>> even washing booktv, 48 hours about tv programming begin at saturday morning through monday morning at eight eastern. nonfiction books all weekend every weekend right here on c-span2. .. >> followed by more debate on a measure to approve the renewal of import restrictions on products from burma. >> this week on "the communicators," two experienced first responders assess the

progress the u.s. has made in emergency communications since 9/11. and what they see as remaining shortcomings in emergency public safety communications. >> host: well, one of the major policy issues that came out of 9/11 was the interoperability or lack thereof of emergency communications. that's our topic this week on "the communicators," as the tenth anniversary of 9/11 is now upon us. jack brown is the director of emergency management services in arlington county, virginia. mr. brown, if you would, tell us, first of all, your experience on 9/11 and then apropos to our conversation, the ability of your emergency communications. >> guest: yes, sir. on 9/11 i was the assistant fire and rescue chief in lowden county, virginia. i had retired about five years earlier from fairfax county where i spent almost 30 years in the fire and rescue department there.

on 9/11 all the area fire and rescue departments participated in one way or another at the events at the pentagon either by responding to the scene at the request of the arlington fire department or in filling in their stations. early in the afternoon on 9/11, a crew of firefighters and myself were assigned to one of the arlington fire stations, and we were subsequently asked to come down to the incident site and work for assistant chief schwartz at the time, now our fire chief, and i became the planning section chief in the incident command system working for chief schwartz developing incident action plans and working with logistics and doing a lot of the support functions that needed to be done. >> host: as 9/11 was unfolding, particularly at the pentagon, what was the ability of the lowden county fire department, the arlington county fire department, the pentagon police, etc., to communicate with each

other? >> guest: well, between fire and rescue it wasn't as difficult for us in arlington county because we had just recently switched over to 800 megahertz radios, in fact, we brought a cache of radios down to the site and passed them out. but certainly it was a challenge with some of the other departments that responded to the scene. >> host: has it improved in the past ten years? >> guest: i would say overall it has especially in fire and rescue, to a more limited extent with law enforcement. but we're all on the same 800 megahertz frequencies. we can communicate much better than we could on 9/11, but i look at interoperability as more than just radios. a lot of our protocols are the way we fight fires, tradition, and handle certain incidents, particularly in northern virginia. the fire and rescue departments are operating off the same playbook, so a lot's improved. >> also joining us this week is harlin mcewen of the international association of chiefs of police.

chief mcewen, how would you describe the status of emergency communications in the u.s. today? >> guest: well, if you want to start with 9/11/2001, it was not as good as it is today. so things are improved, i think, in the last ten years fairly significantly. the issue of interoperability, i've been working in this arena for many years, has not, it wasn't something that all of a sudden came up on 9/11. it's something that we've been trained to address for many years. so 9/11 just really kind of put a focus on it. people started to realize it was a serious problem and needed to be addressed, and i think significant improvement has been made in the last ten years. >> host: the report, the tenth anniversary report of the 9/11 commission just came out recently, and can one of the

original things that they wanted to have done was to improve the interoperability, the d block spectrum sale devoted to public safety. and this is what they write in the tenth anniversary report: >> host: and they go on to say: >> host: do you agree with that, chief? >> guest: absolutely. that's, that has been our goal for a long time. we've been developing plans for that for many, many years. actually, starting before 9/11, as i said. but we were very encouraged when the 9/11 commission or committee recommended that back in their original report. what's disappointing is that

today, you know, six or seven years after their report and ten years after the terrible events of 9/11 the congress is still to act on that issue, and that's very disappointing. >> host: well, the republican congress, the energy and commerce committee, i believe, has passed a bill promoting spectrum auctions. >> guest: right. >> host: but it doesn't include a d block. >> guest: well, i'm not quite sure what you said is correct. in other words, they are addressing the issue of spectrum auctions and the whole wide thing. unfortunately, the majority of the committee at the moment are not in favor of allocating the d block to public safety. the republican minority has supported that. i think the more encouraging action is taking place in the senate where a bipartisan support from senator rockefeller and senator hutchison who is the

