[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THIS IS NOT A TEST: WILL THE NATION'S EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM DELIVER THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC? ======================================================================= (111-65) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ September 30, 2009 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52-609 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, 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 VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN J. HALL, New York ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin AARON SCHOCK, Illinois STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan BETSY MARKEY, Colorado PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia DINA TITUS, Nevada HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico VACANCY (ii) Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair BETSY MARKEY, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois HEATH SHULER, North Carolina SAM GRAVES, Missouri PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana Pennsylvania, Vice Chair PETE OLSON, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Axtell, Tom, General Manager, Vegas PBS, Las Vegas, Nevada....... 29 Coletta, Jim, Collier County Commissioner, District 5, Naples, Florida........................................................ 29 Goldstein, Mark L., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office............................... 6 Hamlin, Lise, Director of Public Policy and State Development, Hearing Loss Association of America, Bethesda, Maryland........ 29 Muth, Richard, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, State Emergency Operations Center, Reisterstown, Maryland....................................................... 29 Penn, Damon C., Assistant Administrator, National Continuity Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency.................. 6 Ramon, Juan, Representative, National Council of La Raza, Washington, D.C................................................ 29 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 51 Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 52 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Axtell, Tom...................................................... 55 Coletta, Jim..................................................... 64 Goldstein, Mark L................................................ 68 Hamlin, Lise..................................................... 85 Muth, Richard.................................................... 97 Penn, Damon C.................................................... 105 Ramon, Juan...................................................... 135 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Penn, Damon C., Assistant Administrator, National Continuity Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions from the Subcommittee................................ 119 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] HEARING ON THIS IS NOT A TEST: WILL THE NATION'S EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM DELIVER THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC? Wednesday, September 30, 2009 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. Ms. Norton. The hearing will come to order. I want to welcome all of today's witnesses. Currently, our Nation is fascinated with television shows, you know, CSI and 24, where the characters work with a myriad of state-of-the-art weapons, scientific tools, and communication devices. Most Americans use the Internet and mobile phones, personal digital assistance. We can Skype video conference our friends 5,000 miles away who sound as if they are just down the street. We can Google and find out millions of pieces of information almost instantaneously. Most of the country, to the credit of the American people, has embraced the use of smart technology. Consequently, many Americans believe that they have the capability to receive a Presidential emergency message via their cell phone, PDA, or fax. They are wrong. In the event of a national emergency, heaven forbid, a 9/11 or an Oklahoma City bombing-type event, citizens must rely primarily on an emergency alert system built in the 1960s, with little progress to show since. Today, thousands of citizens across the country rely on the familiar system that interrupts television viewing with a beeping sound, the multicolored stripes across the screen--you know, the same stuff that was there when we were kids--and the words, the same words, This is only a test of the Emergency Alert System, or EAS. This system was built during the Cold War to provide citizens with an emergency broadcast on their television or radios advising that they have 5 minutes to seek appropriate shelter because a tornado is approaching, or to evacuate the area because a hurricane will arrive in a few hours, or other disasters. If there were a need to reach the Nation to convey an emergency message, it is, at best, questionable whether a sizeable portion of the country would receive it. The Government Accountability Office reports that there are many unaddressed weaknesses that limit the effectiveness of the Nation's primary public alert and warning system, as far as it goes, considering technology today. FEMA is responsible for administering the national EAS, with assistance from the Federal Communications Commission, to ensure compliance with regulations. Broadcast radio and television stations and satellite radio operators are required to participate in national-level EAS alerts. And State and local governments may use the EAS on an as-available basis, but