[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSURING PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEMS WORK TO WARN AMERICAN
CITIZENS OF NATURAL
AND TERRORIST DISASTERS
=======================================================================
(110-132)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 4, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-774 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Virginia
Pennsylvania, Vice Chair CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee York
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Fowlkes, Lisa, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission...................... 14
Gispert, Larry, President, International Association of Emergency
Managers, and Director, Department of Emergency Management,
Hillsborough County, Florida................................... 32
Guttman-Mccabe, Christopher, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
CTIA, the Wireless Association................................. 32
Judkins, Jr., James T., Emergency Management Coordinator, Suffolk
Department of Fire and Rescue, Division of Emergency Management 6
Rainville, Major General Martha T., Assistant Administrator,
National Continuity Program Directorate, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.............................................. 14
Womack, Michael, Region IV Vice President and Member of the Board
of Directors, National Emergency Managers Association, and
Director, Mississippi State Emergency Management Agency........ 32
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 46
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 47
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 49
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Gispert, Larry................................................... 54
Guttman, McCabe, Christopher..................................... 58
Judkins, Jr., Captain James T.................................... 67
Poarch, Derek K.................................................. 70
Rainville, Martha T.............................................. 78
Womack, Mike..................................................... 91
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Fowlkes, Lisa, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, responses to
questions from the Subcommittee................................ 75
Rainville, Major General Martha T., Assistant Administrator,
National Continuity Program Directorate, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, responses to questions from the Subcommittee 87
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.008
ASSURING PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEMS WORK TO WARN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF NATURAL
AND TERRORIST DISASTERS
----------
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Norton. Good morning.
This is an important hearing. Almost every American is
familiar with this scenario: You are watching television, and
suddenly the television program is interrupted; a beeping sound
comes. You see the multicolored stripes across the screen, and
then you hear, "This is a test of the Emergency Alert System,"
the EAS. You breathe a sigh of relief because it is only a
test.
But during any given year, thousands of citizens across our
country hear an emergency broadcast on their radios or on
television advising them that they have a few minutes to seek
appropriate shelter because, for example, a tornado is coming
or to evacuate the area because a hurricane is arriving in a
few hours.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, is
responsible for administering the national EAS with assistance
from the Federal Communications Commission for ensuring
compliance with regulations. Broadcast radio and television
stations and satellite radio operators are required to
participate in a national-level EAS alert. And State and local
governments may use the EAS on an as-available basis. Broadcast
station participation is voluntary, but of course most do.
Given the high number of natural disasters in our country
each and every year, probably 90 percent of all messages and
100 percent of all Federal messages are disseminated by the
EAS, as generated by the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration's Weather Radio All Hazards--NWR, as we call
it--and the National Weather Service.
Two years ago, President Bush issued Executive Order 13407,
directing the Department of Homeland Security to modernize and
integrate the Nation's public warning systems. FEMA then
created the Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems, which
we call IPAWS, and is working with the public and private
sectors to integrate warning systems so that authorized
officials can effectively warn the public through an upgraded
version of the EAS system.
EAS messages will continue to be transmitted but, in
addition, must today include the modern technology conveniences
that almost every American owns, including pagers, cell phones,
computers and other personal communication devices. This is a
big task.
FEMA began working on a plan to update the EAS system in
part by conducting pilot programs nationwide. With IPAWS pilot
projects coming to an end, however, many stakeholders are
expressing frustration that the IPAWS program does not have a
clear plan and timeline for finishing the various tasks that
still need to be completed. Several States and localities have
begun modernizing their own systems in the absence of Federal
guidance and consensus.
Stakeholders include State and local governments and
various private-sector groups. The Government Accountability
Office has suggested that FEMA hold some stakeholder forums on
the challenges of integrating the system and various other
issues. At the meetings, the stakeholders perhaps could produce
some clearly defined deliverables, such as, for example, the
Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP, a standardized format for use
in all types of message alerts.
The public also is entitled to a clear timetable as to when
a final decision or action will be completed. Many stakeholders
point to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory
Committee, a process set out in the Warning Alert and Response
Network Act--we call it the WARN Act--which has been signed
into law as the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act
of 2006.
CMSAAC members, we will call them, include Federal, State,
local and tribal governments, members of the private sector,
and people with disabilities. They are charged with providing
recommendations on technical requirements, standards,
regulations and other matters needed to support the transmittal
of emergency alerts by commercial mobile providers to their
subscribers on a voluntary basis. They meet deadlines, make
decisions and produce reports. The advisory committee has
already produced results.
We are pleased that, after some reluctance and delay, FEMA
announced on May 30, 2008, that once the system is in place,
that agency will serve as the Federal aggregator and gateway
for the nationwide Commercial Mobile Alert System. I appreciate
the meetings between FEMA's staff and the Committee staff
regarding their expansive legislative authority for public
alerts and warnings in the Stafford Act.
We must remember that we are modernizing and integrating
the public alerts and warning systems that can make the
difference between living and dying for the Nation's citizens.
When a parent hears an alert on the radio and has a few minutes
to get her children into a cellar before a tornado strikes, we
are reminded that this alert and warning system must be robust,
more readily available, and truly modern. This Subcommittee is
committed to assisting FEMA in making the public alert and
warning system much better and, indeed, the best. No less will
do.
I am pleased to welcome all of the witnesses today and look
forward to their testimony.
And I would ask the Ranking Member if he has an opening
statement.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing on the state of our public alert and warning systems.
I also want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today and for their efforts to improve our alert and warning
capabilities. I know that they have the best interest of the
American people at heart, and I very much appreciate your
service.
Quite frankly, I think this is one of the most important
hearings we have held in Congress, Madam Chair. Far too many
people are dying in disasters that could have been avoided with
an effective warning system. In the first 5 months of this year
alone, over 100 people were killed by tornadoes in the South,
in the Midwest, and in my home State of Missouri. This is
simply unacceptable.
We live in a country with 250 million wireless subscribers,
yet we rely on a Cold War-era alert system to warn people of
life-and-death situations. Unless you live in a State that has
decided to create its own modern alert system, you probably
need to be sitting in front of a TV or listening to the radio
to receive an emergency alert. Given our mobile lifestyle, this
is not good enough. We need to modernize our aging systems so
government officials can get the right message to the right
people at the right time to save lives.
There is no excuse for the lack of effective warning to the
public. Technology already exists to integrate cable,
satellite, digital and wireless capabilities into a system that
allows local officials to geographically target life-saving
warnings in less than a minute. However, there is no plan to
use or integrate them.
What we are missing is clear Federal leadership--not
mandates, but leadership to drive a consensus among the
stakeholders about the standards and protocols we will use to
build this system. If FEMA fails to lead us to the next
generation of alert systems, then I believe we will end up with
a patchwork of State and local systems that can't communicate
with each other.
We are on the verge of repeating the same mistakes we made
with radios, where neighboring jurisdictions and police and
fire can't talk to one another. To avoid such a mess, I
introduced the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
Modernization Act last month with Chairwoman Norton. Our bill
will clarify leadership and accountability and require a
roadmap for developing a modern alert system that reaches
people quickly and effectively.
So far there has been some effort to examine and improve
portions of the current system. In June of 2006, the President
issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland
Security to take the necessary steps to upgrade our alert
system. As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
established the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System,
also known as IPAWS.
In October 2006, Congress enacted the Warning Alert and
Response Network, or WARN, Act that directed the Federal
Communications Commission, or the FCC, to establish an advisory
committee, and FCC ordered to develop the commercial mobile
services component of IPAWS. However, to date, FEMA has not
provided clear leadership to develop the system architecture or
a plan to tie the elements of an integrated system together.
In fact, the recent controversy over FEMA's reassessment of
its authorities and role as the Federal coordinator or
aggregator of alerts has caused numerous stakeholders to
question FEMA's commitment to the IPAWS effort. FEMA's decision
last week to assume the Federal aggregator role is significant,
and I am glad FEMA is back onboard. However, little progress
will be made until FEMA adopts the Common Alert Protocol
standards and a clear consensus plan to integrate all of the
moving parts of IPAWS.
There are also serious questions about the reliability of
the existing relay system used to disseminate alerts. In 2007,
FEMA conducted a nationwide Emergency Alert System test. Three
of the primary entry-point stations designed to transmit the
alert to other broadcast stations failed to receive and
retransmit the alert.
There are also unresolved questions about how State and
local officials can and should use the future IPAWS system. We
must keep in mind that 98 percent of all alerts are local and
that IPAWS must meet their needs for fast and targeted alerts.
Given the slow and confusing pace of IPAWS, some States and
localities are moving forward with their own systems to meet
the needs of their citizens. While I can't blame the States for
moving ahead without FEMA, it increases the risk that local
alert systems will not be compatible.
In the end, we want to ensure that all Americans have the
capability to receive alerts and warnings regarding disasters
through as many modes of communication as possible. And that is
the intent behind the bill that we have introduced.
Again, I want to thank Chairwoman Norton and our witnesses
today. Your testimony is going to help us identify the critical
steps for achieving the IPAWS vision as quickly as possible.
Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Carney, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Carney. Yes, I do.
Good morning. I wanted to thank you for holding this
hearing today, Madam Chair.
As you are aware, I have committed myself during the 110th
Congress to ensuring a proper state of readiness at FEMA,
particularly in light of past tragedies that this Nation has
suffered and because there are situations that we will
undoubtedly face again in the future.
The American people deserve the best and most efficient
public alert system so that they will have the time, the
direction and the resources to protect themselves and their
families. Throughout our history, the American people have
proven that they are capable of an amazing capacity to survive,
endure and succeed any challenge, especially when they are
given a fighting chance.
Madam Chair, I am interested to hear the testimony of our
witnesses today, particularly with respect to the IPAWS system
and how it affects the present Emergency Alert System, EAS.
Pennsylvania developed its own EAS plan and filed it with
the FCC on April 1, 2004. And I am interested to learn from our
witnesses here their thoughts on whether IPAWS will be
concluded soon and the implications that it might have for
States like Pennsylvania, States that have existing EAS plans.
I believe that we dodged a bullet during the hurricane and
severe storm season during 2006 and 2007, but this season's
storms already in the plains have been much more severe, much
more aggressive, and have led to an enormous also loss of life
already. It is my desire that FEMA not find itself again
overwhelmed, as it had been the last time the Nation faced
devastating natural disasters.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. And I
thank you for your time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Carney.
We have been joined by the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee. I am pleased to have Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And I want to also thank you for
holding this timely and important meeting on ensuring the
public that our alert systems work to warn American citizens of
natural and terrorist disasters.
In the third panel I guess today, we have Larry Gispert,
who is the emergency manager from Hillsborough County. That is
not in my district but the State of Florida. I welcome him and
look forward to his testimony before this Subcommittee today.
I also want to congratulate our Ranking Member and Chair
for their bill, H.R. 6038, which does require the Federal
Government to upgrade the Nation's alert and warning system.
Now, I don't know what it is going to take. I come from a
district that has been hit by hurricanes, floods, fires,
tornadoes. I think we have had everything but the locust. And
heaven forbid we should have another Katrina or natural or
terrorist disaster and not be able to warn the public
adequately.
We have the technology to achieve adequate warning for the
public. Somehow we either lack the legislative will or the
administrative ability to get the job done. And I am hoping
that this hearing can move us toward the goal of replacing an
Emergency Alert System that relies on 1950s broadcast
technology and only works if you have a radio turned on. That
is a pretty pitiful statement, that we don't have better system
in place.
The tornadoes that we had in central Florida back in 2007
killed several dozen folks. It struck at 3 o'clock in the
morning, and we did not have an adequate warning system. And we
have seen also the inadequacies of some systems, particularly
in the rural areas or areas where there are longer distances,
and some of the traditional types of warning systems just do
not work.
But, as I said, we do have the technology. People have cell
phones. We have the ability to turn on and off electronic
equipment and to provide timely warning for people to avoid
loss of life and be prepared to deal with a disaster.
So I look forward to the testimony today. I look forward to
working with Ms. Norton and Mr. Graves to come up with a
solution. And whatever they can craft that will do the job I
want them to know that I will be supportive of.
So thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
I want to welcome our first witness now, Captain James
Judkins, Jr., of Norfolk, Virginia, the emergency management
coordinator of the Suffolk Department of Fire and Rescue, which
is a part of the division of emergency management.
Mr. Judkins, I want to particularly thank you for driving
what I understand was 4 hours here in that traffic. I really
appreciate it, because while we have very informed
representatives from the Emergency Management Association, I
always like these hearings to have a person who is on the
ground right now, who has had experiences with what we are
talking about. So we particularly value your testimony, and we
will receive it now.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES T. JUDKINS, JR., EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
COORDINATOR, SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE, DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Judkins. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished
Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to share
with you some stories that happened on the 28th of April when
an F-3 tornado impacted the City of Suffolk, Virginia. And that
is the worst natural disaster that has affected our city in the
400 years that our city has been around.
