipment
until additional grant funding is received. Some agencies were able to
provide some local funding for purchase of the required subscriber
equipment without waiting for the next grant funding cycle.
Most entities across the Texas-Mexico border region currently
utilize radio communications towers that are either expensive leased
towers or they are 30-35-year-old towers purchased with LEAA funding in
the 1970's. As the experience in the MRGDC deployment would show, those
older towers must now be budgeted for replacement. Some of these towers
were found to be in serious need of significant repair or replacement
due to corrosion and/or a lack of routine preventive maintenance. Some
of them are quite simply overloaded with antennas and transmission line
and may be in danger of collapse due to overloading.
Several entities within the Texas-Mexico border region have
recently acquired mobile communications vans or trailers equipped to
provide communications gateway functionality to achieve
interoperability at incident scenes as may be required from time to
time. These investments in technology have proven to be quite useful
already. A very recent example where the communications trailers were
instrumental in providing interoperability was the recent incidents of
range fires that blackened almost 20,000 acres in the South Texas
border region. This method of achieving interoperability is certainly a
necessary part of any interoperable communications plan, but it should
not be relied upon as a permanent fix. Often, during a critical
incident, the first 2 hours of the response is the most critical period
where interoperability is required. Systems must be designed and
deployed so that interoperability is ``always on'' and at the ready.
Another advantage of having this ``always on'' capability is that the
emergency communications user community is intimately familiar with the
equipment because it is their primary means of communication and is in
use during their day-to-day response.
In conclusion, it is safe to say that the state of interoperable
emergency communications along the Texas border is on the verge of
significant improvement, due in no small part to the foresight of local
leaders and the unwavering support of leaders such as Chairman Cuellar,
the Members of this subcommittee and other Members of Congress. The
work has only begun and much remains to be done. Unfortunately, many of
the entities along the border are only able to provide their
demonstrated willingness to plan, coordinate and cooperate to ensure
that what ever Federal funding they receive will result in a
substantial return on investment for the Federal Government.
Again, a sincere thank you for the opportunity to discuss border
communications issues with you. I look forward to the opportunity to
respond to any questions the subcommittee may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Peters, thank you again for your testimony
and you brought up a lot of very interesting points, and we are
going to have some questions. As you know, the Federal
Government put in a billion dollars for the State so they can
add interoperability and 5 percent, my understanding, has
already gone out for planning. The other 95 percent of the $1
billion to be available, but a lot will be dependent on what
States do to the planning and the coordination. So we certainly
want to thank you all for the leadership that you've taken.
The other thing is the rural areas, that's a big concern
for all of us, the small communities, concerns also about the
issues about--as you know, the 700 megahertz will be available
for public safety, but the border's in a very unique situation,
Mr. Director. If we don't get an agreement with the Mexican
side, that's going to put our side at a disadvantage, so we
certainly--I think, Members of the committee, we certainly want
to make sure that we're updated on that. Certainly we told
Secretary Chertoff the other day about thinking outside the
box.
The Federal Government has towers along the borders and
will be putting more towers along the borders, whether for
cameras or for other purposes. I think a partnership with our
State and local folks to use those towers instead of
reinventing the wheel and putting in another tower and using
some of those towers is something that I would ask you all to
look at to make sure that we coordinate that. So we'll cover
some of those points in a few minutes, but we've got to think
outside the box. We've got to listen to our folks here because
the border is in a very, very unique situation, but why don't
we go ahead and move on and we'll open up for questions.
Mr. Simpson, I want to thank you again--first of all, Mr.
Peters, thank you again very much, and, Mr. Simpson, I now
recognize you to summarize your statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SIMPSON, STATE-WIDE COMMUNICATIONS
INTEROPERABILITY PLAN COORDINATOR AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISOR, TEXAS
RADIO COALITION
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee Members, Mr.
McCaul, my name is Michael Simpson. I'm the wireless
communication services manager for the city of Austin, Texas,
but I'm appearing today before this body in the capacity of
State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan Coordinator and
Technology Advisor for the Texas Radio Coalition, also known as
the TxRC. This group is composed of individuals from various
agencies and associations that represent public safety and
critical infrastructure first responders from both urban and
rural areas from across the State, thus allowing TxRC to serve
as a voice to that community in Texas.
Governor Rick Perry appointed the TxRC as the governing
body for the Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability
Plan. The TxRC's primary is oversight of public safety
communication interoperability in Texas and the development and
ongoing revision of the Texas State-wide Communications
Interoperability Plan. The responsibility includes, but is not
limited to, making official recommendations to the Governor of
Texas, the Texas Homeland Security director, and the Governor's
Division of Emergency Management. The recommendations concern
interoperability technology procurement, training exercises,
standard operating procedures, implementation and funding of
the same.
In a news conference on April 11 of last year, Governor
Perry announced a partnership with the TxRC with respect to a
State-wide interoperable communications plan. In May 2007, the
Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McGraw formerly
requested that the TxRC develop a new Texas State-wide
Communications Interoperability Plan as required by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. Working with the Texas
Association of Regional Councils of Government and the
Sheriffs' Association of Texas, the TxRC oversaw a State-wide
communications asset survey, 27 regional and special focus
group sessions and a State-wide strategic planning session that
led to the development of the 141-page Texas State-wide
Communication Interoperability Plan. A copy of that plan has
been submitted to the subcommittee with my written remarks
along with an appendix entitled Texas State-wide
Interoperability Channel Plan. Copies have been presented to
Mr. Turbyfill.
Although we have interoperability needs in every region,
from its inception the TxRC has placed improvement of the Texas
Border Interoperability Communications Radio as its top
priority. Toward this goal, the TxRC sponsored the formation of
the Texas Border Communications Project which brings together
Federal, State, local and tribal agencies in the five councils
of governments regions along the Texas border with Mexico from
El Paso to Brownsville. The project oversight team has been
meeting on a regular basis since the fall of 2007 to coordinate
the planning and build-out of an integrated standards-based
radio communications capability from El Paso to Brownsville.