participation is voluntary. Our Subcommittee's jurisdiction is primarily implicated because of the large number of natural disasters this country experiences every year. Indeed, most of the disasters far and away are disasters under our Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Approximately 90 percent of all messages disseminated by EAS are generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather alerts. In June 2006, President Bush issued Executive Order 13407 directing the Department of Homeland Security to modernize and integrate the Nation's public warning system to create a robust Federal warning system and to report on progress on at least an annual basis. The FEMA Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) program was initiated in 2004 and became the programmatic mechanism to carry out the executive order. FEMA defines IPAWS as a ``system of systems'' which is intended to eventually integrate existing and new alert systems, including EAS. Unfortunately, we are now nearing the end of 2009, and national-level alert capabilities have remained virtually unchanged since the 1960s, and new technologies are not even close to being adopted. Consequently, Ranking Member Diaz- Balart and I asked GAO to examine, one, the current status of EAS; two, the progress made and FEMA's efforts to modernize and integrate alert and warning systems; and three, the issues and challenges involved in implementing and integrating a public alert and warning system. Today, FEMA will testify on the report we asked FEMA to prepare, which has been titled "Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System." At the June 2008 hearing, we heard from various EAS IPAWS stakeholders, including Federal partners, State and local governments, emergency management associations, the broadcast industry, and others, that FEMA had not met with them periodically to get their advice or to inform them of their program progress or direction. At the hearing, this Subcommittee was clear that immediate leadership by FEMA was expected, and that simply attending events and conferences that other groups hold is not an effective way for FEMA to interface with stakeholders. The then-Assistant Administrator for Continuity Programs, General Martha Rainville, said that "FEMA will be setting up a formal group, an advisory group, if you will, that will work to make sure to inform the IPAWS program." There has been some very recent progress, but stakeholders still express frustration with the lack of communication and coordination overall. Therefore, it has become necessary for Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and I to introduce H.R. 2591, the Integrated Public Alerts and Warning System Modernization Act of 2009, to specifically direct FEMA to establish an IPAWS modernization advisory committee to ensure stakeholder input. Currently, I understand that most of the members of FEMA staff who will be responsible for the current and future implementation of IPAWS are fairly new. We hope that with the new administration, the revolving door of staff, shifting program goals, lack of specific plans and timetables, no periodic reporting on progress, and lack of performance measures will be a thing of the past. The danger from terrorism and natural disasters only increases with an antiquated alert system, and FEMA should expect frequent oversight and reports on progress due to this Subcommittee. Without leadership, and in the absence of Federal standards and protocols, many States and localities have felt they had to begin building their own systems. A useless patchwork of alert systems that are unable to communicate with one another is the likely result of the State-by-State approach underway. We have seen that result before when police and firefighters on 9/11 could not communicate. We cannot repeat the same mistakes again. Several of our witnesses have stories to share that will remind us of what is at stake for citizens, and why there must be no more delay in building a modern integrated alert system that takes into account the end-users, our fellow citizens. Again, I welcome today's witnesses and look forward to your testimony. And I am pleased to ask for remarks from our Ranking Member, my good friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me first take this opportunity to thank you again. You have been exceedingly open, accessible, and willing to look at any issue that is important to all of the Members of your Subcommittee, and I cannot thank you enough. And this is another hearing which I think is very, very important. I am also pleased to welcome all of the witnesses, including a good friend of mine, Commissioner Jim Coletta, who is a county commissioner from Collier County. Madam Chairwoman, he had a lengthy county meeting--I believe it was, I don't know, close to 8, 9, 10 hours--a late night, and he is here this morning. I want to thank him for flying up here and testifying later on. Also, he is accompanied by Dan Sommers, Madam Chairwoman. You have been in Florida and south Florida. And particularly you have seen the quality of the emergency management personnel that we have there. Unfortunately, we have more experience than we would like to have. Dan is one of those quality individuals that is doing a spectacular job in keeping the people of southwest Florida safe. I worked with the Chairwoman on this hearing because, as everybody knows, I represent one of the most prone-for- hurricanes part of the country. And the ability to warn the public is, frankly, an issue of literally life and death. This is not theory, this is life and death. And I, like the Chairwoman, who just spoke to us right now, we are both totally determined