We were very blessed in the fact that there were over 500
structures, both residential and commercial, that were
impacted, 49 of those were totally wiped out, but in the
aftermath, no one lost their lives. Only six people required
hospitalization, leaving the rest of them just to be treated by
the paramedics in the field and the hospital emergency rooms
and the local urgent care centers.
I have several stories I would like to share with you that
our responders and our news media gleaned from those people
involved.
In the first case, it goes like this: On the afternoon of
the storm, a resident of the Hillpoint Farm subdivision was on
his way home in his pickup truck when he heard on the radio
what he described as several EAS activation alerts specific for
the City of Suffolk. He immediately cell-phoned his wife and
advised her to watch the skies and take cover in the hallway if
she happens to spot a funnel cloud. A little while later, he
received a frantic call from his wife who was huddled in the
downstairs hallway as the twister roared outside and severely
damaged their house.
In the second case, "I had the radio on," states this one
lady, "and I heard them talking about a tornado approaching. I
thought, 'We don't have to worry about that.'" The man of the
house was upstairs working on his computer. The wife was
downstairs, looking out the window. And a moment later, there
was nothing but debris in the air. Suddenly, the glass in the
house began to break. And within seconds, the husband and wife
found each other and ducked into a closet as they watched their
house come apart all around them. Pictures blew off the walls,
mattresses tumbled down the hall, and lamps were sucked out the
windows.
In case number three, upon hearing the weather alert on
television, this family took cover in a small half-bath on the
second floor. The walls and windows of the rooms next to and
below the bathroom were blasted away by the twister's force.
Case number four: A grandmother reports she is still shaken
from what is described as a horrifying experience. This senior
citizen, who breathes with the aid of portable oxygen, was
sitting in her home's south-facing sunroom with her sister and
moved to heed a televised weather warning. They had only gotten
a few steps into the interior hallway before the twister struck
their home.
Case number five: First responders reported this story,
that of a grandmother and her granddaughter who literally rode
out the storm in a bathtub. In that account, upon hearing the
warning, the grandmother and child took cover in their
bathroom, grasping each other, clutching each other as they
nestled themselves in the tub. The tornado leveled their home
and tossed the tub, with its precious contents, in a nearby
lake.
Case six: This case is personal to me because it involves
my mother and my aunt. My aunt was terminally ill, and my
mother was caring for her. They were watching television when
the weather alert sounded. Specific information for the
community in which they live, the subdivision in which they
live, were broadcast. Mom managed to get my aunt and herself
into the interior hallway just as the rear of the home was torn
away.
And finally, case seven: Spring athletics are under way in
the City of Suffolk at this time. The teams were on their
respective practice fields when the school officials received
the tornado warning via the All Hazards Weather Radio. The
athletes were directed to the school's interior hallways for
refuge.
In each of these seven cases, there are two common factors.
The first and most remarkable and most important to me is the
fact that no one was seriously injured or died. And secondly,
those life-saving measures that each one of those people took
were prompted by an Emergency Alert System message.
In my 28-plus years' experience, I find that here is no
perfect alert system. Sirens will fail either mechanically or
nowadays it fails because people with their portable listening
devices can't hear them because their music is so loud. Weather
radios for an unexplained reason get turned off because they
are ignored by the weekly test that they have, and they turn
them off. More and more people find themselves listening to
satellite radio and watching satellite TV. They are not getting
the local messages there. Subscriber-based weather warning
systems work well transmitting messages to the cell phones, but
they require that you preregister.
My grandmother once said that you can lead a mule to water
but you can't force him to drink. The same thing applies, I
feel, to warning systems. Each of us has a responsibility to
our families for their safety and well-being. And that
responsibility includes knowing your community's warning
systems and having a method to receive those emergency
messages.
I thank you for your time.
Ms. Norton. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Judkins. Those
are exactly the kinds of case examples we are interested to
hear.
Now, in your examples, all heard the EAS over the radio or
the television, isn't that right?
Mr. Judkins. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. So the EAS works well when the radio and the
television are on, as most commercial radio? It works well if
you have it on.
But you indicated that if you didn't happen to have your
radio on but you had a cell phone, you have to preregister. And
of course that is because not everybody wants their cell phone
number known.
In your community, is there a system, as we have in some
communities? I think here in the District of Columbia,
telephones inside the home can ring in advance with a warning.
Mr. Judkins. The only system that we have in the city is
what we call reverse 911, and you have to pretty well program
the numbers in an area that you want to respond. It is an older
reverse 911 system. So it is limited by outgoing phone lines.
The newer 911 systems are Internet-based; therefore, you get
more and more messages out quicker. But they still have to
define an area that you have. So it takes time to set up an
outgoing message like that.
In my office, I have the ability to use what we call cable
voice override, which I can--from any phone I can send out an
emergency message, and that will override whatever channel our
residents are listening to, regardless of what channel it is on
that cable system.
Ms. Norton. So those have been programmed in.
Mr. Judkins. The way that works, I have a phone number that
I dial in, and after I go through a series of hoops, and then
it just totally overrides everybody, whatever they are
watching. But, again, they have to have their TV on; they have
to have their TV on. And they have to be a subscriber to the
local cable channel. So that is the limitations of that system.
So, as you see, there are limitations to both that system
and the system of reverse 911. The subscriber----
Ms. Norton. Well, the reverse 911, does the local
jurisdiction already have the phone numbers so it doesn't have
to go to get it pre-registered?
Mr. Judkins. Well, on that, they have a--they subscribe to
a number bank from our local phone provider, which is Verizon.
Now, the downfall of that, if you have an unlisted phone
number, then your number is not in that bank that you get from
the phone company.
And then you have to geographically set up the area in
which you want to call. And it takes time. There are other
systems out there that work a lot faster, but still you have to
set up the geographic area. Even with the Internet-based
system, it will blast the calls out really fast, but it still
takes time to set up that area in which you want to call.
Ms. Norton. When we get into the differences between
systems, you know, I am almost driven back to saying, will
somebody just have a whistle that blows loudly in the
community? Back in the day, somehow that whistle was
understood.
I mean, I am hearing what you are saying. I wonder if
improvements in the EAS are the way to do this. Do you think
that the EAS could accommodate different modes of
communication, some that people subscribe to, some that they
don't, some that require the jurisdiction to have programmed in
the numbers, all the rest? Do you think we can design an EAS
system that is truly universal?
Mr. Judkins. I think with the technology that we have, we
definitely--it is capable. And with the number of cell phones
out there, that is definitely a good way to push it out. Home
telephones, if you are like me, you let the answering machine
catch that so you won't be bothered by telemarketers.
But, again, I would just like to revert back, there is
positively no 100 percent way to get the message out. We have
to do a good job to get the message out to as many people as we
can and to educate our people that it is our responsibility to
try to be on the lookout for those messages, especially if we
know severe weather is threatening our area.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
I am going to go next to Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thanks for being here, Captain. I appreciate it.
I was the head of our volunteer fire department for 12
years in my little town of Tarkio. And my district is a
district that has 26 counties in it. Three of them are
suburban, and the rest of it is extraordinarily rural. And we
would go through the motion, every time we would have a warning
go out, we would all show up down at the fire department, and
we would get the trucks out, and the police cars would
participate, and we would drive up and down the streets,
blowing the sirens, hoping that people got the message. That is
still in place today.
And then we would also, kind of, initiate an ad hoc call-in
tree. You would call your family, and then you would call your
parents, and then you would call your brother and sister, and
then they would call their friends. And, you know, you would
hope it would spread just as quickly as possible.
So I know the frailties of the system, particularly at
night when most people are asleep. And it is startling, the
difference in, you know, casualties at night as opposed to,
say, during the day when people might be paying attention.
But it seems to me like--and I know the technology is
there. Because, to me, in a district like me, we do a lot of
tele-town-hall meeting. And we launch them from--whether it is
in my home district or whether I am out here in D.C., we will
launch 35,000, 36,000 calls in one evening instantly to folks
throughout the district. And if they pick up, they come
onboard. But regardless, they listen to our prerecorded
message. And I come on the line, and we take questions and do
the whole thing. But we do instantly launch 30,000, 36,000
calls. I live in a county that only has 7,000 people in it. It
would seem to me like--I know the technology is there. We just
have to get it in place.
But my question to you is, what are the three challenges
that you see right now in developing a system that works
nationwide?
And, obviously, Chairman Norton and myself, we represent
completely different districts. She has a very urban district,
and I have a very rural district. And that is the reason why I
think it is a perfect match, introducing this bill together,
because between the two of us, we have to be able to cover
everybody out there and take care of them.
But what do you see as the three major challenges for
districts such as the Chairman's and mine, which is very rural?
Mr. Judkins. I think, first of all, the first challenge
would be identifying the medium, how do you want to get it out
there.
The second challenge, of course, is getting buy-in on that,
getting buy-in of course from the legislatures, getting buy-in
from the broadcasters, getting buy-in from the folks that run
the communications systems, whatever they be.
And the third thing, probably maybe depending on how we
wind up pushing this out, the third thing would be getting buy-
in from the citizens. Again, they have to be willing to hear
the message. If it is voluntarily, probably some may do it,
some may not. But if it is something that is going to be
pushed, then that is something that probably will work.
And then there is a challenge of the type of messages. If
you put every weather alert message that is generated by NOAA
Weather Radio, then some people will get really irritated, get
woke up at 3 o'clock in the morning when the local fog advisory
or the local freeze advisory comes out. So there has to be some
way to gauge the type of message that you want to go out.
So I see those as the challenges.
Mr. Graves. Bear in mind--and I think the phone system is
the best simply because, a lot of cases, at least in the rural
areas, if you lose a line because of the tornado or the storm
is still ahead of you, you know, you end up losing a line, the
lights go out and electricity goes out, but the phone is still
working. And, quite frankly, very few people in my district in
the rural parts have cable anyway. So even being able to
integrate a cable system is going to make it tough too.
But I would agree, though, that it would have to be a
system--obviously, in an urban setting, that is much more--you
know, that works much better to tie in the multiple mediums.
But I appreciate you being here. I think this is a huge,
huge task that we are undertaking. But we want to remember all
of the--there are a lot of aspects out there, a lot of aspects
in getting that message out. But I think people would be very
interested in it. And the buy-in, I think, at least from the
public, is going to be there. That is, the buy-in from some of
the medias is going to be a little bit tougher.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Carney?
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just have a couple of questions. I actually represent a
district much like Mr. Graves. It is an extremely rural part of
northeastern central Pennsylvania. In fact, I am either blessed
or damned to not even have cell service at my house. Most times
I appreciate that, frankly, but occasionally it seems like it
might be an awfully useful tool in inclement weather.
From your perspective, what is the most effective way to
get messages out, from your experience and from what you have
heard from your colleagues around the country?
Mr. Judkins. Well, right now, my locality is pretty much
like yours, we are rural/urban. There is a large portion of our
city that is still farm community. Usually, when we have an
event like we experienced in April, the first thing the media
guys want to shove a microphone in your face is, why don't you
have sirens? Well, how many sirens do you think it would take
to cover 430 square miles? And then there are all the frailties
of the siren system.
So, as it stands right now, with the technology that we
currently have in place, I feel that it would be a toss-up
between--NOAA All has its radio, basically because, if you
happen to get one of the newer models that has the local code
probed in, you don't get irritated by hearing your neighbor's
weather and get awakened by messages you don't want. And that
is one of the issues that I push out to the people that I do
outreach for.
And, of course, the next best system probably that is out
there right now is some of your systems that localities can
purchase. They are very expensive, but they can blast a lot of
messages out to a lot of people very quickly. They are
Internet-based, and you can place the numbers in via a
purchased telephone list to the local subscribers, and you can
get a lot of messages out quick. But, again, that system is
very expensive, and localities like mine just do not have the
emergency management budget to take anything like that.
Mr. Carney. That is true.
I was also intrigued by your comment of folks listening to
satellite radio now, the subscription rates are through the
ceiling, and that hurts their ability to hear broadcasts of
warnings.
Is there a way--and, frankly, I don't know the answer to
this. Is there a way that you can interrupt the satellite
broadcast to issue a message, issue a warning?
Mr. Judkins. Well, I am not an electronics guru, but with
the technology folks we have out in the world today, I am sure
there would be a way. The real challenge would be to be able to
get the message to the area in which you would want it to go.
In some localities, DirecTV also has the reception for
local channels. Some technology along that line might work for
that. But you would have to have something within the system
that would be able to pull in that local message so people
would be hearing all the message from for all of the country or
all of that particular coverage area for that satellite system.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
No further questions at this time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Does the gentleman from New York have
questions?
Mr. Arcuri. No, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Okay, thank you.
Just a couple more questions. Do all the broadcasters in
your area participate voluntarily?
Mr. Judkins. No. All of them don't; the majority do. I can
safely say that the major TV stations all participate, and that
is where we get the most of our coverage. The majority of the
radio stations do, but not all of them, again, because it is a
voluntary system for local messages.
But as a matter of fact, the tornado that we had the other
day, that is how I got the message. I was out of the office,
and I heard the EAS on my vehicle radio, and that prompted me
to get back to the office. And, of course, while I was en
route, I got the call from my dispatcher that she had gotten a
teletype message down from the Virginia Emergency Operations
Center that we were under a warning. So that is the way the
message flows in our city.