The funding approved by Congress in the form of the Public
Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program was the
catalyst that kick-started this project. Thank you. Once grant
funding draw-down is approved this spring, the project will
launch this summer with the PSIC Grant Program performance
period to end on August 31, 2010. This piece of the project
will cost close to $10 million. However, complete build-out of
the infrastructure, upgrade of certain existing mobile and
portable radios and acquisition of needed additional subscriber
units will put the totality estimated project cost along the
border in excess of $150 million, most of which is unfunded at
this time. Additional Federal assistance will be needed for
successful project completion.
On behalf of the TxRC and the 24 million Texas residents
served by our interoperability planning efforts, I thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss our activities and
plans today. We are truly appreciative of the program and
funding support to date from Congress as we move steadily
toward building a State-wide standards-based radio system by
January 2015. The enormity of this undertaking is such that
ongoing congressional support will be critical to our success.
Again, thank you, and I stand ready to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Simpson
February 19, 2008
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee Members, my name is Michael Simpson.
I am the Wireless Communication Services Manager for the city of
Austin, Texas, but I am appearing today before this body in the
capacity of State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan Coordinator
and Technology Advisor for the Texas Radio Coalition, also known as the
TxRC. This group is composed of individuals from various agencies and
associations that represent public safety and critical infrastructure
first responders from both urban and rural areas across the State, thus
allowing TxRC to serve as a voice for that community in Texas.
Governor Rick Perry appointed the TxRC as the governing body for
the Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan. TxRC's
primary purpose is oversight of public safety communications
interoperability in Texas, and the development and on-going revision of
the Texas State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan.
Responsibility includes, but is not to be limited to, making official
recommendations to the Governor of Texas, the Texas Homeland Security
Director, and the Governor's Division of Emergency Management.
Recommendations concern interoperability technology procurement,
training, exercises, standard operating procedures, implementation, and
funding of same.
In a news conference on April 11, 2007, Governor Perry announced a
partnership with the TxRC with respect to State-wide interoperable
communications planning. In May, 2007, Texas Homeland Security Director
Steve McCraw formally requested the TxRC to develop the new Texas
State-wide Communications Interoperability Plan, as required by the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Working with the Texas Association of Regional Councils of
Governments and the Sheriffs' Association of Texas, TxRC oversaw a
State-wide communications assets survey process, 27 regional and
special Focus Group Sessions, and a State-wide Strategic Planning
Session that led to the development of the 141-page Texas State-wide
Communications Interoperability Plan. A copy of the Plan has been
submitted to the subcommittee with my written remarks, along with an
appendix entitled the Texas State-wide Interoperability Channel Plan.
Although we have interoperability needs in every region, from its
inception, the TxRC has placed improvement of Texas border
interoperable radio communications as its top priority. Toward this
goal, TxRC sponsored the formation of the Texas Border Communications
Project, which brings together Federal, State, local, and tribal
agencies in the five Councils of Governments' regions along the Texas
border with Mexico. The Project Oversight Team has been meeting on a
regular basis since the fall of 2007 to coordinate the planning and
build-out of an integrated, ``standards-based'' radio communication
capability from El Paso to Brownsville. The funding approved by
Congress in the form of the Public Safety Interoperable Communications
(PSIC) Grant Program was the catalyst that kick-started this project.
Once grant funding draw-down is approved this Spring, the Project will
launch this summer, with the PSIC Grant Program performance period to
end August 31, 2010. This piece of the Project will cost close to $10
million. However, complete build-out of the infrastructure, upgrade of
certain existing mobile and portable radios, and acquisition of needed
additional subscriber units, will put the total estimated Project cost
in excess of $150 million, most of which is unfunded. Additional
Federal assistance will be needed for successful Project completion.
On behalf of the TxRC, and the 24 million Texas residents served by
our interoperability planning efforts, I thank the subcommittee for the
opportunity to discuss our activities and plans today. We are truly
appreciative of the program and funding support to date from Congress,
as we move steadily toward building a State-wide standards-based radio
system by January, 2015. The enormity of this undertaking is such that
on-going congressional support will be critical to our success.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Simpson, again, thank you very much for
your testimony and for the work that you've done, and I want to
thank all of the witnesses for being here at this time. I would
like to remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes
to question the panel with a little flexibility, of course,
added. I will go ahead and I'll now recognize myself for the
first set of questions.
This question goes to Director Essid. As you know, the
International Board of Interoperability Communications
Demonstration Project was created by implementing
recommendation of the 9/11 Commissions Act of 2007. I was a
Member of that particular bill. It was signed into law on
August 3, 2007. It is my understanding that your office has
been coordinating with FCC and the Department of Commerce to
decide the location of six communities along the northern and
southern borders for this pilot. The pilot--I assume this
project, three will probably be in the northern part of the
States and three in the southern part of the United States, I
assume. Can you give the committee an update of what has
transpired so far in the interactions with FCC and the
Department of Commerce and explain the criteria that's been
developed to select these six communities and when you expect
that pilot program to start.
Mr. Essid. Mr. Chairman, right now the criteria is still
under development. We know what was given to us per the
legislation, but, you know, criteria hasn't been finalized.
We're coordinating right now. We've submitted some estimates at
your request. That's still going through the approval process
at DHS to give you some estimates on the cross-border projects,
but right now as far as final criteria goes, we don't have any
yet. We're still working on it.
Mr. Cuellar. Can you give us an rough estimate when you'll
be--I don't want to tie it up to the exact date and hour, but a
rough estimate?
Mr. Essid. Well, you know, right now we're trying to figure
out--there's various options for the cross-border projects.