ranking minority member, a bill known as senate 911 actually proposes a solution that we strongly support. >> host: jack brown, do you agree with the necessity of the d block? >> guest: yes, i do. our biggest concern in public safety is reliability, and we just feel that the public safety community should have control over the d block and be able to set it up and not necessarily have to depend on outside carriers. >> host: also joining us here on "the communicators" is tim starks, homeland security reporter for "congressional quarterly." >> host: thanks, gentlemen. looking at how long this is seemingly taking, everybody seems to think it's a good idea to have interoperable communications. looking at why congress hasn't done this, i'm not asking you to be them and explain their -- but what are the obstacles, what are the problems, why hasn't this happened yet? >> guest: well, i think, i mean, i'll tell you my view, and that

is that there are people who believe that there are different ways of approaching this solution than the way that public safety believes. so, you know, we have growing bipartisan support both in the house and in the senate to support what we believe is the right solution, and that's, basically, the language that's in senate 911. but at the same time, it isn't unusual in congress for people to have their own opinions and to believe that they know better than the people that are affected. so that is kind of where we are. i can't tell you exactly why they aren't supporting it, but it'ses disappointing to say the least. >> host: do you have any cause for optimism that this is something that can be resolved, and if so, why? >> guest: i have a lot of optimism. i mean, if i didn't, i wouldn't have stayed with this for as many years as i have because i'm

approaching, really, a full retirement place in my life, and i've stayed with this because i feel it's so important. and i've had such a central role in all of the discussions from the very beginning. so i'm optimistic. we were disappointed that the senate bill didn't get moved on to the floor, but, you know, the deficit discussions this past few months has really taken over everything. and this got tied up in some of the deficit discussions, did it not? >> guest: yes, it did. and, actually, that was a little bit alarming to us because, you know, if you, if you look at what came up, it became a partisan issue, and that was something we didn't like. i mean, we would rather have both parties, you know, looking at this objectively and working with us to soft -- solve the problem. >> host: right. can you talk about the practical effects of not having this

legislation? there's been discussion about the importance of data interoperability which i don't think people understand as much because they think about 9/11 and the fact that police and firefighters couldn't talk to each other in new york city. >> guest: it's much more than just communications, the data is so critically important. our departments need to be able to communicate about suspects and subjects and all those sorts of things, and that does take up room on the spectrum. i think fire and rescue departments depend on it for transmittal of emergency medical information to hospitals and doctors. so it's all vitally important to us. i can just go back to the recent earthquake we had last week. our communications systems, the phones, cell phones, they were all down for a period of time. it was at least an hour before our communications systems started going up. and we do use cell phones. and our radios and our cell phones and other mediums aren't

always interoperable. so, jack brown -- >> host: so, jack brown, why did the cell phones go down last week during the earthquake? >> guest: i think part of it is the systems got clogged. a lot of people -- private/commercial, the system was just overloaded. >> host: so what was your experience with the earthquake and arlington county? how did you communicate with your various emergency services? >> guest: actually, we did it by radio. where i would normally use my cell phone. in fact, my emergency communications commander called me on the cell, got through to me within the first minute or two. i was not in the office right there with him. we communicated and i had to, actually, go back to my office in my car. but by the time i was in my vehicle, there was a communications channel set up on our public safety radio system. so we continued to communicate, but the device that we use day-to-day just wasn't working for us. glrs given, though, and i just want to follow up on tim's