Ms. Norton. Well, the ones that don't, is there a cost to
them if they do subscribe to EAS in any way?
Mr. Judkins. You are talking about the broadcasters?
Ms. Norton. Yes. The ones, for example, that don't
subscribe.
Mr. Judkins. I don't have an answer to that question.
Ms. Norton. We will ask the next witness. I thought it is a
fairly easy system that everybody would want to be on. I would
hate to have a radio station with people listening, where they
didn't hear it on my radio station but my neighbor did, and my
neighbor went for cover and I didn't. So I am interested in
that. But we will find out about that.
Well, again, you will have to forgive me, Captain Judkins,
I am driven back to sirens. Are sirens used at all any longer?
Mr. Judkins. In the Hampton Roads area, the siren is the
alert method of choice for the nuclear power plants.
Ms. Norton. For what?
Mr. Judkins. For the Surry nuclear power plant, and they
are for North Anna and the other nuclear power plants that
service the Commonwealth. They are also backed up by radio and
TV EAS alerts, but they do have sirens out.
They test them on a regular basis, but I can't remember
when every single siren have worked on every test. It is
usually one or two that don't work at times. There are always
mechanical issues.
Keep in mind, also, there is a number of the rural
jurisdiction across the Commonwealth that still use sirens to
alert volunteer firefighters. Then it becomes the question as
to, what does the siren going off mean? Is it a fire? Is it an
alert at a nuclear power plant?
Ms. Norton. Well, you wouldn't use it for a fire. We are
talking about as part of the EAS system.
Mr. Judkins. Right. But keep in mind, there is still a
number of jurisdictions in the Commonwealth that still use that
system to alert local volunteer firefighters.
Ms. Norton. Yeah, one would have to--the only reason I am
driven to it is the technical--well, first, you are talking
about the sirens. You know, imagine getting to everybody's cell
phone.
Mr. Judkins. Right.
Ms. Norton. Some cell phones work, in some places they
don't. They drop calls. I would hate to depend on that to alert
me. And I recognize that sirens go off, not all of them work.
Just try asking your neighbors how often their cell phones
work. I just would be--particularly given--well, the Ranking
Member says that is all they have in his district. And in rural
areas, most people don't even have cable. They may not use cell
phones as often as they do in big cities. I just don't know why
we would abandon that technology instead of having everybody to
at least understand it.
For example, in a tornado, I am here talking about things
where there is a flash. You know, with a hurricane, usually you
have some warning. But I must say, they have had tornado
warnings even here recently. And the whole point there--and, of
course, the radio is very good, and a lot of false positives,
and that is fine. But you talked about it somewhere, you had
better get yourself together in 3 seconds. I don't understand--
just getting yourself to cover, much less picking up the phone,
hearing what it is all about. It seems to me that, particularly
for certain kinds of events, events that might be almost
immediate, like tornadoes, I don't know why I wouldn't want to
hear a siren rather than, you know, not be near a cell phone or
even one of these reverse 911 calls.
I just don't know why we do not want to rely on them at
all, particularly since it looks like this isn't going to be
universal anytime soon. And even if it is, it depends upon you
having the technology, the telephone, the radio. It has to be
on. The cell phone has to be where you can pick it up. I can
understand that for a hurricane. Most hurricanes don't come
upon us without some warning. Even Katrina had a warning. But I
am worried about events for which there is little warning.
I must say, some of those were in your own case studies.
But all those people happened to have the radio or the
television on, didn't they?
Mr. Judkins. Yes, ma'am. They just luckily had their
communication device. Some of the military bases are
experimenting and actually purchased and installed a
loudspeaker-type system. It is unbelievably clear, and that can
put out messages to large areas with an unbelievably clear
signal.
I saw a demonstration at one of my conferences I was
attending a while back. And that is a solution that possibly
could be used in smaller communities where you have a lot of
people clumped together. You are actually hearing a message,
you know what to do, you know how long you have to do it.
But, again, it is the thing of people being able to hear.
If they have their iPods on and the music cranking, they
wouldn't hear that. They wouldn't hear the sirens.
Ms. Norton. I can think of some sirens they might hear. I
think that could be adjusted so that they would hear them over
something in their ear, because a lot of people do carry
things.
You know, because you are on the ground, because you had
case studies and because you have a far-flung area, I am
particularly interested in how to quickly reach people. Now, I
recognize that we are not--even if we were talking about a
terrorist alert_we are not talking about somebody that is
coming with a bomb. That is usually not the way even wars or
enemies fight any longer.
But FEMA is more about natural disasters than about
anything else, because that is what we have every year. So I am
a little concerned about getting so fancy, so high-tech that
essentially we get to over-depend upon people listening for the
alert. We forget that there are people who love silence, don't
have anything on. There are people in hospitals where there may
not be radios and where silence is valued. There are people in
libraries. So, you know, I am always skeptical but particularly
skeptical about making this universally appear and be
universally effective without understanding how diverse all of
us are.
Are there any more questions of any members of the panel?
If not, I want to thank Captain Judkins. Your testimony has
been very, very useful to the Committee, and particularly thank
you for the long trip.
I want to call then--the next witness is Major General
Martha T. Rainville, retired, who is the assistant
administrator at FEMA, National Community Program Directorate;
and Chief Derek K. Poarch, chief of the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC.
However, I do want to note and express my condolences to
Mr. Poarch, who is not here because of a death in the family.
So his deputy, Lisa Fowlkes, will be filling in.
Thank you both.
Ms. Rainville, let's begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL MARTHA T. RAINVILLE, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL CONTINUITY PROGRAM DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; LISA FOWLKES, DEPUTY CHIEF, PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
General Rainville. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking
Member Graves, Members of the Subcommittee. I am Martha
Rainville, the assistant administrator for FEMA's National
Continuity Program Directorate. And I want to thank you for
this opportunity to share with you this morning the progress
that FEMA is making with the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System.
The Emergency Alert System has served us well, but it is
based on technology that is about 15 years old. Through IPAWS,
FEMA and our partners are transforming the alert system from an
audio-only signal that is sent over radios and televisions, as
we have discussed earlier, to one that can support audio,
video, text and data alert messages sent to residential
telephones, Web sites, pagers, e-mail accounts and to cell
phones. The mission of the IPAWS program is simply to send one
message over more channels to more people at all times and
places.
My written testimony, which has been submitted for the
record, lays out in detail, first, the importance of
interagency cooperation and public-private partnership in
improving the Nation's alert warning system, lessons learned
through our 2007 pilot programs in the Gulf States, and also
the next steps that FEMA will take in developing IPAWS.
The success of IPAWS depends heavily on the interagency
cooperation and the public-private partnerships. FEMA works
closely with our partners at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the National Weather Service, and
the Federal Communications Commission to ensure the
coordination of effort when it comes to upgrading, improving
and securing integrated public alerts and warning. We also
coordinate extensively with others, such as the Primary Entry
Point Advisory Committee and the Association of Public
Television Stations on systems upgrades.
Congress allocated funds in the fiscal year 2005 Katrina
supplemental that enabled us to deploy a suite of new alert
warning capabilities in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama
during the hurricane season 2007. So, for the first time, these
State emergency management officials had the ability to send
alerts via American Sign Language video to residents who are
deaf or hard of hearing and to send prerecorded messages in
Spanish to residents who do not speak English.
These successful pilots ended in December 2007 on schedule.
And since then, through the State homeland security program
grants, FEMA continues to support State and local governments
seeking to improve their alert capabilities. And in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, 27 States received more than $1 billion
through this program, which includes an eligible category to
support alert systems.
This year, FEMA is taking steps to improve alert and
warning infrastructure and to increase the dependability of the
national system.
First, we are strengthening the Federal Government's
ability to send emergency warnings directly to the American
people by increasing the primary entry-point stations from 36
to 63. This will enable Federal warnings to reach 85 percent of
the American public directly, up from 70 percent currently.
Second, we are increasing the survivability and resilience
of the national alert and warning system through digital EAS.
Digital EAS adds the direct transmission of voice, video or
text alert to stations across the country over the PBS
satellite network. It will also allow the distribution of
alerts in multiple languages. And later this summer, FEMA will
roll out digital EAS into the eight States and one territory
that participated in a previous pilot. These States are
Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey,
Texas, South Carolina and Puerto Rico. We will also expand
digital EAS beyond these original nine locations to five more
locations this year.
Third, we are increasing the capacity of the national alert
system by incorporating NOAA's infrastructure into the IPAWS
architecture. Through NOAA's national network, IPAWS gains
another redundant path to State and local entities,
broadcasters and the public.
And, finally, as announced on May 27th by Administrator
Paulison, FEMA will assume the Federal aggregator gateway role
for cellular mobile alerts. And we will work with DHS Science
and Technology to develop, test and integrate the technical
solution and with FCC to make the alert aggregator operational.
Our goal is to ensure that the President can send an alert
to the public during an all-hazards event and to support
capabilities chosen by State and local officials. And, together
with our partners, we will ensure that IPAWS is reliable,
resilient and secure.
So thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Graves
and others, for this opportunity to tell you what FEMA is doing
with IPAWS.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Rainville.
Ms. Fowlkes?
Ms. Fowlkes. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Norton, Ranking
Member Graves, and Members of the House Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission to
discuss our efforts to develop a robust and reliable emergency
alert system and to establish a Commercial Mobile Alert System,
otherwise known as the CMAS, as required by the Warning Alert
and Response Network Act.
The Commission's efforts are consistent with the goal of
H.R. 6038, legislation introduced by Ranking Member Graves and
cosponsored by Chair Norton, which is to improve the ability to
alert the residents of the United States of all potential
hazards under all conditions. I will briefly summarize the
Commission's efforts in these areas to date.
For over 50 years, the U.S. has had a mechanism in place to
deliver alerts to the American public, particularly for the
President to communicate with the public in the event of a
national emergency. That system, the EAS, requires EAS
participants, including radio television and cable systems, to
deliver emergency alerts to the public.
The FCC continues to enhance the manner in which this alert
and warning system takes advantage of new technologies. For
example, in 2005, the Commission expanded scope of EAS to
include digital broadcast radio and television, digital cable,
and satellite radio and television. Last year, the Commission
expanded the EAS to include Internet protocol-based video
programming services offered by wire-line telephone companies.
The Commission has taken steps to ensure more robust and
reliable next-generation EAS. Last year, the Commission
required EAS participants to have the capability to receive
common alerting protocol formatted EAS alerts no later than 180
days after FEMA publishes the CAP technical standards and
requirements.
The Commission also required commercially based EAS
participants to transmit State and local EAS alerts that are
originated by Governors or their designees no later than 180
days after FEMA publishes its adoption of the CAP standard,
provided that the State has submitted and received Commission
approval for a State EAS plan that describes how such alerts
will be transmitted.
The Commission has also taken steps to establish a
Commercial Mobile Alert System pursuant to the WARN Act. Under
the statute, the Commission was required to undertake a series
of actions within tight statutory deadlines. I am pleased to
report that the Commission has met all of its WARN Act
deadlines to date.
First, the Commission was required to establish and convene
an advisory committee to recommend technical requirements by
which commercial mobile service, or CMS, providers could
voluntarily transmit emergency alerts. The Commission
established an advisory committee, the Commercial Mobile
Service Alert Advisory Committee, consisting of a balanced
array of experts. As required by the WARN Act, the committee
held its first meeting on December 12, 2006.
Next, the WARN Act required that the advisory committee
develop and submit its recommendations to the Commission by
October 12, 2007. The CMSAAC submitted its report to the
Commission in a timely manner, recommending an end-to-end
alerting system under which a federally administered alert
aggregator would aggregate and authenticate alerts received
from Federal, State, tribal and local governments. The alerts
would then be sent to an alert gateway which would process the
alert into a 90-character format that could be sent to CMS
providers. The alert would then be sent to gateways and
infrastructure administered by CMS providers and then
ultimately transmitted to subscribers' handsets.
By April 9, 2008, the Commission was required to adopt
technical requirements based on the advisory committee's
recommendations. I am pleased to report that the Commission
released its first report in order adopting those requirements
by the statutorily required date. The Commission's order
generally adopted the advisory committee's recommendations,
including its end-to-end CMAS architecture proposal. The FCC
also agreed that the Federal Government entity should perform
the alert aggregator and alert gateway functions, and we are
pleased that FEMA has announced that it will perform these
functions.
The Commission's order also adopted technical requirements
for CMAS elements controlled by CMS providers. In addition, the
order adopted rules requiring participating CMS providers to
transmit three classes of emergency alerts--presidential;
imminent threats, such as a tornado or hurricane warnings; and
AMBER Alerts--to target alerts at areas no larger than the
county level and include an audio attention signal and
vibration cadence on CMAS-capable handsets.
Over the next several months, the Commission will continue
to take steps to improve the EAS and to establish the CMAS. The
Commission is currently working on an order that would address
the best ways to ensure that non-English-speaking Americans and
those with disabilities are able to receive EAS alerts. In
addition, during the summer, the Commission will adopt rules
that, among other things, address the process by which CMS
providers must elect whether they will transmit alerts over the
CMAS.