Would it be a split three in the northern, three in the
southern, what size projects, small, medium, large, voice and
data. There's so many variables that we're working through
right now to establish the criteria and then those are directly
linked to what funding the projects would require also, sir. So
we're working on it. We're moving as quickly as possible. We
should have some criteria I know in the very near future, but
as far as the specific dates, sir, I can go back and ask my
staff if you would like and I can get you a response on record.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Just give us an update on the
progress on that and to the committee staff. Let me--questions
again for Mr. Essid, for Mr. Peters and Mr. Ledezma, and then I
have a question for Mr. Simpson on one issue. Congress, as you
know, set the date of February 17, 2009 to transfer portions of
the 700 megahertz spectrum to the public safety in the budget
Reconciliation Act of 2006. The FCC is currently in the process
of auctioning this spectrum. In your testimony, Mr. Peters, you
raised a very troubling fact that the 700 megahertz band will
not become available to public safety along the Texas border
unless the appropriate agreements between the United States and
Mexico are negotiated. My first question to you and then I'll
move onto the other individuals, Mr. Peters, can you further
elaborate on how you believe this will impact Texas and what
outstanding issues that are still under consideration?
Mr. Peters. As I mentioned in my testimony, the majority of
the geography along the Texas-Mexico border now is covered by
systems that operate in the VHF frequency band--VMF high band
frequency band. Someone in here smarter than I am can probably
correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere in the neighborhood of a
little over 3 megahertz are available--in that spectrum
available to public safety. The 700 megahertz spectrum, there
is a total of 24 megahertz available depending on locations and
other uses and so forth. Until the treaties are negotiated with
Mexico, those 700 megahertz frequency-based spectrum is not
available to border areas across the country for that matter
within 140 kilometers of the border. We can't fire up the
transmitter on those frequencies until those treaties are
agreed to with Mexico. Not a small task in itself is getting
those treaties. There are television stations in Mexico
operating on those frequencies still and, as a matter of fact,
there's still some in the United States. But as you mentioned,
February 2009 they are supposed to be gone and public safety
will have priority. But not having that spectrum available to
public safety along the border will have a significant negative
impact on interoperability along the border.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Mr. Essid, with February 17, 2009
just a year away--less than a year away, can you explain what
the principal Federal agencies involved in this negotiation,
DHS, the State, tell us, you know, where are we on this
negotiation because that's going to put the whole border at a
very disadvantage, and I think you know my personal feelings.
You know, it's--people talk about a wall, but we can't even get
these communications between our neighbors started, and we're
extremely interested in where we are on this issue.
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. We've got some pretty good
negotiations and coordination going on between the United
States and Mexico with the High Level Consultative Commission,
the HLCC. They have got some long-term border interoperability
solutions we've been working on. We attended some meetings in
Mexico earlier this month and making a lot of progress, you
know, and it's really looking at the first ever long-term
agreement between the U.S. Government, the Mexican Government
or the State, local and Federal folks along the border.
I know 700 megahertz is in those discussions right now. I
don't know the exact point where we're at today, but what I
will do is find out when I go back to the District of Columbia,
have my staff research it and report back to the committee. I
know that's one of the issues that is amongst a lot of the
issues that are being discussed, but we're making significant
progress on a lot of the issues, and I don't know the exact
point where 700 megahertz is right now, but our intent is to
move forward and get some agreements as quickly as possible,
not to hold anyone up from planning.
Mr. Cuellar. And not only keep us in informed, but I
specifically would request to you that the different witnesses
are here, that y'all get to know each other real quickly and
communicate. So not only with our committee, but also with the
witnesses who are here, all of them present.
One other question. Mr. Ledezma, just to follow up on this
is who in the Mexican Government is--are the equivalent
participants or negotiating these agreements.
Mr. Ledezma. There's one group responsible of communication
we're talk being about here. That will be the Federal
Government. That will be from Secretaria de Gobernacion. That
depends on them.
Mr. Cuellar. If you can just send a message back, very
amicable message from us that we would like for y'all to
continue working with our Federal Government to get this
agreement done as soon as possible because it is going to
affect both sides of the river where we talk about public
safety.
Mr. Ledezma. We'll extend the communication.
Mr. Cuellar. One question, then I'll pass it on to Mr.
Simpson. Mr. Simpson, in your testimony you state that the
Texas Radio Coalition has been very successful in working
collectively to create a State-wide radio communication system,
and I thank you for all the work that y'all have been doing.
The Texas Radio Coalition seems to be ahead of the curve when
it comes to governance and planning, and because of the effort
and energy that y'all had put in and I certainly applaud you
for the efforts, can you elaborate as to what are the best
practices that can be shared with other States that may lack
the level of coordination we've instituted here in the State of
Texas?
Mr. Simpson. Congressmen, Mr. Chairman, we were extremely
lucky to form an alliance early on in our process which is only
May of last year, it wasn't that long ago, with the Texas
Association of Regional Councils of Government that already had
a standing weekly conference call for all 24 COGs with the SAA,
the State Administrative Agency, with the Government Division
of Emergency Management that does grant administration through
DHS. So that framework was already there and I encourage people
that use existing frameworks that may be available in their
States rather than try to invent something new. Because of
these regional councils of government, they deal with the
various counties within the region and then the county
emergency management coordinators deal with individual cities
and fire departments and police departments within those
counties. So that network was already there and we just kind of
tapped into it.
We also through a partnership with Joe's group, Sheriffs'
Association of Texas, already has a wide network made up of law
enforcement throughout the State. That's very important to us
and then, of course, working with Government Division of
Emergency Management staff. So together as a collective body,
we put together a scheme on how we're going to pull this off as
far as our planning efforts to build a new system, and we only
have about 4 to 6 months to put a plan together for 24 million
people. We started with surveying all the police, fire and EMS
agencies throughout the State through this COG process. That
filled it up, and we conducted 27 focus group sessions and
regions around the State, and we have a monthly TxRC steering
committee meeting in Austin and that rolled up into a State
strategic planning session that we'll hold every year to
discuss where we are in the state of interoperability
communications to make changes to our plan.
The outgrowth of all of that was a State-wide communication
in our building plan that was then presented to our governance
bodies, our oversight bodies, the executive committee which is
made up of the director of the State police, the DPS, the
director of the Texas Transportation Department, other key
players and city and county government, health, around the
State. They passed our plan out and we submitted it to DHS the
week before on December 3. That was kind of a crash program in
how we did it. I'm sure there's pieces of Texas that we haven't
gotten to and it may not have trickled down to every
individual, but we're continuing our outreach in that respect.