point, given that this is a multijurisdictional area, chances are you probably wanted to communicate with alexandria or washington, d.c. or fairfax. were you able to do that as well? >> guest: absolutely, absolutely. we have a phone system called the washington area warning alert system. so we can communicate with each other, and it's a secure system where you, basically, pick up telephone, and you can speak over the net to all the national capital region jurisdictions including the federal government. in fact, it's actually hosted by the federal government. so we do that. we have automated systems. we have a web-based program that we use to enter data and to make resource requests, it's called web eoc for the practitioners out there. so we do have other methods other than the typical telephones. we also have ham radio operators. we have base stations in the every arlington firehouse as well as my office at the office of emergency management, so if

everything goes down, i've got these great amateur radio folks that come in, they staff, they drill, they exercise all the time, and they love doing what they do, and we just love having them. >> host: given all of those different systems, then, why is the d block dedicated to public safety necessary? >> guest: well, i just think that would, that's the hard, primary system, and i think we need it for our use. the other systems i was talking about are really support systems, if you will. we don't want to have to depend on ham radio operators for our primary communications. but, you know, if we have to, we will. but i think we need a good, reliable system day-to-day. >> host: chief mcewen, when you hear about all these different systems, is this different than it was ten years ago? um, is it enough? >> guest: well, i think to go back to your question a moment ago, i mean, the fact is there are two different approaches here. what jack is talking about is the land mobile voice mission critical systems that are

primarily voice systems. they don't have the bandwidth to do data. so, in other words, stuff that you do routinely op a smartphone or -- on a smartphone or on your internet connection or whatever, you can't do that on these systems. they are focused on mission of-critical voice. so what we're trying to do is go to the next generation of communications devices that are more like smartphones and things of that nature and have our own reliable spectrum. that's why the d block is so critical, is because if we have our own spectrum, then when these commercial networks get overloaded, what happens is we have our own dedicated spectrum where the public isn't overloading that. we use it strictly for our purposes. so i think you have to understand the difference of the two approaches. somewheres down the road, many years to come, there probably will be a convergence of those two systems, but that isn't yet on the drawing board.

>> host: can you talk, how -- secretary janet napolitano, homeland security secretary, recently said there was an exercise not long ago with 60 major cities, and that there was really good interoperability in that exercise and that scenario. how has progress been made without legislation? has it been money? has it been policy changes? has it been coordination? >> guest: all three. all three. really a lot of money has been dedicated by the federal government over the last ten, fifteen years to improving interoperability. and that has been a very positive success really. it's just the fact that it's a moving target. in other words, you'll never really ever solve the total problem because of new equipment coming online, new technology that aren't compatible with the old stuff. so there's always going to be somewhat of a moving target. but the fact is that all the grants for the last ten years

have required a significant advancement towards interoperability. you just can't buy a new radio, a new system without showing that while you're toipg that, you're also moving towards improving the problem. and that's a very significant, good thing. >> host: with the concerns about government spending in congress, one of the areas that congress has begun to cut back on is state and local grants. how much does that affect things now, how much could it affect things in the future as far as being able to keep moving this forward? >> guest: it's going to have a big negative impact because it's going to, it takes significant, ongoing, sustaining funding to be able to keep public safety communications operable and interoperable. so this is something which some people in the federal government like to say, well, we'd like to spend this amount of money, and

then it's your problem. we have to tell them, look, this is a responsibility of all level of government. federal government having a big role in funding a lot of this. it's a state responsibility, it's a local responsibility. everybody has to be a part of the solution. and, you know, they can't -- if they start cutting back on these things which, you know, we understand in an economic troubling time, it's going to have significant negative impact. >> host: jack brown, what is your budget in arlington county, virginia, for communications every year, and how much of that comes from the federal government? >> guest: it's about, it's about $6 million for my emergency communications center. however, we do depend on the federal government. this region gets about $58 million a year in urban area security initiative funding, and that's split up between the two states of maryland, virginia and washington d.c. i can't say or stress enough