The Commission will continue to coordinate with all
stakeholders on alert and warning issues. The Commission looks
forward to continuing to work with FEMA on EAS and CMAS issues
and stands ready to support FEMA in implementation of H.R. 6038
should it be enacted.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
Chief Poarch has also included additional information on
EAS and CMAS in his written testimony.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Fowlkes.
Could I ask you both that if there were a need for a
National Emergency Alert today, can you assure us if the public
would receive it in time? I ask each of you.
General Rainville. Yes, ma'am. We feel confident at FEMA
that the Nation would receive the alert.
Ms. Norton. How?
General Rainville. We test the PEP station--through the
FEMA Operations Center to the PEP Station is the origination of
the alert. We test the PEP stations monthly.
So we feel confident that that can get through to 70
percent currently, until we add the other PEP stations this
year; and then 85 percent directly through the PEPs. But then
the PEPs cascade the message down through a chain to local
stations so that the States are responsible for that piece of
it.
But we feel confident through the messages going out
through NOAA and others, that reach 98 percent of the public,
that we can also get an EAS message out. Clearly, there is a
need to modernize and upgrade the system to add redundancy, to
add resiliency to it, to add layers of alerts and methods of
alerts to the current system; because, as you said earlier, not
everyone is watching television or listening to the radio.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Fowlkes?
Ms. Fowlkes. From the FCC's perspective, we continue to do
everything that we certainly can to ensure that communications
service providers, upon receiving the alert, are able to
transmit it out so that the public gets it in a timely fashion.
We do this through required monthly and weekly testing of the
Emergency Alert System which requires participation by EAS
participants.
We have also taken steps to prepare EAS participants for
next-generation emergency alerts, the Emergency Alert System.
In the context of CMAS, we have been working with the industry,
working with FEMA and others to ensure that that mobile
alerting system will be able to receive and transmit alerts in
a timely fashion.
Under the committee's recommendations, there were a number
of elements to ensure redundancy and resiliency in that system.
There were a number of other actions taken by the Commission to
ensure timely alerts with that respect. So, again, the
Commission certainly is doing everything that it can to ensure
that EAS participants or CMAS participants will be able to send
out the alerts in a very timely fashion.
Ms. Norton. Well, I ask you, Major General Rainville, there
has been considerable impatience--I should say the natives are
restless--the sense that leadership is needed if we are to
upgrade this system.
Are you saying in your testimony that there needs to be a
forum, or at least that you recognize that a forum would be
useful because of how diverse the stakeholder groups are?
Now the GAO recommended such forums simply to inform the
agency the way we are being informed this morning.
Are any such forums going on? Are they planned? When?
Through what vehicle?
General Rainville. Thank you for that question, because one
of the most important lessons from the pilots on the Gulf last
year was that that one solution won't work for everybody and
that States have different needs and different best ways of
alerting their populations.
We need to listen to the States, to the emergency managers,
which, like the Captain we have here this morning, so that we
get it right in whatever our solution is.
We are informally meeting with State emergency managers
through the FEMA regions, we are working with IAEM and other
groups to get their feedback on, but we will be setting up a
formal group, an advisory group, if you will, that will work to
make sure to inform the IPAWS program.
We haven't determined the membership yet. We are actually
working with IAEM to help us with that, with APTS and PBS as
well. So, informally we have. I want to get it formally
established so that we have a standing advisory group.
Ms. Norton. What is the cause of the delay here? You have
people now taking their own initiative? The Ranking Member
talked about the almost danger, the risk, that we will have a
patchwork. If you have too much of a patchwork, you don't have
what we were after Katrina and after 9/11. What is the problem
with even getting a forum going, forums going around the
country?
General Rainville. I think that is a very good question,
Madam Chairwoman. One of the questions was what type of forum
can we legally establish to work our way through that?
Ms. Norton. Let's talk about such forums, because that is
the only problem-- you have got somebody sitting right behind
you from Norfolk, wait a minute, Suffolk, who can tell you what
kinds of forums.
I really want--let's go to Ms. Fowlkes, because the FCC has
required EAS participants to have the ability to receive the
CAP EAS alert no later than 180 days after FEMA publishes its
standards.
Let me ask you whether or not you recommend the CMSAAC, the
Mobile Alert Advisory Committee, as a model for handling this
issue in the future?
Ms. Fowlkes. Well, what I can tell you is from the FCC's
perspective, the CMSAAC worked well in this case. We were very
fortunate to have people from different perspectives--and I
have to give the wireless industry credit, because we had all
the major carriers on the committee--and they all worked well
together, and everyone was very serious in trying to get to
some technical--some viable technical recommendations that
everyone could live with within the statutorily mandated time
period.
That, of course, helped the Commission, when the Commission
had to start complying with statutory deadlines in its
rulemaking.
I stress "in this case" because an advisory committee is
made up of people, and people have their own agendas and
personalities. So if you don't have the right people on the
advisory committee, you don't necessarily get the same results.
Ms. Norton. That is essential, Ms. Fowlkes, if you don't
have the right people--if you don't have the right people
sitting up here. We all have to--people took a chance on all of
us. We don't know if we are the right people.
It seems to me there would be less of a chance given all
the Emergency Management Apparatus we have in the country.
Including putting together who the right people. I am
concerned, and I am really reflecting the concern out there in
the country, that if the threshold of who are the right people
is stopping us, when we have had an emergency management
network, for example, in terms of FEMA, for a very long time,
very sophisticated on the ground--only people who can tell us
anything about what we need to do--I just don't understand that
that kind of matter about who should be on it, you know, if you
have got the wrong people on it, okay, put some other people on
it too, in your case, and for that matter in FEMA's case.
For example, Congress has--there are grants to help offset
the cost of upgrades.
Are local governments applying for these grants, these EAS
grants? If so, what kind of guidance can you give them, given
the virtual starting point where you find yourself?
General Rainville. I can speak to the area of alerts and
warnings. As I said in my testimony, from 2006 and 2007,In
those 2 years, 27 States applied for grants. That totalled
about $1 billion that could be used for alerts and warnings.
My counterparts in the Grants Directorate at FEMA could
give you more detailed information. But we have been working
with them, particularly since the Gulf pilots, when we saw the
success of those capabilities being fielded, to be sure that
language was written into the grants that would allow the
States flexibility in using grant money for alerts and
warnings.
This is very important. Again, it is important that the
States and locals determine what capabilities are most
important to them, what their priorities are. Because what
might be a useful siren system in one place won't work in
another, or ETN or opt-in, whatever it might be.
If you would like to have more specific grant information,
I would like to get back with you on that information and
divert----
Ms. Norton. I am going to live this subject for a moment.
Ms. Rainville, I am going to ask you to submit to this
Committee-- first of all, let me say I admire that you all do
pilots first because that also informs us.
I am very concerned about the startup nature of this. I am
going to ask that you submit to the Subcommittee within 30 days
a plan for forums. You don't have to have all the forums
going--and I would hope that would trigger the forums. Within
FEMA, there are the experts who can tell you how to do this.
Now, if you want to do a pilot forum first, so that you are
sure of what kind of people--but it seems to me you should
submit to us a plan for forums. You ought to be able to start
at least one forum within the next 30 days. I think that would
increase the confidence of the public that this matter is
moving on.
I am going to move to the Ranking Member now.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My question is for General Rainville.
Last month the FCC held an emergency alert summit, and most
of the panelists said that the greatest obstacle to progress
was the lack of leadership in FEMA. As an example, they cited
FEMA's failure to adopt a common alert protocol, which, as I
understand it, it is critical for manufacturers to build the
equipment for the programmers to write the software, for
broadcasters to purchase the right equipment, for State and
local officials to be sure that they upgrade their system to be
sure that it is compatible with everyone else's system.
My main question to you is, when is FEMA going to adopt
that standard? When are you going to come up with the standards
so that everybody can start working in the same direction?
General Rainville. FEMA intends to announce its intention
to adopt the CAP 1.1 in about 30 to 60 days. The time before
that, and actually publishing the standards, is going to take
an effort to define how we are going to meet the standard and
how the rest of the community is. We are very concerned,
because publishing the standard specifically starts the 180-day
clock on compliance, with other Federal agencies, compliance by
industry, as well.
We know that many will need time to be able to comply once
the standard is published. We want to use this time from
announcing our intention to go to a specific standard, to let
them begin work toward a reasonable standard, but not be locked
into the 180-day clock that will result in many being
uncompliant, regardless of the work they put into this.
We have a particular issue with index encoder-decoders at
the PEP stations that are no longer being manufactured. We
would have to begin manufacturing those to have the
broadcasters in compliance. So we want to work, again, through
forums. But there are specific groups in working with industry,
working with the emergency managers and working with the
Federal partners, to make sure that what we come up with is
something that we can all comply with and we can all produce
and we will be successful. That is one of the reasons, the main
reason, that we have been delayed.
Mr. Graves. Well, you have to develop a consensus among all
of the stakeholders and all of the folks out there. You have to
do that. I need some assurance that you are going to do that.
General Rainville. Yes, sir, it is the consensus first, but
the other issue is to be able to physically comply with the
equipment. It is the equipment manufacturing that has fallen by
the wayside, and that will take time to regenerate to allow
them to physically be compliant with this.
Mr. Graves. It seems to me like we can't move forward until
we have that protocol, until everybody is working or at least
working towards that goal, that they have some sort of
consensus to be working toward. So everything is kind of on
hold until we get to that point.
What do you say, 30 to 60 days you are going to have the
protocol?
General Rainville. Yes, sir, 30 to 60 days. What we were
going to try to do is announce our intention to go a CAP 1.1.
Many manufacturers are already using that as a standard. It is
one that they will then know is going to be the standard to
some degree.
It won't hold up progress, but it will allow them time to
be able to comply and allow industry time, as well as NOAA and
FEMA, with our networks. We can also and will and are working
with the SEC as well, because the rule that gives 180 days is
another area of this we can look at to see if there is some
relief there, so that we can announce and publish the standards
and still allow the community time to comply.
Mr. Graves. So when will there be a Federal standard,
approximately?
General Rainville. That would be something I would like to
get back to you on. I can make a guess, but I don't think it
would be fair to give you a timeline. We need to push this.
Mr. Graves. Go ahead and guess.
General Rainville. We need to be able to have a list of
products and companies that produce the products for State and
local emergency managers to choose and have confidence in. We
have to make sure that manufacturers know the standard so that
our system can be interoperable with what they are producing.
So we are very anxious to get this going, but we are also
trying to be very realistic to make sure that we can come out
with something that is actually doable with them.
Mr. Graves. You are the leadership. Go ahead and give me an
estimate. Give me a guess.
General.
General Rainville. I would estimate, because of the
manufacturing time that has been estimated to us for the end
decks, using them as a start point, that it would be--after an
announcement, it would be maybe 18 months before they would be
able to get those in production.
Again, we can get back to you with some of the other
requirements that we know some of the other timelines on. We
don't control that, but we have already been talking to
companies that we know might be interested in producing them
and trying to go get ahead of this sum so that we can keep
pushing this.
And that once we do come out with a standard, that we have
some confidence that they are actually going ahead, and will be
able to help us meet it.
Mr. Graves. Thanks.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, I think it is important that we not have a
patchwork throughout the country, but I represent a district in
New York. And one of the concerns that we have in New York is
the fact that we have spent a great deal of money in our State
in order to develop a system ourself, the New York Alert.
Are there any assurances that we can get from FEMA, or what
steps will FEMA take to try to integrate? We certainly don't
want to detract from initiatives within the State, especially
in States that have spent a great deal of money.
Are there any steps to be taken to ensure that we can
integrate what's being done locally and on a State level and
whatever FEMA adopts?
General Rainville. Absolutely. That is one of the goals of
IPAWS is to have an integrated, interoperable system. New York
has done a lot. Washington State has done a lot. The National
Capital Region has a robust capability. What we are doing is
working with them to be sure that the standards we come out
with, that the systems we come out with for the national system
will allow those capabilities to interoperate, that the States
will be able to piggyback off on the national infrastructure,
much like they do now with the current EAS.
Not only do we learn a lot from the States and what they
are doing, but we want to make sure that this integrated public
alert warning system is just that, and will allow the States
who have that capability to continue using that capability.
That is why it is so important that we work with them, that we
understand what they are doing and what their needs are, and
where they are headed as well.
Mr. Arcuri. What steps does FEMA take in order to let the
State, particular States know the direction they are heading in
to sort of lead, but in other words, give States some
indication that, look, FEMA is heading in this direction, so
you may want to taper what you are doing in the same direction
that FEMA is heading?
General Rainville. What we have been doing since IPAWS
program management office was set up a year ago--particularly
in the last 6 months--becoming active, going to conferences,
going to the hurricane conference, going to the IAEM
conferences. Wherever we are invited we go, and we talk about
IPAWS and have an outreach program so that State and locals
know what we are doing.