Mr. Cuellar. With 254 counties I think you've done very
well, so thank you again very much. At this time I'd like to
recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania for questions.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Essid, I guess my
question to you is, as you know, the Office of Emergency
Communications was established by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006. The office was formerly
established in 2007. Would you please discuss the progress
that's being made in fully establishing the Office of Emergency
Communications and also, how many full-time staff you have
versus contractors?
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. Well, I'm happy to say right now we
have announcements on the street, Federal announcements for job
opportunities. Seventeen of them were announced late last week,
early this week. As it stands right now we have five Federal
employees, GS, government service employees, and we have about
100 contractors, so supporting our effort now our plans are to
hire 37 GS employees to offset that balance.
Mr. Dent. So you are using contractors right now because
you can't hire Federal employees?
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir, and we've also got some assistance
that we've requested to have, detailees from other DHS agencies
to come in to help us in the year term. Apparently, the hiring
process in the Federal Government just--I'm 2 months on the job
and I'm just learning a whole lot about the Federal process,
but it takes--it's pretty time-consuming, so we're looking at
every option we can to try to get some other Federal employees
in the door to help the Office of Emergency Communications.
Mr. Dent. What can we do to help you hire people? Would a
direct hire authority be helpful to you?
Mr. Essid. Well, sir, we looked to requesting a direct hire
authority and the process it takes to request it and then get
approval we were told can take anywhere up to 6 months, so we
rapidly scrapped that option for our initial wave of employees.
I do--you know, I do appreciate the offer to help. One good
thing, sir, that I think the committee will be happy to hear is
that we have a lot of interest in coming to the Office of
Emergency Communication from folks that have been working
interoperability for 10 years. Some of them are Federal
employees that might be able to come into the door a little
quicker than a 6-month process in transfers. So we've got a lot
of interest in these jobs. People are asking when are you going
to advertise them or are there any opportunities where we can
come on board and assist you in your mission immediately, but,
you know, I'm not really sure what assistance can be offered. I
know Secretary Chertoff has offered the same assistance and he
offered to provide detailees from the agency and put out that
request.
Mr. Dent. Another question, I guess, for Mr. Peters. We
talked a little bit about lack of operability, not to mention
the challenges of interoperability, but operability. What is
your sense from a State-wide perspective--not looking at Nuevo
Laredo for a little bit--what is the current state of
interoperability between Texas and other States, like Arkansas,
Oklahoma, or Louisiana, and how does that compare to what's
happening down here with Mexico? Is it better across the border
than it is with the other States? I'm just looking at my
perspective from Pennsylvania. Many of my constituents commute
from New York City every day, you know, New Jersey and New York
City, and we look at interoperability kind of within the State
silo. We've got New Jersey and New York to deal with and New
York City has its own challenges. I'm just curious how the
interstate play is versus the international play.
Mr. Peters. I would suggest that the interoperability
challenges between the States are probably not as challenging
as those between Texas and Mexico. Fortunately, the local
agencies or local public safety first responders, if you will,
in a lot of cases have good relationships with their
counterparts on the other side of the border, and often it's
easier to get cooperation from our counterparts on the other
side of the border than it is to get cooperation amongst
ourselves, but----
Mr. Dent. I had a feeling you were going to say that, but
go ahead.
Mr. Peters. Well, I just thought if the shoe fits we need
to wear it, do something about it. Maybe we can take some
lessons from our friends in Mexico about cooperation, but as
far as interoperable communications with surrounding States,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and so forth, Texas
has developed a--Texas Communications Interoperable Channel
Plan that is a list of VHF frequencies, 800 frequencies, 700
frequencies when they become available and they have--we have
identified as available State-wide, those frequencies are all
licensed to the Texas Department of Public Safety State-wide,
and if a local entity will sign a memorandum agreement with the
Department of Public Safety, they are free to and encouraged to
utilize those interoperable frequencies. These are Simplex
frequencies. They can for the most part only be used at an
incident, but still that has been--that has proven quite
successful, and we invite the other States to participate as
well.
Mr. Dent. With respect to interoperability, you have
various challenges due to geography or land. In my own State we
have mountains in northeastern Pennsylvania. That has
interrupted interoperable communications. In fact that is where
the first cable company was laid up there actually because of
those reasons, because of those intended issues, I'm curious,
do you have those same challenges here in Texas?
Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. Just probably more of them. We need
to keep in mind too that generally the VHF system that was
deployed in the early 1970's with LEAA grant funding was
deployed across Texas for the most part and was designed at the
time for mobile communications, and, you know, the towers were
spaced accordingly in some cases and in some cases the
engineers put a dart on the map and placed a tower. Those tower
placements need to be reconsidered as we move to 700 megahertz
and 800 megahertz because of the difference in propagation
characteristics between the bands, and we're experiencing now
coverage problems where the public safety responder is
demanding or requiring--not necessarily demanding, but
requiring communications with hand-held radios or portable
radios. They can't always have their vehicle with them with a
high-powered radio in it. They get out of the car on the border
or out of truck on the border. They are on their own. Often
don't have commercial service coverage in the areas and would
be totally dependent on the public safety infrastructure that
we provide them. Unfortunately, the system that is currently in
use in most of those rural areas particularly was not designed
for portable coverage.
Mr. Dent. I guess one thing too, you keep talking about
operability, which I think is important. One of the problems
with Katrina was, of course, operability. Nothing was
operating. I guess just to get back to the issue of 700
megahertz, and maybe Mr. Landin can help me with this with
respect to Laredo, I think you already touched on this issue.
You can't implement a 700 megahertz system until this treaty is
implemented or signed, but how much of the 700 megahertz system
is being implemented throughout Texas right now, I guess,
absent the border communities? How long will it take to get the
treaty ratified?
Mr. Peters. If the question to me is as to how long it will
take to get the treaty ratified, I don't have a clue except
that we don't anticipate it will happen any time soon because
of the challenges that are based by the people that are doing
those negotiations. We would encourage a prompt response and
every effort be applied to making that happen because it is so
critical to national security that the first responders along
the southwest border, particularly, and the northern border as
well have the capacity to communicate not only amongst
themselves, but with their counterparts on the other side of
those borders.