that a reduction or an elimination of urban area security initiative will have a very negative impact on moving any of these programs. it's not just about radios, it's about detection equipment, biological, chemical, radiological detection equipment, it's about law enforcement information network exchange systems, personal protective equipment for firefighters and paramedics, planning, training and exercises, those types of things that have, actually, been enhanced to a tremendous degree since 9/11. our fear is some of those programs may suffer or have to be absorbed by the localities. and i understand that when we first started with the urban area security initiative, the intention was this would be seed money and states and localities would ultimately absorb these programs and their equipment and the positions that go with it. however, with the downturn in

the economy, the states and localities just aren't able to be, aren't able to do that. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. this week we're looking at emergency communications ten years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. here's just a little bit about our guests. jack brown currently is the director of the office of emergency management in arlington county, virginia, right across the river from washington d.c. previously assistant chief for lowden county department of fire and rescue. he also worked on hurricane katrina. he served in operation iraqi freedom in baghdad where he got the bronze star, and he has been dispatched to places such as taiwan or kenya in response to disasters there. harlin mcewen is retired from the fbi where he served as deputy assistant director of the fbi where he oversaw the fbi's criminal justice information services such as the national crime information center and the

integrated, ate mated -- automated fingerprint identification system. he also served for 20-plus years as chief of police in ithaca, new york. began his career as a patrol officer. and tim starks is the homeland security reporter originally from evansville, indiana, for "congressional quarterly." next question, mr. starks. >> host: yes, one of the reasons it's been difficult for congress to cut grants is because police, firefighters and rescue personnel are a powerful constituency, and the idea of saying no to them seems ridiculous to them, seems like it would be bad for them politically. i'm wondering, though, how much the wireless carriers who also have their own interests in spectrum, they have their own political weight to bring to bear. how much in this spectrum debate are they allies and how much are they the enemies? >> guest: well, i think some of each. the, some of the major carriers

are very supportive of our efforts because they have a vision where it would be beneficial to the public, the public safety community and to their business interests for us to partner with them at some point to build out this nationwide network. those that have that vision, of course, we're very pleased with that. unfortunately, there are some in that commercial world that are looking at it what we believe is more selfishly to deal with their particular needs as a company. and where that happens, that's disappointing to us. but i think we have more support than we have detractors, and that's very -- it's very helpful. >> host: right. >> guest: i would never consider any of the public safety communications carriers as enemies. we're all partners. we may have differing views how to get someplace, and they might

have some different motives, but i think at the end of the day we're all on the same page. we all want the same thing. we want good, reliable communications. >> host: chief mcewen, when you hear some folks talk about, well, let's increase the efficiency of spectrum use and, perhaps, use the white spaces in between the different areas, what's your reaction to that? >> guest: well, it's an interesting idea. certainly, those white spaces can be used more efficiently than they are being used now. the question for public safety is, is it a safe place for us to go? in other words, we have always been more comfortable with the idea of allocation of spectrum that is our spectrum that other people can't use or interfere with or, you know -- so i think the idea of white space technology we would rather see that used for the public good

and let us continue to manage our own spectrum. >> host: there was, back to the grants for a moment. there was a los angeles times story very recently about how some of that money was being spent, and it pointed out examples that they considered wasteful. how would you respond to that idea that this money isn't being stewarded wisely? do you think most of it is? how are you making sure that the money is used well? because it's an important part of whether they're going to cut grants or not. >> guest: at the national level, we don't really have any control over that, it's done locally. for the most part, what we have observed is that most of the money has been spent well and has, you know, resulted in good use. the problem is that there isn't any kind of program that doesn't have, you know, at some point some abuse, some, you know, mismanagement. and, of course, what happens is that when you have that, it's