We also have been working through the 10 FEMA regions.
Region 1 has just appointed an IPAWS coordinator, and we are
hoping to use that with the other regions as well. We did the
pilots in the Gulf. We did other Digital EAS pilots in the nine
States and territories. We are also using that as vehicles to
learn who to reach out to in the States: emergency managers,
obviously; governors, obviously.
Homeland Security advisors in some cases are connected or
not, but we can always do a better job, and we are just really,
I feel, beginning down that path where we have done pilots. We
are ready to roll out the first increment of IPAWS.
As this is rolled out, we need to have an aggressive
outreach and education to the States. In all of this we found
that there are five States that have decided not to use EAS for
their State system. We need to understand why that is, too, and
work with them.
Mr. Arcuri. I don't want to put you on the spot ask you
which States, but you find some States are agents more amenable
to working with FEMA and other States are a little more
cooperative in terms of adapting the same type of strategy?
General Rainville. What we found-- and I can give you the
five States later, and I can probably name them, because I was
very concerned, frankly, that some had decided not to use the
system--but what we have learned is that the States as a whole
tend to trust FEMA because we have longstanding relationships
in other areas for emergency support, but they are very leery
of having a Federal solution imposed on them because they,
depending on their geographic location, they have different
problems that they are going to face natural hazards.
It is very important to them that we look at a solution, at
an integrated solution that can support their choices. We are
learning the best way to communicate with them, but it is an
area that we really look forward to developing further our
initial communications with them, our meetings with them,
particularly along the Gulf Coast last year, were very, very
informative and helpful.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you. Mr. Carney had to step out, but he
asked me if it got to this point before he returned, if I would
ask one question. He represents a district in northern
Pennsylvania. His concern is this: With respect to IPAWS, how
are you working to improve coverage to remote areas?
He points out that in his district, which is rural,
communication is not a foregone conclusion. He notes that he
gets cell-phone service, but only if he stands in certain parts
of his home. Many people in his rural communities don't benefit
from the same level of telecommunications as other people do in
suburbs and cities.
What can they expect in that regard?
General Rainville. Well, I can sympathize, because I come
from northwestern Vermont where we just have no cell phone
service at all.
Our approach is, one, to layer capability, to maintain a
vigorous alert system over radio and television that we
currently have. To layer on that, we believe that probably the
most effective next capability is the ETN, the Enhanced
Telephone Notification, known as Reverse 911--which is a
trademark term now--because more people have land lines, it is
not an opt-in. We can push up to 60,000 calls in 10 minutes if
the State telephone infrastructure can accommodate that.
That is the next, we think, most effective capability
short-term, while we continue to develop the opt-in for Web
alerts, e-mail alerts, pager alerts, cell-phone alerts as well.
Those are all layers that will help reach more people. But for
the rural folks, we really need to make sure that we have,
coming into digital EAS, that we have an ETN capability, that
the States understand and have some funding streams for that as
well, because that will really reach out to the rural.
In those jurisdictions that choose to have siren, that the
sirens can be tied into the alert system as well. Again, that
is a local choice. It works for some and it doesn't for others.
So the layered approach, we feel, is really the way to reach
the people regardless of where they live.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chairman. General Rainville, my
main question is: When does FEMA expect to have a fully
integrated system that is going to be up and running?
General Rainville. I am only smiling because we see this as
the layered approach, and we see IPAWS as a continued
development for alerts to upgrade the technology of alerts.
However, we are rolling out the first increment of IPAWS'
capability this fiscal year, this summer. We are fielding the
digital EAS in the nine States and territory where we piloted
it over the last 2 years, and we are adding five more locations
to that this year.
We also added NAWAS to two States, to Florida and
Pennsylvania last year at their request. We are pushing on our
work with geotargeting with NOAA to be able to do a better job
with the cell phone alerts, which need geotargeting capability
and with opt-in and encouraging States with ETN.
While we continue to encourage to develop technology that
we need to do a better job, we also are very firm about rolling
out some capability now. The States need this now, not only the
standards and protocols, but they need to understand the real
capability that they have available to them.
Mr. Dent. General, my next question deals with that.
Researchers, I know, found that local officials need these
public alert warning systems that meet some basic requirements.
Specifically, they require delivery of warnings to the
public in less than 2 minutes. This is especially true in
common situations like tornados in which the windows of time to
alert people to take cover is very, very short.
Will IPAWS meet this requirement?
General Rainville. I believe it will, for certain delivery
methods now, and our work and development is to make sure that
whatever we do, whether it is work as a Federal aggregator or
whether it is developing better technology to deliver methods
of different alerts, it is to make sure that we don't
interfere, first of all, with the State message or delay the
State message, and that we find ways to reach people the
quickest way possible.
The person with the cell phone is not going to get an ETN
message at home, but they will get it on their cell phone. So
that is very much on our minds.
I think we will see realistically that the very quick
breaking alerts for tornados, where they have less than 2
minutes, it might be difficult to get a message through, just
for the time that it takes that emergency manager to send the
message out.
But NOAA does a fabulous job of getting the alerts down to
98 percent of the public. We are using NOAA's infrastructure,
and NOAA is using our EAS as well, so that we can help each
other with the timing.
So I would say that if that is our goal, realistically,
there are challenges with that, particularly with the no-notice
events.
Mr. Dent. Do you think broadcasters should be required to
carry State and local alerts?
General Rainville. I believe that the public deserves to
get the alerts as soon as possible, over every means possible.
Mr. Dent. I think that is a "yes."
General Rainville. I am trying to stay out of trouble, but
I know that our business is alerts and warnings, and our
passion is making sure that people get life-saving information.
I think that that should be available to everybody. However, I
respect the judgment and the rights of the Governors in the
States.
I know that all of our partners feel the same we do about
getting alerts out, and they are doing everything within their
power to alert their residents.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Picking up really on your question,
really for Ms. Fowlkes, you do have requirements for equipment
and testing as a condition of licensing. You don't require,
however, the broadcasters to certify their compliance.
Given that we are trying to upgrade the system, shouldn't
there be a more rigorous assessment of these broadcasters and
their status?
Ms. Fowlkes. Well, I think that the Commission already has
a rigorous enforcement program with respect to EAS as well as
its----
Ms. Norton. You don't require them to certify their
compliance?
Ms. Fowlkes. We do inspections, and where we find----
Ms. Norton. But you inspect about 10 percent of licensed
broadcasters per year. I understand that you can't go around
and inspect everybody.
But as we try to modernize the system, living in the post-
9/11 period, are there any changes? I mean, these are old ways
of doing business.
Are there any changes you would make given the fact that we
don't expect you to go around and look at every broadcaster to
find some way, for example, to certify their compliance?
Ms. Fowlkes. At this point, I am not--I do not know whether
or not that is an issue that is currently before the
Commission, so that is something--that specific issue is
something I would have to get back to you on.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would get back to us within 30 days
on that. We are talking about upgrading the systems. That means
the FCC, as well as FEMA, should be looking at what it used to
do to see if it is the same as what it should continuing to be
doing.
Apparently there is a Federal requirement--help me on
this--that if it is a Federal alert, then you have got to
broadcast it. But, of course, not all of these broadcasters, we
learned from Captain Judkins, are part of the EAS system. So it
is hard for me to understand how there could be a Federal alert
system where everybody would have to participate.
Then there would be, apparently, a different way of
regulating. I understand most or many broadcasters, for
example, belong. How does the universal requirement stack up
with whatever the States require people to do so that some
don't even have to do it?
General Rainville. What I can tell you is that the
requirement that FEMA has is to maintain an emergency alert
system that can be used to transmit Presidential message, that
Federal alert message, in time of a national crisis.
Ms. Norton. Do you have any idea how many broadcasters have
not voluntarily decided to comply?
General Rainville. It is concerning. I mean, there are
certain categories. Obviously, as you well know, that are
required that it is mandatory----
Ms. Norton. As required of who, it is required--say that
again?
General Rainville. I can get you the list, but it is
required of broadcasters and FCC can tell you who is not
required.
But the major broadcasters, including the cable and
satellite are required. It is mandatory for them to carry the
Federal alert, that Presidential message.
Ms. Norton. We are the Federal Government.
General Rainville. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. We can talk about Federal alerts. But we are
really talking about alerts, almost all of which emanate from
the State.
General Rainville. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Fowlkes, let me ask you, what is if
difference between those that are required by us and those
States and others who apparently participate voluntarily?
Ms. Fowlkes. Basically, in all broadcasts, all media
companies basically, broadcast radio, television cable, so on
and so forth are required to carry the presidential----
Ms. Norton. So who does that leave out, please?
Ms. Fowlkes. If they are just doing the Presidential alert,
that is all they would be doing, the alert from FEMA.
Ms. Norton. Everybody doesn't take that, right? Because--
does that mean every single broadcast media must, in fact, do
the presidential alert?
Ms. Fowlkes. Yes, unless they have come in and demonstrated
a good-faith reason for not doing it and gotten a waiver from
us, yes. All broadcasters have to comply with the Presidential
EAS.
Ms. Norton. All of them are prepared to do so, even those
who are not participating in the EAS system at State level; is
that what you are telling me?
Ms. Fowlkes. I am sorry, I didn't hear the first part.
Ms. Norton. Some do not participate. Can we at least
stipulate that there are some broadcasters who do not
participate in EAS?
Ms. Fowlkes. In the Presidential EAS?
Ms. Norton. No, I just said that you rarely get a
Presidential EAS.
Ms. Fowlkes. Right.
Ms. Norton. This is FEMA we are talking about. Most of the
alerts they have concern with and that the Congress has concern
with, God help us, would be State-generated. Therefore, I am
interested in knowing who doesn't participate and on what
basis, since we know that large numbers do, on a voluntary
basis. Are there large numbers who do not participate, and what
kind of station would be most likely not to participate?
Ms. Fowlkes. I am unaware, off the top of my head, to what
extent. I know there are some broadcasters that may choose not
to participate in transmitting State and local EAS alerts. I
would have to get back to you on the reasons for that and what
kind of station would likely not do----
Ms. Norton. The reason I am interested, Ms. Fowlkes, is the
only reason we are having this hearing is the proliferation of
technology that puts a special burden on FEMA in the first
place. Now, among those are all kinds of radio stations and TV,
which is why FCC also now has to deal with all kinds of
numerous, numerous kinds of outlets that just weren't even on a
map 10 years ago.
So once you get to State regulation, since we are talking
about very rare, very rare Presidential--I mean, even FEMA has
only Presidential for Louisiana.
I can't imagine--and I hope there is no scenario where the
President is going to be telling you whatever is.
But what we are dealing with every day--tornados,
hurricanes, floods, don't drive through the water and the
lights on--the committee is interested in, given the
proliferation of outlets, in knowing who is at liberty not to
participate and in knowing whether or not there is any big
thing to participate in.
Is there some expense involved? Is there some cost to the
broadcaster involved?
Could you enlighten us on that?
Ms. Fowlkes. Those specific questions I would have to get
back to you on. Again----
Ms. Norton. You don't know if there is----
Ms. Fowlkes. Off the top of my head----
Ms. Norton. Any cost? It comes through the State.
Ms. Fowlkes. I don't know how much it is. Those are issues
I would have to get back to you. Those specific questions I
would ask to get back to you on.
Ms. Norton. I am very concerned to know that. Would you get
back to us also on the number of outlets that do not
participate?
You have no idea who is listening to these things. Some
people are listening only to those things. We have such a niche
society. It is very dangerous to have such a niche society.
That is what we have. People look at only those TV stations
that they think are for them. You know, they listen only to the
music that they think is their thing. They don't even hear,
never go to mainstream or maybe to what the average person goes
to. They don't even go to the network news which used to
universalize us all--we used to listen.
That is gone, those ratings are down. The new generation
doesn't listen to news at all, they only listen to iPods. I
mean, the FCC is in the best position to understand this, that
when you are talking so many outlets, so much technology you
have--at least this Member is saying, where is the siren?
Because I do not have confidence, particularly since the
EAS doesn't have to be procured by everybody, that everybody is
going to receive it through our fancy network with technology.
I am very concerned, General Rainville, about what you have
done. First of all, let me say this, before I ask you about
this contractor, you apparently did sign a contract with a
contractor pursuant to an interagency agreement with DOE.
But first I have got to ask you this. You have testified
here that there have been no forums. The only people who can
tell us anything, as we upgrade the system, which we have
stipulated, is largely for what happens in the States and
localities, are located there.
But my first question is how could you let a contract at
all without hearing through forums or some other mechanism what
the States and localities need?
I mean, I was a little shaken to hear you say we do great
outreach and people want to hear IPAWS. First of all, what is
there to hear about? But, far beyond that, why would we risk
investing in technology before listening to the people who long
to help us upgrade, to know what to put money in, since there
is not an infinite pot, and what not to. I don't understand on
what basis you let a contract at all.
How did you know what you were contracting for?
General Rainville. One of our mandates is to assure that
that Federal message can be delivered. So in our desire to
update, upgrade technology into that Federal structure, we know
that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. And it is
that capable and modernized and Federal infrastructure that the
States----
Ms. Norton. By this, you mean what? Are you talking about
some wires?