Mr. Dent. Mr. Landin, the 700 megahertz issue, how is that
going to affect you if we don't get this treaty issue resolved?
Mr. Landin. Currently the city of Laredo is on the 800
megahertz spectrum, and as I mentioned in my testimony, we do
have the largest infrastructure radio infrastructure in our
region alone, and, again, we're far away from any of the or
communities. We're about an hour's drive away on the U.S. side,
and, so, yes, we are on the 800 spectrum as we currently speak
and it's functioning very, very well.
Mr. Dent. My final question, I guess, is to our friends
from Nuevo Laredo. When an incident occurs in Nuevo Laredo that
will affect Laredo, how is that information communicated to
officials here in Laredo?
Mr. Ledezma. There's a--it's called C4. When there's a
contingency in the United States and Mexico, the first ones
that will be called will be Secretaria de Gobernacion.
Secretaria de Gobernacion will delegate the responsibilities to
C4. That is what we call it. That will be center of control
command and compute. After the immediate, it will be notified
for the different authorities that will be--Sedena will be the
Mexican military, Procuraduria General of the Republica, the
attorney general, will be combined with all authorities and it
will just be one host for the authorities.
Mr. Landin. I can expand a little bit on that because we do
respond to the border on the bomb threats and also the river
rescues, the Laredo Fire Department responds there, and so
basically the way we get the call is basically over the
telephone through 911 and we pick up a tie line and our Laredo
International Bridge, it will directly call over to the Nuevo
Laredo Bridge and that will activate them and then they'll
communicate on their end. On our end we're, again, on the 800
spectrum radio system and that's the way we currently respond
through phone currently or personal cell phones or regular land
lines.
Mr. Dent. Do you have any mutual aid agreements between
Laredo and Nuevo Laredo whether it's a fire or other type of
incident?
Mr. Landin. We do have an understanding and we have
responded to fires in Nuevo Laredo as recently as the Christmas
season. We assisted the Nuevo Laredo Fire Department in
extinguishing a couple of houses that burned over there and as
well as some grass fires that were ongoing over there during
that time. So, yes, we do have that understanding. We do
respond in there into Nuevo Laredo, and basically our radios
will work to very limited capabilities, but we cannot
communicate with Nuevo Laredo at all over the radio. Basically
we rely on hand signals or we can call them through Nextels as
they've indicated a little while ago. That is the way we rely
on communicating with them in emergency situations. That is why
we bring that solution that--that I proposed in my testimony
was basically the addition of towers that would be able to
carry over and provide us communication into Mexico for that
purpose and adding additional infrastructure along the border
would be a big plus for that.
Mr. Cuellar. Before I pass him on just a clarification. Mr.
Essid, who are the principal participants responsible in this
U.S.-Mexico negotiations? Is it the OEC, DHS or is it the State
Department?
Mr. Essid. I know it's OEC and the State Department.
Mr. Cuellar. Who's the driving force on our side?
Mr. Essid. OEC is really going down there with the
technical negotiations, and so we're working in conjunction
with the State Department, sir. I mean I don't know who the
driving force is. I know we have to go through the State
Department with our negotiations and our coordination with the
Mexican Government.
Mr. Cuellar. Again, just to remind you, we want to be
informed periodically. I'll let y'all work it out with our
staff.
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. It will be first and foremost on my
mind when I go back to Washington.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes 5
minutes from the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Essid, do we have the same problem on the
northern border with the 700 megahertz?
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. I think we're going to have
coordination with both borders.
Mr. Souder. Is there as much resistance on the northern
border? In other words, they have TV stations and that's the
only two you know.
Mr. Essid. Well, it's complicated. I'm sure they have the
same issues that everyone's having with the TV stations having
to, you know, vacate and then you have buffer zones and things
of that nature until you get these treaties worked out. I do
know we're working with the 2010 Olympics and we're working
through going through some planning that's involving the
Canadian government as well, so this issue has come up there.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Peters and Mr. Simpson, maybe I can start
with you on this question. Do--these radios, are they used for
law enforcement in addition to fire and public safety?
Mr. Peters. The idea is to have one radio that will serve
all disciplines.
Mr. Souder. Is it a similar challenge or different as it
relates to our Federal agencies like Border Patrol?
Mr. Peters. It depends on the area you are talking about.
The city of Laredo, for example, operates on an 800 megahertz
trunk system. The Federal agencies in all the borders that I'm
aware of operate at VHF. The two are not compatible.
Mr. Souder. So as I move along the Texas border, different
sheriff's departments are sometimes going to be able to
interconnect with Border Patrol and sometimes not?
Mr. Peters. That's true readily.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Essid, that--one of my frustrations is have
you ever dealt with the Department of Defense? Do they talk to
you about what they've done on this?
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir. We're coordinating with them right
now. They're part of a coordination effort amongst a lot of
different Federal entities that OEC is leading.
Mr. Souder. On behalf of the taxpayers, the stovepiping
gets incredibly frustrating. I mean I have a man in my district
who at the request--this has got to be 15 years ago at this
point trying to get the SNDRs radios and other military radios
and you are just raising a technical problem. He's already
fixed it, that you can take any different radios and
interconnect the radios. It's not something that has to be
invented here or it's as difficult as can be because we were
running into this problem and when we're in a military
situation, they can't have this happen. The question is why
doesn't the technology that--this is true on some of our
defense protection or other electronics protection.
We're having huge problems where they can't get the cameras
to work on Project 28 right now and Boeing's bringing in
another team. They have already done this at the military bases
10 years ago, and the interoperability of radios sounds to me a
lot like a solution trying to find the problem. That, in other
words, we've already solved it. The question is what's the cost
of this? What is the challenge of this to get this type of
thing? It's a similar thing that the Department of Interior
hasn't looked at this enough and the Federal Government--I mean
we start a forest fire and--forest fire starts and you have the
Interior Department people looking, local fire department and
different States come in and they have to take down helicopters
and stop the spring because they can't talk to each other and
they are afraid they are going to run into each other when, in
fact, we've taken care of this.