disappointing to us and, of course, it makes us look like we don't know what we're doing. so it's disappointing. but i think overall the majority of the money has been spent well, and it's been giving us a good result. >> host: sure. >> guest: when we spend the public's money, there is a system and a process that we have to go through to spend especially grant funds. and the money's actually allocated to the states. we just don't get a check from the federal government. the grants that we have in order to spend that money, they have to meet the criteria that's note inside a project management plan in the grant. and if we fail to meet that, then the locality or the state has to absorb that cost, so we're very, very careful. so i think there's a system of checks and balances there to at least prevent wasteful spending. >> host: chief mcewen, any estimate of how much has been spent in the past ten years on improving emergency communications? is. >> guest: that's somewhat debatable. there are people who have

summed, put all the money that's been spent on various kind of programs together. generally speaking, we, we believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $5-$10 billion has been allocated by the federal government and, for the most part, has been spent well. unfortunately, there are people on the hill who have made recent comments that it's much more than that, and most of it's been wasted. and we find that very disappointing because we don't believe that's true. >> host: tim starks. >> host: um, the role -- this is somewhat separate from interoperable communications, but it goes to the emergency communications question. you know, one of the big reactions in d.c. during the earthquake was, look, we couldn't use our phones, you know, we couldn't use our cell phones. i'm wondering how much as public safety agencies you spend on communicating with the public and getting them to communicate to you and those kinds of things. >> guest: well, we spend a tremendous amount of time and money communicating with the

public. that's, in the office of emergency management, that's our main objective is to communicate with the public. we're not the police officers or the firefighters. we're more the facilitators and the coordinators. and like i tell my staff all the time, the public doesn't care that i have my emergency operations center open. what they want is they want information. and we have various communication platforms n. arlington county, for example, we have an outdoor warning system, we have an am radio station, we have what's called arlington alert which goes out via e-mail, cell phone, pager, and so we're pushing out information. we're also using social media, twitter and facebook, to get information back. i have some really tech-savvy folks in my office that are able to get the information coming from the community and communicate back, especially during the earthquake and the hurricane. you know, we had a lot of questions from our community out there, and it was really nice to get that feedback because they were feeding us information

about downed power lines and trees and things like that that before they would have had to call our communications center which could be overloaded with phone calls or our nonemergency line which can get pretty jammed up. >> host: i spoke to senator lieberman last week for a story, a separate story, and he was concerned -- maybe you can give him an answer through this program -- about how well not the cell phone component of the private people cell phone, but the actual disaster communication networks that were set up between the agencies worked not just for the earthquake, but for the hurricane irene. >> guest: well, the systems that we hadi] in use which was our web-based program, our washington area warning alert system, our radios and our phones, worked, worked fine during the hurricane. we had no issues with that. so in the washington metropolitan area, i do realize that d.c. and some communities

in maryland suffered a lot of damage, but in national capital region, northern virginia and arlington's certainly part of that, we didn't get near the damage from the hurricane that other localities did. so we communicated just fine. >> host: and just to tie this all up, ten years ago was 9/11. jack brown, if such an event occurred again today on your watch, how would the communications systems be different? >> guest: well, we would certainly, we'd certainly communicate to the public what they need to do. i think that's, that's what they're looking to us to do is provide them with information how they can stay safe, how they can keep their families safe. and the message we try to get across every day is to be prepared, make sure that you have supplies; food, water, medicine, other necessities to stay home, to stay put, stay at your office for at least three days. one of the challenges on 9/11 was the area was attempting to

evacuate. we don't do that very well during rush hour. we really don't. so a mass evacuation of washington, d.c. is very problematic. so we need to change the mindset not just of emergency management professional, but of the community. you really need to take care of yourselves and your families. make sure you have those plans, make sure that you have faith that your schools are going to keep your kids safe and understand that during something like a terrorist attack, the schools potentially could be locked down, and you may not be able to get to them. not to mention, we don't want people out there on the highways impeding first responders and supplies coming in to an emergency site. so those are kind of the takeaways that we got from 9/11, just a few of them. >> host: and chief harlin mcewen, if that were to happen again today, are we prepared? are different cities prepared at different levels? >> guest: yeah, there's no question about the fact that different cities are at different levels of preparedness. bu