General Rainville. I am talking about a systems
architecture that would allow the transmission of modern
emergency alerts and warnings. We need that from the Federal
perspective for that presidential----
Ms. Norton. Modern alerts and warnings refer to what?
General Rainville. I am sorry?
Ms. Norton. Modern alerts and warnings refers to what?
General Rainville. It refers to a redundant, a resilient
path for messages, any kinds of message. The current EAS
message as we know it, also for ways for using technology that
we can use that message through a digital means with digital
EAS and through other methods, other devices to reach more
people.
As you said, the people are not at the radios now, they are
off at work on their computer and their e-mail. We need to be
able to reach them through as many ways as possible.
Ms. Norton. We really need to know what kinds of ways
wouldn't be worth money and what kinds of ways would.
General Rainville. Right.
Ms. Norton. You know, we just as a matter of general
knowledge, know that cell phones are not very reliable in lots
and lots and lots of places, including where we sit right now.
In any case, even though there have been no forums, even
though we are essentially at startup, even though you do let a
contract to Sandia National Laboratories, as the IPAWS
integrator--integrator of what, I can't imagine--anyway,
somebody must have known, because they were supposed to
deliver. They were supposed to deliver all these things you
just talked about, IPAWS technology, work on standards
development, work to ensure that all IPAWS systems receive
certification and accreditation and support for the pilot.
We understand that they got approximately $18 million and
that you received almost no deliverables.
Was this contract competitively bid?
General Rainville. This was an interagency agreement that
we already had with DOE, that we used to go to Sandia, who is,
as you know one of the national labs.
Ms. Norton. My question was very direct.
General Rainville. I am sorry?
Ms. Norton. My question was very direct. Was this contract
bid by competition?
General Rainville. Not to my knowledge. That was before I
came to FEMA, but not to my knowledge, because it was already a
standing IAA that we had with DOE and Sandia.
Ms. Norton. Now, they took the money and ran, and you don't
have much to show for it; is that true?
General Rainville. Right now, the piece of their work that
has not been delivered is under review at FEMA.
Ms. Norton. Is what?
General Rainville. Is under review at FEMA. We continue----
Ms. Norton. Did they deliver anything, General Rainville?
General Rainville. They delivered the work for the Gulf
pilots of the--they subcontracted out with other vendors for
the opt-in, the ETN, the American Sign Language alert for the
deaf and hard-of-hearing.
Ms. Norton. They subcontracted?
General Rainville. They did. But they integrated and they
ran the pilots for us. That is one thing they delivered. But
they did not deliver, as was provided in the statement of work,
the documents, the after-action reports, we don't have a draft.
The standards and protocols have not been delivered, and they
have not given us any of that documentation.
So that is now----
Ms. Norton. Have you received any of your funds back from
Sandia?
General Rainville. We have indicated to them that we expect
$3 million to come back to us that they have not already used.
Ms. Norton. They are going to keep the $18 million fully?
General Rainville. Well, they are saying that they have
used that money to do whatever they have done to this point.
Ms. Norton. Do you believe they can do the job, IPAWS' job?
They got the pilot from which you were supposed to learn to do
it for the country. Can they do the job? If not, what are you
going to do about getting somebody who can?
General Rainville. What we are doing now is we are
reviewing this at FEMA for what we need to do as far as Sandia
regarding--but we are also now working with DHS Science and
Technology to help us further develop some of these systems--
and that we have since stood up a Program Management Office for
IPAWS, as you know at FEMA, who is doing some of the
architecture work themselves.
So we have looked at other means of accomplishing this
work, because we have got to push on with IPAWS. This, frankly,
has really delayed us.
So we are--I will leave it to FEMA to learn from these----
Ms. Norton. Yes, because we learn from these pilots. I
certainly believe you could do some of this work
simultaneously. I am back to, though--really grave misgivings
about the stories of Federal and, for that matter, local
spending on whole computer systems as one example, that just,
you know, I am sorry, this thing doesn't work for us.
After the government has spent all this money, it seems to
me we may be going down this road again. Some of this may not
be preventable, because the way technology moves quickly, the
way we have to try to figure out all the tasks that we really
want the technology to do, and this one is truly complex.
So the Subcommittee would have huge misgivings about your
putting more money out there without these forums. We don't
even think you know what you are talking about, frankly. We
only know what people can tell us about how the EAS has worked.
We only know because you are going to have limited funds. We
only have, what, in our bill, $25 million, $37 for FY 2008. You
are not going to have a lot of money. So you are not going to
be able to do a Cadillac in the first place.
Without systemic input from the field, I don't know how in
the world a contractor could proceed. There may be some parts
of this that are so clearly outdated that any system would need
some of that. But I am even leery about that, given the--
"horrible" is the only word for it--ask the IRS, who spent
billions of dollars on computers that don't do anything now.
So when somebody tells me what I am doing is giving the
contractors and people to do some technology that has to do
with very complicated upgrading of other--of their technology
to deal with every--which kind, technology that people out
there are using, your task is so complex that I begin to wonder
whether it can be done at all, without at least warning people,
hey, you are not going to be able to get this on the cell
phone.
Guess what? It is so expensive and so few of you--I am just
giving you an example. It might be nice that you all carry
this, but the EAS system can't come into everybody's iPod.
Sorry.
But if we tell you this up front, at least you know. But,
of course, if you put out a contract and said, hey, what we are
going to do is get you wherever you are without, in fact, doing
what I regard as the most complicated groundwork to figure this
out. How do you figure it out? I can't tell you, but I will
tell you one thing. You don't know something, you better ask
somebody.
The experts are located where they have hurricanes, where
they have tornados, where they have had flash floods. I am very
concerned. This Subcommittee is very concerned that the New
York example may be the only way to go. New York had 9/11 so
they are doing what they have to do, not waiting for you or
anybody else.
There are people who have had natural disasters, who see
the Federal Government as moving so slow, see you with a failed
contract here, have seen no forum systematically in their area
and figure out, oh, shucks we might just as well do this. It is
very, very concerning, I must say to you.
If a contract is left to somebody else, submit that
contract before it is finalized to this Committee, so at least
we recognize the administrative agency that does it, so that we
can at least understand what you are contracting for. As I have
said, you have got to set up these forums immediately.
I don't have other questions. We have given you a lot of
homework. I am much more concerned to get you back to FEMA to
start you on that homework.
Thank you both for really important testimony about a
subject of vast importance, not only to our Committee and
Subcommittee, but to the people of the United States of
America.
If there are no other questions--are there other questions?
Then we will call the next witnesses. Panel III. Some of
General Rainville's staff might want to talk with some of the
staff of Panel III about who to go to set up forums.
Panel III is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, The Wireless Association; Larry
Gispert, President of the International Association of
Emergency Managers and Director of the Department of Emergency
Management, Hillsborough County, Florida; and Michael Womack,
Region IV Vice President and member of the Board of Directors,
National Emergency Managers Association, and Director of the
Mississippi State Emergency Management Agency.
I am pleased to hear from all of you.
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-McCABE, VICE PRESIDENT,
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA, THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; LARRY
GISPERT, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGERS; AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND MICHAEL WOMACK, REGION IV
VICE PRESIDENT AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL
EMERGENCY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION; AND DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI STATE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Ms. Norton. I would like to begin with the emergency
management. Mr. Gispert, let's hear from you first.
Mr. Gispert. Good morning/good afternoon.
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Graves and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to provide testimony on alert and warning from a
local perspective.
I am Larry Gispert, and I serve Hillsborough County on the
West Coast of Florida as Director of Emergency Management, a
position I have held for 15 of my 28 years in the career field.
I am currently serving as the President of the
International Association of Emergency Managers, and I have
also served as the President of Florida Emergency Preparedness
Association.
IAEM has over 4,000 members in the United States and in
other countries. Most of our members are U.S. city and county
emergency managers who perform the crucial function of
coordinating and integrating the emergency management efforts
at the local level. Our members represent both urban and rural
areas throughout the country.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill is credited with observing
that "all politics are local." I would like to modify those
remarks by saying that like politics, all disasters are local.
One of most basic responsibilities of local governments and
their elected officials is to provide a mechanism to alert and
warn citizens of pending danger.
On the west coast of Florida we have over 90 severe weather
days a year, with events like winds in excess of 60 miles per
hour, driving rain, pounding hail and occasionally tornados.
These events normally occur unannounced and frequently at
night.
Since 1998, Florida has had three major tornado outbreaks
which have killed a total of 62 people and destroyed or damaged
over 1,000 homes. Florida utilizes the emergency alert system
which captures the audio on all television, radio and cable
systems that permit us to issue an emergency message.
We also depend heavily on the NOAA weather radio system to
issue warnings to those individuals who have purchased such
radios. Many counties have access to a computerized telephone
notification system that dials multiple telephone numbers and
delivers a prerecorded message. It has been our experience that
these systems are good for warning a specific neighborhood of
an emergency, but they become problematic in communitywide
notifications because a phone switching network quickly
overloads. We believe we only reach about 50 percent of our
citizens by utilizing all of the existing systems.
Another problem facing local governments is the ability to
warn special populations. For example, visually impaired,
hearing impaired, those with impaired mental skills, and, as
well as the nonEnglish speaking population. None of the current
warning systems makes this type of warning easy, and, in most
cases, it is impossible to reach these types of citizens.
There have been proposals of utilizing SMS text messaging
over cell phones as a means of warning. This method shares some
of the drawbacks of the other systems. SMS message is extensive
and can be delayed like the automated phone dialers, due to
similar switching network problems. Also, most text message
systems require the individual citizen to opt-in to receive the
alerts.
This brings us to the proposed Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, IPAWS. This system purports to be an integrated
activation of multiple alerting and warning systems, each
utilizing the common alerting protocol, CAP. If this is true,
then our ability to warn a larger percentage of our vulnerable
population will be realized and more lives will be saved.
However, systems and technology are not the complete
answer, coupled with an enhanced expansion and a greater
support of our existing public education programs on what to do
when the warning is received. As well as giving hundreds of
public presentations a year, we work closely with the local
media to produce video shows and written pamphlets that also
convey the message of individual citizen action.
The most technologically sophisticated warning system
possible will fail if the person receiving the warning does not
know what action to take to save their lives. This lifesaving
information has to be presented and repeated over and over and
over until it is absorbed and then also repeated at the time of
the warning.
IAEM supports the concept of an improved alert and warning
system if it is designed to support State and local governments
in executing their primary responsibility for warning the
public. We do not want to see a system which adds more time to
the process of issuing warnings. We do want the system to reach
a large percentage of the affected population. It must be easy
to use, reasonably priced to maintain and operate. The system
must also enable us to reach those special populations.
Finally, we need to continue and increase our longstanding
education systems for citizens, so they have the knowledge to
do the right thing at the right time when danger is imminent.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Graves and other Members of the Committee for having me
here.
I am speaking on behalf of the National Emergency
Management Association, NEMA, that is made up of State
directors of emergency management. I am also going to speak on
the State of Mississippi's experience with the IPAWS' pilot
program.
There are several key areas that I will discuss. The first
is that I believe and NEMA believes that the current
organizational structure for public alert and warning for the
most part works well, but more coordination on the Federal
level is necessary.
Second, that Mississippi's experience with the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, was, again for the most
part, good; but then more Federal support is needed to complete
the pilot.
Third, that legislation to implement the Executive Order
and to provide statutory authority for the current practice
could be helpful in moving the Nation's efforts forward,
provided there is more coordination with the State and local
government stakeholders as the system is developed.
I am quite lucky at this point because I am going to be
able to deviate from a lot of my written remarks because they
have been covered by Captain Judkins and Director Gispert. I
would say they are right on target, with almost everything they
have said about the variety of systems that are out there, the
fact that no one system works very well.
I really want to emphasize this education and public
preparedness part of it.
Mr. Womack. It is absolutely critical. We have a lot of
success in Mississippi working with the National Weather
Service, local emergency management directors and other
responders in teaching the public what a watch is and what a
warning is. And one of the discussions that you had earlier
today was about the amount of time you have for a tornado
warning. The watch is often hours in advance, and some of the
warnings can be 10 or 15 minutes in advance. So it is a big
part of this public education.
As with other States, my State uses a variety of
technologies. We use sirens. We use outdoor alert and warning
systems, reverse 911, blast e-mails and some text messages, as
well as some new technologies.
The current organizational structure for alert and warning
systems in the Federal Government works reasonably well, and
there is no reason for radical change. The National Weather
Service's NOAA radio is an excellent tool, and it's used very
effectively in my State and other States. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency, in our opinion, in NEMA's opinion, is the
right place for IPAWS; and we support its efforts for trying to
pull this together.
As we talked--as this Committee has talked earlier, this is
an extremely complex set of issues. The term "patchwork" was
used a little bit earlier. Without taking responsibility and
authority away from State and local government, you are going
to have some patchwork.
As far as the need for the Presidential message, we fully
support that. But understand that 99.9 percent of the messaging
will come from State and local government, primarily from
local.