I would encourage you to not blame DHS here. The Department
of Defense has been at times less than willing to share full
cooperation. I mean, admittedly they are busy, but at the same
time they tend not to do this, and Homeland Security has to be
more aggressive or come to Congress and say, look, we're not
getting the cooperation. We need you to push the Department of
Defense because taxpayers have already funded a bunch of this
stuff.
Mr. Essid. Yes, sir, I agree, and I think your comments
underscore a greater need for interoperability. The
technologies exist--I think everyone on this panel here would
agree that the technologies exist to solve the problem. What we
need to invest in focusing on is governance, standard operating
procedures, training and exercises. This is a 90 percent
coordination, 10 percent technology problem, and Texas has done
a great job of coordinating from what I'm hearing, and the
coordination is where getting folks in a room and talking about
these issues before an incident is how we're going to solve
this problem, sir. I mean we've spent so much money on
equipment, and as a State--former State person in Virginia when
we did inventories I was always amazed at the amount of
equipment, the sheer volume of stuff that people had bought to
try to solve this problem.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask you one other line of questioning on
the risk assessment of how you decide where you are going to
spend your money. Is it--I thought the implication was nearly
divided by population at this point. Do you have some risk
assessment criteria that can go beyond that? For example, where
you see signing across from Detroit we have all these chemical
plants right along the river versus a border crossing where--
how do you do the risk assessment on what the potential damage
is to public safety--how do you factor in the tornado alleys in
New Orleans where you are doing your communication system?
Mr. Essid. Sir, we've been working with FEMA right now
about how these risk assessments are done. I know it's usually
a combination of population and then threat of natural or man-
made disaster, but I'm not exactly 100 percent up to how these
different threat assessments are conducted. I mean----
Mr. Souder. But there will be a prioritization process
based on risk assessment? There will be a prioritization of
where grants go based on risk assessment?
Mr. Essid. I believe a portion of the funding will be as a
risk assessment, yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Souder. At this time the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas also, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
all of the panelists. I also want to commend Mr. Peters and Mr.
Simpson for your leadership on this issue. Getting five COGs
together along the border with Mexico is not an easy thing to
accomplish, and I've been to a couple of your meetings and I've
sort of witnessed first-hand the great accomplishment that you
had made in terms of laying the foundation and the structure--
maybe infrastructure in place to make it happen. I think that's
actually a model I think the rest of the country can look at in
terms of how to better put this together.
My questions are--really have to do with funding because
that's what we do in the Congress. We fund things, and we
probably spend too much money, but this is an important issue I
think we need to be spending money on. The last Congress we
appropriated a billion dollars of grant funding for this
purpose. Out of that billion dollars, $65 million came to the
State of Texas, about $14.5 million of that went to the Houston
area which does have some high-risk assets, leaving about
roughly $50 million for the rest of the State.
You just said, Mr. Simpson, that you need about $150
million to really be able to fully fund and carry out your
operations. Can you explain to me--obviously we're going to
have a deficiency there. Can you explain to me what is it--what
would be the plan with the full $150 million?
Mr. Simpson. The $150 million estimate only pertains to the
border COGs. Texas conducted the study about 8 years ago State-
wide which is kind of an updated $1.6 billion to really do
everything that needs to be done in Texas. The border being a
subset of that, estimates have been somewhere in excess of $150
million to complete the radio system network from Brownsville
to El Paso.
Mr. McCaul. Where is that money going to come from?
Mr. Simpson. Well, we're trying to be as inventive as
possible. We have our regular Homeland Security grant funding
as well as the FISA grant. Most of the granting authorities
when you put forth the best of justifications, they like to see
that you are maximizing the income from a variety of resources
and that you had a long-term plan that you divided in phases
and that you put together large consortiums of entities that
are working cooperatively together.
So with that in mind we're also looking at the Assistance
to Firefighter Grant. Quite a bit of money is available there.
The Community Oriented Police and Services Grants from the
Department of Justice by invitation of certain metropolitan
statistical areas which also received several in the last 2
years and others at that time, so we're reaching out to all
sources, plus there's local bond elections and COs and
operating budgets. Those are still far short.
Mr. McCaul. I guess Steve McGraw, my old friend from the
FBI, is going to be making the allocations with regard to the
$65 million to the State. You are working closely with him?
Mr. Simpson. Very closely. In fact, if you factor out the
State agency share and the strategic reserve funds, that leaves
about $33 million for the various councils of governance, and
if you divide 24 into $34 million, you get something like a
million-three or whatever per COG and the COG may be made up of
three to 20 counties. So you can see at the bottom end there's
not a lot of money actually available at the user level.
Mr. McCaul. Yeah, I agree that's going to be a rural
problem. I failed to mention the city of Austin's role in all
this, and being from Austin, I appreciate the leadership they
have provided.
Mr. Essid, getting to the funding issue, the
administration's 2009 budget request for DHS does not include
funding for the Interoperable Communications Grant Program and
proposes to cut funding for the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, another large funding source for these communications
activities. In other words, sort of zero--we got a billion
dollars last year in grant funding, but this budget request, as
I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is zeroed out
with no money. In fact, they're not only zeroed out, but they
are now giving you additional cuts. Can you explain why in this
particular area?
Mr. Essid. Well, no, sir. I do know--I can't explain that.
I can just say that, you know, FEMA just recently released 16
grant programs a few weeks ago and a lot of these grants, if
not all of these grants, are eligible for interoperable
communications investments. Communications investments go on in
a lot of these different. They kind of dominate a lot of the
grant requests throughout the Nation from all the States. It's
such an important issue, so I know there is a lot of funding
available in these larger Homeland Security grant programs and
other grant programs that can be set aside by States and
localities for interoperable communications, you know, and so
there's a lot of opportunity here with the coordination we're
seeing from the panel members here in Texas. I think that's the
first step to investing in the right things, but, you know,
communications investments are eligible for these grant funds.
Mr. McCaul. In fact, I'm meeting with the DHS grants person
after this hearing, and I'll be talking to him about this
specific request. I think we got out in front, we have this
structure in place and I'd like to see the funding there for
you so that we can make it a success. It's something I think
the rest of the country can appreciate.
Last, I want to--my last question has to do with our
relationship with Mexico. You talked about mutual aid--mutual
border aid agreements. I think, Mr. Landin, you said that there
are actually some of those in place already?
Mr. Landin. We do have them in place, and we have gone--
mainly the United States, you know, Laredo has gone into Mexico
and I know that Dr. Gonzalez works very closely with the
physicians and the health departments on the Nuevo Laredo side.
We do have a larger fire department than theirs, Nuevo Laredo,
so basically the request mainly comes from them to us and we do
honor those requests, and we do go into Mexico to provide those
services.
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Ledezma, we met with President Calderon. He
mentioned that he has committed or dedicated 30,000 Mexican
troops, soldiers, to the northern border or to the respective
borders of Mexico, southern and northern. Can you comment on--
well, first of all, the level of communication between the
Mexican military and our side of the border, who are they
talking about? Are they talking to our military or are they
talking to our law enforcement?
Mr. Ledezma. There's a monthly meeting between both cities,
the United States and Mexico, and there's collaboration between
[Spanish] and Mr. Ledezma right now in the U.S. customs for
civil protection, fire departments, the United States Army, the
Mexican Army, also with the FBI. There's one right now is--my
understanding from Mr. Ledezma right now there's a meeting and
they're in communication right now. Like Mr. Ledezma said,
there's via phone. That's all we have right now or the Nextel.
That's our communication with the fire department. We
communicate ourselves with Nextels. That's how we are--the
communication we have right now.
Mr. McCaul. Very last question and, again, to Mr. Ledezma.
This may be outside the scope of this hearing, but since we
have you here, I'd like to ask this question. That is the well-
being of the city of Nuevo Laredo. We know that the--a lot of
businesses have moved out. We know that the level of violence
that was there with the drug cartels. Can you comment on the
current security in the city of Nuevo Laredo and particularly
with the introduction of the new Federal troops?
Mr. Ledezma. The intervention of the federal government or
federal Army right now, it's rolled up by the authorities in
Mexico right now. It gives you a better security to the people
in Nuevo Laredo. Mr. Ledezma as director of the safety civil
police, his work is to see the people in Nuevo Laredo have a
better business there.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. We certainly wish you all the
success there, that the businesses will be back in full force
and health and prosperity and security. Thank you so much.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. McCaul, and, again, it was a
pleasure going with Representative McCaul to Mexico City just
recently to a fact-finding case. I really appreciate it. It was
very good for us. Any other questions? I have no further
questions.
Mr. Dent. Just one brief one.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I'll be very brief. Mr. Simpson, I
neglected to ask you during my first round: How did the Texas
Radio Coalition work with the Office of Emergency
Communications and did you guys consult with the OEC during the
drafting of the State-wide Communications Interoperability
Plan?
Mr. Simpson. Our association with the OEC is kind of recent
in nature, only in the matter of the last few weeks. We were
struggling in the process last year to get this plan crunched
in such a short period of time. We reached out to as many as we
could. VHS, ICTAP particularly which is part of OEC did provide
technical assistance to us during the search process and so we
had a relationship there, but our relationship has kind of been
renewed as of recent in the last 2 weeks with the Southwest
Border Regional Working Group. In fact, they may be coming--
Chris and I were talking earlier about some of these folks
coming to our next meeting in April to see what we were doing
to kind of firm up those relations. So our relationship is
improving with all Federal agencies, particularly OEC.
Mr. Dent. So you really didn't get much feedback then from
OEC regarding your State-wide plan?
Mr. Simpson. Only through the ICTAP. That was very, very
useful. They came down for several working days with a team of
three people. It was intense sessions and lots of phone calls
and it was very much appreciated.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Souder, any other
questions?
Mr. Souder. No.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. No, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. First of all, before we start closing up, I
want to thank my colleagues here. As you can tell, these
Members are extremely knowledgeable in Homeland Security,
whether it's in the northern part or the southern part of the
United States, and, actually, we're all pretty docile in the
questions because we've been a little more aggressive on the
questioning, but today, you know, I really appreciate the work
that they've done. They are colleagues of mine, and I really
appreciate their expertise here. I know that some of them will
be leaving us after a while, but I do want to thank them for
coming down here to Laredo.
A couple of just--couple things before we close up. I know
one of the things that McCaul--we got together last night. We
were talking about this. One of the things that we are going to
be doing afterwards and anybody that's willing to join us after
the grant seminar is that we're going to go down to an area
where the Texas Soil and Water Conservation has worked on
clearing up the Carrizo. As you know, there's different
thoughts on how to do this. With all due respect to our friends
at Homeland, they want to bring in--I think their solution is
to bring in Spanish bugs to eat up the Carrizo. I'm concerned
about what happens when they finish eating the Carrizo what
sort of diet they are going to go after and that's going to
take really honestly a couple of years before they see the
unforeseen.
There's some solutions that have been taken care of. In
fact, Michael, I think you were at the Steve La Mantias ranch
where they actually got rid of Carrizo and put grass there so
make sure there is no erosion. So there's other places, and I
know that afterwards if anybody wants to join us this after the
grants, anybody that wants to join us, you are welcome to do
that, No. 1.
No. 2, we're going to go ahead and break off for lunch, but
I do ask you to come back at 1:30. At 1:30 we have the other
part, which is a grant seminar. The two folks that we have here
is--these are key people that we have here. First of all, we
have Mr. Ed Staples, the manager of the Homeland Security
Grants Coordinator for the State. Is Edward here? Edward, thank
you very much. Edward will be making a presentation, and we
want to thank you again. Again, Federal and State dollars going
in to you and we appreciate you being here. Ross Ashley, the
FEMA assistant administrator, who's now the head of the grants
program. Where is Ross? There you are. Thank you. Ross will be
here. These two people are key to Federal grants and State
dollars going--Federal dollars going through the State for the
applications. I certainly want to welcome everybody. I know we
got--I see many faces from--all the way from the valley up to
the San Antonio area to former judges from Laredo. So many
people here from Ryan Gant's office. So many other folks here.