In talking about the IPAWS and its work on the Mississippi
gulf coast, we used my State as the vendor that provided most
of our technological services. The Deaf Link portion of the
pilot worked very well. The reverse 911 system had a lot of
challenges but ultimately was successful. And there is nothing
like having a voice that people understand and hear frequently
that they trust. Governor Barbour recorded messages that we
were able to send out under IPAWS having to do with hurricane
preparedness and hurricane warnings, and it was very effective.
Even though it was effective, we are only looking at
approximately 42 percent of the calls were live answers, 32
percent of the calls were voice answering machines, and 26
percent were unsuccessful, and they were only landline calls. A
massive volume of calls, 221,000 calls, were made in one of our
tests.
Having the other programs under IPAWS were a mixed success.
The biggest challenges we had was, just as we were working
through all of the problems in the new systems, then the
program was effectively terminated. So it needs to be funded,
and it needs to be on a more lengthy basis.
Last month, Ranking Member Graves introduced House Bill
6038 to direct the President to modernize the integrated public
alert and warning system. We feel that this is a good step. We
feel it will further strengthen the role of FEMA and the need
for developing a nationwide system.
In conclusion, we appreciate Congress's increased attention
and focus on disaster and alert warning systems; and thank you
on behalf of NEMA.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Womack.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you and good afternoon,
Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Graves.
I am Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President for
Regulatory Affairs at CTIA - The Wireless Association. CTIA is
the international organization representing all sectors of the
wireless industry: carriers, manufacturers, content and data
providers. I am privileged to appear before you today to
present CTIA's views on the important topic of emergency
alerts. My comments today focus on the wireless industry's
efforts to develop an alerting service through the WARN Act and
how these efforts work with the goals set out in H.R. 6038.
This is an exciting time. The wireless industry as well as
Federal, State and local governments recognize the importance
of timely emergency alerts delivered to as wide a group as
possible. CTIA and the industry understand the role wireless
can play in consumer safety. The industry already delivers over
100,000 e-911 calls each day.
The industry was proud to support the Warning Alert and
Response Network Act. The key element of that Act was a true
partnership with the Congress, the FCC, government agencies and
industry.
The wireless industry has in its recent past some examples
of what can happen when government and industry partner
voluntarily in the creation of a new service. Wireless Priority
Service is a program through the Department of Homeland
Security that utilizes wireless networks to deliver priority
access to key government officials during times of crisis. The
Federal Government worked with industry to develop the
requirements for the service but did not mandate a technical
solution. The service was deployed and developed quickly with
key input from the technology experts resulting in no
challenges, no appeals and no delays.
CTIA and the industry also launched a voluntary wireless
AMBER Alert service in partnership with the Department of
Justice and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Potentially life-saving messages are delivered to wireless
subscribers who opt in to the offering. And in the emergency
alerting context, CTIA and the industry have coordinated
efforts with DHS, FEMA and the FCC through various pilot
programs.
Going forward, CTIA and the industry believe that alerts
should ultimately be transmitted on multiple retransmission
media. While wireless can and should be a component of any
alerting service, Madam Chair, as you have stated, a complete
public alert and warning system should explore the full range
of redirected communications, media and devices, without
limiting itself to the wireline and wireless phone networks,
radio, television, cable or satellite.
Congress got it right when it established the framework for
creating and deploying wireless emergency alerts. The WARN Act,
enacted on October 13, 2006, properly balances wireless
carriers' capabilities with the requirements of an effective
alerting service. Congress's plan is working as scripted.
The FCC established an advisory committee comprised of more
than 40 individuals representing Federal, State, local and
tribal governments, communications providers, vendors, third-
party service bureaus, broadcasters, consumers groups,
disability groups and technical experts, among others. I served
as one of the wireless industry's representatives to that
committee. Over 11 months, we generated over 600 documents,
held hundreds of meetings, spent thousands of man hours to
develop a thorough, workable proposal.
On April 9 of this year, the FCC issued its First Report
and Order largely adopting the recommendations of the
committee. Among other things, the Order set forth the alerting
service architecture proposed and concluded that a Federal
Government entity should aggregate, authenticate and transmit
alerts to the carriers.
Just last week, FEMA announced its intention to fulfill
this important role. So while the FCC and the WARN Act
committee have established the commercial alert service
architecture and are working on technical standards and
procedures, FEMA will develop standards and protocols to
fulfill its role as the aggregator and issue technical
specifications governing the alert gateway. We look forward to
working with them cooperatively on that process.
The FCC also required that participating providers must
transmit three classes of alerts: Presidential, imminent threat
and amber alerts; must target those alerts geographically; and
must include an audio attention signal and vibration cadence
for subscribers with disabilities and elderly.
The efforts under way with the FCC and industry to develop
and deploy the commercial mobile alert system, with the strong
likelihood of FEMA's involvement as the alert aggregator,
complement the goals established in H.R. 6038. For example, the
WARN Act will help, quote, government reach the broadest
portion of the affected population as possible, end quote, as
well as ensure broad dissemination of Presidential level
alerts, two of the key goals of H.R. 6038.
While the industry is pursuing accomplishing many of these
goals with the FCC and, ultimately, FEMA under the framework of
the WARN Act, CTIA cautions against Congress and agencies
taking any action that could disrupt significant efforts and
progress to date.
In conclusion, a government-industry partnership, as seen
in the development of Wireless Priority Service and wireless
AMBER Alerts, and as being realized right now under the WARN
Act process, will facilitate development and deployment of a
comprehensive, modern wireless alert system. CTIA and the
industry look forward to continuing to work with government in
this effort.
Thank you again for this opportunity to highlight our work
to enhance the Nation's public alert and warning capabilities,
and I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank
you.
Ms. Norton. Well, what impressed me about the testimony of
all three of you, you emphasize that you have got to have a
system that is simple enough for people to understand and that
works. I am very leery of all this complexity out there in
trying to meet all of the forms of media and deal with
everything and say now we have this system and everybody really
thinks they really do have one.
I note in the FCC testimony, the advisory committee I think
to which you allude, Mr. Guttman-McCabe----
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes.
Ms. Norton. --and I see on there, it seems to me, just
looking down the list, virtually all the actors, that this is
an FCC group that one might expect to be on. And it includes
EMS and State officials, public safety officials and the rest.
Are you, Mr. Gispert and Mr. Womack, familiar with this, the
advisory committee for the mobile alert--the so-called Mobile
Alert Advisory Committee?
Mr. Gispert. Madam Chairwoman, yes, some of our members
have participated as representatives of that committee.
Ms. Norton. I am just going to--because I still see--and I
appreciate her staying--that Ms. Rainville is here. It does
seem that your task may be simplified, rather than duplicating.
Maybe there are some differences that would need to occur. But
it looks like if we did this in every State you would have all
the stakeholders ready-made, with an understanding of why it is
needed and with the field experience and the communications
experience needed to put it together. So this might simplify
the notion of getting it.
But I am very, very concerned about the input of the field
and of people who broadcast in the field, particularly in light
of--I guess it was Mr. Gispert's testimony. Maybe Mr. Womack
that had the statistics. Are we dependent on the States? We are
not talking about anything that happens from Washington.
Mr. Gispert. Ma'am, can I correct the record, please?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Gispert. Ninety percent of the alerts and warnings are
issued by local governments. The State doesn't issue many, many
alerts and warnings. It is mostly at the local level, county
and city level.
Ms. Norton. But they do it.
Mr. Womack. Yes, ma'am. The statistics that I gave out had
to do just with the reverse 911 system.
Ms. Norton. I see.
Mr. Womack. It demonstrates that the reverse 911 system can
be effective for maybe between 40 and 60 percent of the
population. And that is it. And that is why you have to have
about four or five or six different systems.
And I totally agree with you that low tech needs to be part
of the solution. There are places where warning sirens are very
effective, in college settings, in places where there are large
concentrations of populations. But I just don't think that we
can go in and mandate anywhere that says this is the system
that needs to work for you.
I would like to compliment FEMA's--their vendors that
worked with us trying to fix the systems that they tried to
field with us. Now, I don't know that I would have preferred to
have more input on the front end of it, but they did try to
come in and fix the systems as best they could until they ran
out of time or budget or whichever it was. So there was a lot
of effort in trying to get the systems up and operational.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, you see, I bring some
skepticism about trying--even trying to put all the diverse
media and to therefore say to the public, hey, look, all of
y'all are in it now. Because when somebody's cell phone doesn't
work when there is some disaster, they will say, well, you
said. We know that, for example, the Virginia Tech shooting
taught us that closed communities like campuses, which are
almost by definition high tech, can use text messaging fairly
well.
But as I look down the road and consider that--how
expensive this will be even to do it simply, I am not sure why
I would want to include text messaging for the Nation, the
capacity to say to the States, regardless of where it is,
people should be able to use text messaging and should be able
to use cell phones. I can't imagine a cell phone that would
work 100 percent of the time. If it does, then they will tell
me it can cause cancer or whatever it is.
The point is, technology doesn't pretend to be perfect; and
the one thing that the Federal Government is going to have to
do and the States are going to have to do is to try to say what
must be included and what does not have to be included.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Well, Madam Chair, if I may, I think
Congress did a very good job in the WARN Act of giving
sufficient detail with not being too prescriptive. So I think
the rationale in the Act was that 255, 265 million Americans
have cell phones. So this is a good outlet. A lot of people
take----
Ms. Norton. That tells me nothing.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. So I am saying----
Ms. Norton. That tells me absolutely--there is going to be
twice that, you know, in just a few years. That tells me
nothing. What I do know is those things don't always work. And
to spend a whole lot of money where half of them may be down--
look, it could be off, Mr. Guttman. Well, I keep mine off. I
don't want to be bothered.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, ma'am. What I was going to say is
that wireless needs to be a piece or a component of the
program.
Ms. Norton. Why? Why do cell phones need to be a key
component of the program? I am telling you, if there is a
finite amount of money, why do cell phones, which may or may
not work, have to be a key component of the program? Mr.
Gispert.
Mr. Gispert. Madam Chairwoman, as a local practitioner for
28 years--and I have 1.2 million people who depend on me to get
alerts and warnings--I carry what is called an alert and
warning toolkit. It has multiple systems in it.
My community is very diverse. We go all the way from the
newly born all the way to the nearly dead. And I have to
communicate across that entire diverse community. And I have to
use every tool in my toolkit.
Cell phones could be a tool. Sirens can be a tool.
Telephone alerting systems can be a tool. The problem that I
have is, I don't have a single button, one button to activate
all the systems. So I have to sequentially pick the tool out of
the toolkit, alert that segment of the population, pick another
tool, trip it off and alert another segment. If I could push
one button and alert a maximum number of citizens, it would
greatly help me.
Please, while I have the microphone--the absolute biggest
problem is our public does not want to be warned. They go
through life--their life is so complex. They have answering
machines on their telephones. Their cell phones are either on
or off. For every system that you have the option to activate,
only 30 percent of the people choose to opt in. The other 72
percent of the people choose not to get the warning.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Womack had some actual figures that made
all this talk about----
Mr. Womack. Well, it needs to be part of the solution. If
we get 30 or 40 percent with the sirens, because we don't have
enough money to cover 100 percent of the Nation with sirens,
and we get 20 or 30 percent with landlines, and we get another
20 or 30 percent with text messaging----
And one good thing about text messaging is, it takes very
little bandwidth compared to voice. So you can push out
millions of messages compared to the amount of time it takes
for voice. Those two--those, you know, 50,000 70,000 calls, two
to three hours to push them out. It has nothing to do with the
vendor. It has to do with the bandwidth of the cell towers. It
has to do with how many calls you can get through switches
locally. So there is an advantage to it. I would think text
messaging would be a cheap--relatively cheap alternative
compared to voice because it takes up so little bandwidth. This
is the expert on it.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. And that is correct.
Ms. Norton. Can you be alerted to text messaging in the
same way you are alerted to the phone ringing?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. You can. And the idea behind the WARN
Act and the technical specifications is it is similar to text
messaging, but it doesn't have an impact on the network. So you
send out one message. It almost acts like a broadcast, sort of
concentric circles; and everyone in the area, whether they are
roaming into the area or they are generally there, gets the
message. The message is simple and straightforward. It is 90
characters. It is easy to read. And I understand your concern,
Madam Chair, but I would just say, wireless makes sense to have
it be a component of it.
On our side of the equation, our CEOs have committed to
doing the upgrades and making the upgrades available. On the
committee, we had representatives from the five largest
carriers, their senior technical person, their chief technical
officer who sat on the committee and put in the time to be part
of this to be a component. And I think Congress looked at
wireless and said, let's--you know, IPAWS is a broad-reaching
effort. Let's focus on one area that is growing. Everyone seems
to be having a cell phone. Let's focus on that. Let's focus on
that.
So you had earlier mentioned concerns regarding whether
there was a clear path or guidelines. Congress gave the
wireless industry and the FCC a clear path and guidelines, and
we are hitting it. So the reason why wireless should be
involved, I would argue, is because Congress directed to us to,
and we have honored that----
Ms. Norton. We are not saying wireless should not be
involved. The question is, if we have a universal system, it
seems to me we have got to warn people in advance which systems
we are using there. If we put out this notion that we have
wireless, we have reverse 911, we don't have any such thing. We
have whatever the local community can do. The capability to do
it is quite apart from what a universal system is.
Look, EAS--and, you know, obviously, I like something as
simple as that. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the
world is not simple anymore. And we do want to communicate to
people. And if people--I can't even get people often to pick up
their vibrations. And the layering, the layering might well do
it. But if we don't have guidance about what kind of layering,
that we don't tell people, don't depend on text messaging, you
who are infatuated with that, and this community, the major
ways we have to notify you are--here I get back to Mr. Gispert
and public education.
Mr. Womack. Can I address the EAS question? It works I
think very well in Mississippi, and I think it works very well
in other States as well. And it is because we have the National
Weather Service working with local emergency management
directors who work with their responder community.
Now I give you an example just this past year. The Weather
Service--the morning, before the storm system came in in the
afternoon--did a conference call with all local directors in
the impacted area saying you are at a high risk for tornadoes.
High risk. You need to make sure that everyone is notified of
this.
So the local emergency management director in the county
called up all of the responders and called up all of the
schools and called up other people that needed to know this
information and said, be ready. This could happen between 2:00
and 4:00. So when the warnings actually came through, they had
already thought through what are we going to do? A school was
hit, and not one child was injured. But that is why it is not
just about warning systems. EAS works well.
The other point I would like to make about it is is because
of its work with public area radio and commercial radio, not
all of them, but if people want to get the warnings, they can.
That is really what it comes down to.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. And one thing, if you don't mind, Madam
Chair, that I would add is Mr. Gispert and others have talked
about education on the consumer side of the equation. I think
as we expand this service into other mediums like wireless,
there needs also to be some education on the alert originator
side of the equation.
I was one of those 30 percent that actually subscribed to
Arlington Alerts in Arlington, Virginia. And we have looked
at--I have sort of cataloged my last 100 alerts from Arlington
County. And if you will indulge me just for a minute, I am just
going to give you the re: line in the e-mail that came to my
wireless phone, the last 10 or so: military aircraft flyover,
traffic alert, rolling thunder, ceremonial cannon firing,
military aircraft flyover, rabid fox in the area, water main
break, Comcast cable outage, flash flood warning. So it isn't
until you get to about the 11th alert that actually there is
one that is a flash flood warning. If you looked at the
statistic in this packet, you will see about 50 in there. I
would say two would qualify by these gentlemen as actual
emergency alerts.
Ms. Norton. When people know that that is what comes
forward, lots of people are not going to turn on their phone at
all.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. We call it the car alarm syndrome. We
fear the car alarm syndrome. That alarms now just go off so
often that people don't bat an eye.
Ms. Norton. The great thing about EAS is when people see
that across their television, they look. Because, first of all,
you have educated the public because it is simple. They know
that it could be the real thing, and they are grateful it is
not. So I am--you know, technology's great advantage is that it
allows us to do a lot of things with it. And I must say I am
looking for something that, once you hear it, once you see it,
you know that it means you have got to pay attention to it.
And, yes, public education is part of this. I am not sure
where people would get this public education. I know how they
got the EAS. They just got it through it coming on, telling you
this is a test, and that is how people got to know it. They
didn't have to make any particular effort.
Mr. Womack. But if you fund emergency management at the
local level and you fund National Weather Service at the local
level, then they can be out there doing your education. Because
we are not going to be able to do it at the State or national
level. We are just simply not going to be able to do it.
The education has got to come from the local level. They
can teach people what a watch means versus what a warning
means. And they can teach people----
Ms. Norton. Who can teach them?
Mr. Womack. The local emergency management director, the
local National Weather Service representative. If those are
funded--you know, there is this tendency to say we can
consolidate National Weather Service offices or we don't need
to fund every county level emergency management director. That
is not the case in emergency preparedness. You need those
people on the ground who are out there educating the public.
Ms. Norton. You see, my presumption is entirely on the
ground. That is why I was at the forums. I don't think they
should be doing another thing with IPAWS.
Yes, Mr. Gispert.
Mr. Gispert. Madam Chairwoman, my emergency management
office once again is responsible for 1.2 million people. We do
over 200 public presentations a year. We do it to civic
associations, business groups, homeowners associations. And as
a part of those presentations, we tell them about alert and
warning, we tell them what to do when the EAS trips off or when
the NOAA weather trips off, and we continue to tell them, we
continue to tell them, we continue to tell them. They need to
be reemphasized. Because when it actually happens, people
suddenly they get a little addled and they forget what they are
supposed to do.
The biggest problem with sirens is you can use sirens for
one and only one thing. You can train the person. Hear the
siren, do this. If you tell the people, if you hear the siren,
you need to do one of five things, you are in trouble.
So, once again, whatever diverse--IPAWS, EAS, whatever
system the Federal Government approves of, the absolute primary
objective should be educate our public. Educate our public.
Here is what you do when you hear the warning. And then it will
be successful. Otherwise, you will spend millions of dollars on
systems to trip and people say, what do I do? We have to
educate the public, and that is done at the local level.
Ms. Norton. Well, I couldn't agree more, Mr. Gispert; and I
must say that the notion of the kind of outreach and repetitive
work you are doing is the best way to do it. But you know what?
I don't think people go to--I don't think people are very
meeting-oriented these days. The reason the EAS works is--guess
what? I am looking at something I want to see, and you
interrupt something that I wanted to see and, therefore, I got
educated.
I just think we have got to be very sophisticated about how
diversified we become and how busy everybody is. And as we
contemplate this network, sure, allow everyone to do
everything. Because they are going to pay for it. The Federal
Government is certainly not going to do it. I love your low
tech way of doing it, keep repeating it over and over again.
Mr. Womack. Madam Chairwoman----
Ms. Norton. But I must say that I think to the extent that
the media can be involved we are going to be ahead of the game
because that is what has gotten us the EAS effectiveness in the
first place.
Mr. Womack. That was exactly the comment I was going to
have. When directors of emergency management or mayors or
sheriffs or certainly the governor, when they go on TV and
radio and they talk about preparedness and they talk about the
meaning of these systems, that might encourage some people to
go a step further and go to their local emergency management
director or some of these meetings.
It is more than just using the media, put out the messages
with electronic methods. It is also using the media effectively
as elected and appointed leaders. That is one thing I think
Governor Barbour I think did very effectively both during
Katrina and in the hurricane seasons we have had since, getting
out that message of individual preparedness.
Ms. Norton. While I appreciate that comment and I agree
with it, what I am leery of is developing a very simple way to
educate the public and to educate the majority of the public.
You know, who knows how to do that best? Marketing people. We
ought to put some of them on this committee. Simple, direct,
because that is how they get their messages across all too
effectively.
So I am asking then that the WARN Act forum that--do you
think that would be an important way already existing on the
ground, just for the record, to implement the national--the
alert and warning system?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I would argue----
Ms. Norton. Using the forum and that process or one similar
to that?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I would say similar if not very
similar. It is a very good model because it goes across--
broadcasters were involved as long as--as well as wireless and
local and, you know, a good cross representation.
Ms. Norton. So we don't have to kind of rethink and start
from ground zero.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I don't think it has to mirror exactly
that exact----
Ms. Norton. Do you have ideas for changes you would make in
it?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Well, you know, this was weighted a
little bit towards the wireless perspective because the Act is
specific to wireless.
Ms. Norton. Yeah. Because of FCC, yeah.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. So I would say--you know----
Ms. Norton. It is a start right there. Because those people
are already familiar, they have already been working through
the FCC mechanism. I am sorry?
Mr. Womack. I would just say that don't get started in a
program and then, either for funding or time, just suddenly
say, okay, we are going to stop it and then we are going to do
go another direction.
Ms. Norton. Yeah. This happened to you, apparently.
Mr. Womack. It did. Governor Barbour very much believes in
the----
Ms. Norton. What stopped?
Mr. Womack. In December, I believe it was the funding ran
out on the pilot or whatever. But in December we were told that
it would not be funded again. That, if we wanted to, we could
try to contract for the services ourselves. All work on fixing
the, quote, unquote, bugs--and they could have been bugs in our
agency, that we just weren't using it properly--all of that
stopped, effectively; and we were basically told if we wanted
to use our own State money or use other homeland security grant
funding to pay for these services, we could do so.
There are only two problems with that: We are required
under State law to go out for competitive bid processes. So it
may be different vendors that we would have to work with if we
had to contract for services through the State.
The second thing is this: If you are not a high
metropolitan area State population wise, you know, like New
York or D.C. or someplace, your homeland security grant funding
has been reduced tremendously based on threat. Now I say that
we are not looking at the threat of hurricanes and earthquakes
when we are doing our funding, but that is another issue.
Ms. Norton. Very important issue. You all need to say it
over and over again. After 9/11, the emphasis on a terrorist
attack has been very detrimental to emergency management in the
United States as if what you really need to prepare for is al
Qaeda. Of course we need to do that. We have a whole agency to
do that, and we funded people as if that is what the funding
was for in the early days after 9/11. And here we--this
Subcommittee and this Full Committee have long tried to make
everyone understand that even with the Homeland Security
Committee, on which I serve by the way, we are talking about
all hazards, and 99 percent of those are the hazards that you
know most about.
Mr. Womack. I think there has got to be a balanced
approach. NEMA's position is there has got to be a balanced
approach. We have to have funding for terrorism prevention and
response, but we have got to make sure that we keep funding for
natural hazards.
Ms. Norton. What services were you funded for that you
don't believe you should--you could keep going?
Mr. Womack. We are trying to find State dollars right now
to procure the reverse 911 system again, plus some of the other
things like the hearing impaired and some of the other
services. We need the services provided by IPAWS. It is just
now we either are going to have to take homeland security
grants that were----
Ms. Norton. IPAWS, you need the services?
Mr. Womack. We need the services provided by IPAWS.
Ms. Norton. Why?
Mr. Womack. Because, as I said, if we get 40 to 60 percent
of the population with reverse 911, if we get another 20 or 30
percent with the digital EAS or whatever other messages, all of
these services get a segment of the population.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Womack, Mr. Gispert and Mr. Guttman-McCabe,
you are going to find the problem Mr. Womack is talking about
throughout the country. Guess what? We are not going to give
you money. You have got to understand and this is why I keep--
you are going to work within--and that is why these committees
are so important--within a crucible of limited funding. Choices
are going to have to be made.
I know you can reach people if you had X, Y. You are not
going to get it from us. If your taxpayers have it, that is
where it is going to come from. Ultimately, we think most
jurisdictions are going to say, how much layering can we
afford?
The Federal Government has grants. Where is--and, look, we
also have a deficit that is so large that we have what we call
PAYGO, when you can't go and put anything on the floor unless
it is already paid for, which is going to continue to be the
constraint because of the war, because of the tax cuts, because
the money isn't there. And the deficit is sky high.
So all this talk about layering and we can meet this, this
number, that number and the other number, we need a committee
to sit down and make sure everybody knows that the all-purpose
layering will be possible if your taxpayers are willing to pay
for it. And then you take the rap. Because that is what you are
going to have to tell them.
Or what I bet most people are going to do is to say we are
in the EAS system. It does give us all this stuff. But in this
jurisdiction, Mr. Graves said, sirens and nothing--nothing we
can say about layering is going to make rural areas do what is
the optimum thing to do. So we need very tough choice-making
district-by-district, area-by-area thinking unless you live
in--you know, on the east side of Manhattan where, you know,
there are a lot of rich people who want to know in every
conceivable way if there is an alert.
I am trying--I am trying to make you understand the
atmosphere or the climate in which we work now and I think I
can say without fear of contradiction where we would be working
for many years to come.
Oil prices and food prices only forecast that, if anything,
we are threatened with some bottoming out of the standard of
living of the United States continuing to just progress
automatically. That being the case, somebody is going to have
to sit down with FEMA from the local level and help guide FEMA;
and then somebody is going to have to be real clear with their
own people. I upgraded systems that consist of the EAS and not
much more. Keep your radio on.
I am very afraid that if we keep acting like we are going
to fund an all-media system that we will have the opposite
effect on people. They will think, well, they will get to me
one way or the other.
Your testimony has been very important, particularly--but
what it has said to me is that these forums are more necessary
than ever. Because if people have to make choices, then I don't
know how they are going to make them if they are not all
sitting around tables in their own locals with somebody telling
me the honest-to-goodness truth. Mr. Gispert is going to say,
look, in my area I can get to--y'all better be there, because
we are going to make up for lots of other things simply by
going wherever you are.
And in New York they are going to say, after 9/11, every
penny we have--I mean, 9/11 has re-created the homeland
security apparatus of the United States of America.
I always learn from these hearings, and they educate me
profoundly. You certainly have done so. This has been
remarkably useful testimony.
I want to thank all three of you for coming and for bearing
with us while we question the others and for taking our
questions, which had been put forward to help educate us. Thank
you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42774.058