I would ask you to come back at 1:30. The two gentlemen will be
making the presentation.
This grant seminar is key. It really is. I know we've been
very successful in getting more grants, but this presentation
as to what dollars are available, what are the timetables, what
are the criteria. I ask you to come back for all the first
responders that we have. I'm really, really happy because we've
got folks from all over the place. I'll ask you to come back,
go have lunch, be back the same place here at 1:30.
The last comment before I close up, Mr. Essid, I ask you to
establish this relationship with Mr. Simpson, with Mr. Peters,
Mr. Ledezma, Mr. Landin and any of the folks because you as the
new director, and I know you are new and I appreciate that, but
you got to work with these folks. These folks have been on the
ground for years and years, and, you know, you were in
Virginia. You understand how the State and locals can provide a
lot of new ideas to the Federal Government.
I would ask you to follow up with our staff. Coming down in
April, that's great, but if you need to see them before, if
y'all want to go up there before, please work with our staff so
we could set up and facilitate the meetings, but, again, these
people have been here on the ground for years and we ask you to
please take advantage.
So at this time with this house cleaning, we're going to go
ahead and break for lunch. Be back at 1:30. Ask everybody to be
back. I thank all the witnesses for the valuable testimony and
the Members for their questions. The Members of the
subcommittee may have some other questions to ask you. Having
no further business, the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Chris Essid,
Director, Office of Emergency Communications, Office of Cybersecurity
and Communications, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. Mr. Essid, as you know, the International Border
Interoperability Communications Demonstration Project was created by
the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,
which was signed into law on August 3, 2007. It is my understanding
that your office has been coordinating with the FCC and the Department
of Commerce to decide the location of six communities along the
Northern and Southern borders for this pilot project. Can you give the
committee an update of what has transpired thus far in your
interactions with the FCC and the Commerce Department?
Can you explain the criteria being developed to choose these six
communities and when you expect it to begin?
Given what you heard at the hearing on February 19, 2008 about the
vulnerabilities and the unique border positioning we are confronted
with in my District along the Texas-Mexico border, do you believe
Laredo would be an appropriate location for this border demonstration
project?
Answer. The proposed selection criteria for the International
Border Interoperability Communications Demonstration Project are broken
down into four major categories:
Existing infrastructure/activities: examine established
working groups, activities, shared systems, and
interoperability solutions that can be leveraged for the
demonstration projects;
Priority locations: identify communities that have pressing
interoperability needs identified by Federal agencies, Canada,
or Mexico;
Risk: examine a range of factors that increase the need for
interoperable emergency communications; and
Geographic diversity: ensure that the selected communities
meet the legislative requirement to conduct the demonstration
projects in areas of differing population densities.
These proposed selection criteria are currently being reviewed and
approved internally within DHS. Upon approval, the criteria will be
coordinated with the Federal Communications Commission, the State
Department, and the Department of Commerce. At that time the Department
will be able to assess specific locations.
Question 2. As you all you know, Congress set the date of February
17, 2009 to transfer portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to public safety
in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Reconciliation Act. The FCC is currently
in the process of auctioning this spectrum. In your testimony, Mr.
Peters, you raise a very troubling fact--that the 700 MHz band will not
become available to public safety along the Texas border until
appropriate agreements between the United States and Mexico are
negotiated.
Mr. Essid, with the February 17, 2009 just a year away, can you
explain who the principal Federal agencies involved in these
negotiations--DHS, Department of State? How soon will these
negotiations result in an agreement permitting Texas to manage and use
this spectrum?
Answer. In November 2006, the United States and Mexico signed a
Protocol (agreement) to share the 700-MHz band. Since this time, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has modified the public safety
allocations within this band. The U.S.-Mexico High Level Consultative
Commission on Telecommunications (HLCC) is currently negotiating an
amendment to the existing Protocol to reflect the new U.S. public-
safety allocation. The Department of State and the FCC are the
principal Federal agencies within the HLCC involved in this negotiation
and is striving to have the amendment in place before the February 17,
2009, deadline.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Steve E. Landin,
Deputy Chief, Emergency Management Coordinator, Laredo, Texas
Question 1a. Chief Landin, you and I are very aware of the unique
challenges that public safety folks face in Los Dos Laredos when put to
the test of responding to emergencies. Due to our geographic location,
we have a strong Federal, State, and international presence in Laredo.
In your testimony you spoke of the need of building a stronger Federal-
local partnership. Can you elaborate on your statement?
Do you believe that the local government is accurately included in
the decisionmaking process when it immediately affects Laredo? If so,
why? If not, why not?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. Can you explain the day-to-day operational
coordination and the cooperation between the government in Laredo with
CBP/ICE and other Federal entities that are present here?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Alfonso Olvera
Ledezma, Director of City Security, Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico
Question. As you all you know, Congress set the date of February
17, 2009 to transfer portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to public safety
in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Reconciliation Act. The FCC is currently
in the process of auctioning this spectrum. In your testimony, Mr.
Peters, you raise a very troubling fact--that the 700 MHz band will not
become available to public safety along the Texas border until
appropriate agreements between the United States and Mexico are
negotiated.
Mr. Ledezma, who in the Mexican government are the equivalent
participants that are negotiating these agreements?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Joe M. Peters,
Director, Technology Assistance Division, Sheriffs' Association of
Texas
Question 1. Mr. Peters, in your testimony you mention how
antiquated communications systems are in rural parts of Texas and that
border regions within our State have historically been underserved. Can
you explain to the committee how dire the situation is?
Can you describe some areas in which Texas is progressing and what
is being done to address the emergency communications challenges?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. As you all you know, Congress set the date of February
17, 2009 to transfer portions of the 700 MHz spectrum to public safety
in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Reconciliation Act. The FCC is currently
in the process of auctioning this spectrum. In your testimony, Mr.
Peters, you raise a very troubling fact--that the 700 MHz band will not
become available to public safety along the Texas border until
appropriate agreements between the United States and Mexico are
negotiated.
Mr. Peters, can you further elaborate on how you believe this would
impact Texas--what are the outstanding issues that you are aware of?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.