and committed to modernize this system. And again, I thank her for her leadership in this. In the age of iPhones and GPS, one would think that--and I think most people believe--that the President of the United States could, if there was an emergency, target a specific area and make sure that the information is out there. Well, the reality is that, if you would think that would be the case, you would be dead wrong because that capability does not exist in our country. The fact is, is that if a big disaster hit today, the President could only send out a message basically to the entire country, and it is doubtful if that message would actually get to those who really need to hear it, to those who are in the way of whatever disaster it may be. There is a likely chance that message would never be received to those that really need to hear it. If you are hearing or visually impaired or handicapped or have limited English proficiency, then you are pretty much out of luck. And we will hear from the witnesses today, I am sure, a little more about that. But why, though? Why, one would ask, is that possible? Because the Federal Government, frankly, relies, as the Chairwoman said, on these phone lines and on the TV and radio signals that we have seen from time to time--as the Chairwoman said, from the sixties we have been seeing that same message, antiquated computers and phone lines, and FEMA has frankly made very little progress in upgrading the system to the technology that is available, 21st century technology. We are really dealing with sixties technology still. In addition to gaps in coverage, the existing emergency alert system again only reaches the public through those medias, through television and radio. Now, let me tell you, in 2007, this system was, frankly, of very little help in Florida when tornados ripped through several towns at 3:00 in the morning and killed 21 people. That is why I said a little while ago, this is not theory. In the case of emergencies and in the case of the State that I represent and others, obviously, this is a life or death situation. When those 21 people were killed in their beds at 3:00 in the morning, it is unlikely that they would have been watching their television and listening to their radio at that time. But it is likely that they had cell phones, and it is likely that they had land lines, and it is likely that they had other ways where they would have maybe been able to receive the information. Now, if that was not bad enough, GAO warns that it may get a lot worse if States, as the Chairwoman just mentioned, go it alone and start developing their own patchwork of systems because the Federal Government is MIA, is nowhere to be found. And then we risk the real possibility of having first responders not being able to communicate with each other, the Federal Government not being able to communicate with State governments and local governments, et cetera. So we are in danger of repeating the same mistakes that were made with the first responders' radios if we don't get this program on track and get it on track now. Time is of the essence. That is why, as the Chairwoman said, we introduced--I introduced with the honorable Chairperson of this Subcommittee and other Members of the Subcommittee the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2009. This bill would establish a framework for the development of IPAWS. We wish we didn't have to do this. As was stated a little while ago, the President, in 2006, actually issued an executive order and, unfortunately, nothing happened. So we wish we didn't need legislation, but clearly it has been shown to us that we do need legislation. It would require that IPAWS include, among the things that it would include, multiple communication technologies, a capability to send both a Presidential message and States and local alerts, a capability to warn individuals with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities, and the ability to geotarget alerts to affected communities. The bill would also establish an advisory committee composed of key stakeholders, including State and local emergency management officials, NOAA, the private sector to ensure that IPAWS is not developed in a bubble or in a vacuum, but rather that it incorporates the experience and the expertise of others and the newest technology. At the end of the day we have, frankly, two possible futures when it comes to emergency alerts. One is a future in which the Federal Government continues to operate its system based on the 1960s, hoping that those who happen to be watching TV or listening to the radios receive the warning and where States, frankly, tired of waiting--and local governments, it is not only States, local governments are also moving forward with their efforts because, again, the Federal Government is nowhere to be found--so where States and local governments just continue to do their own thing and develop their own possibly incompatible systems; or, which is the preferable option, we can move forward on a digital system of systems, as it has been called, that allows officials to target lifesaving information over multiple devices and through multiple technologies to people in danger. Those are the options that we are facing. So, which future we choose, frankly, will be critical in saving lives, or not, and ensuring that our communities are properly prepared for major disasters that we know will hit our different communities. Once again, I want to thank Chairwoman Norton again for working with me on this important issue. She has been to southern Florida; she has been everywhere. She will not accept status quo. And I need to thank you for your leadership there once again. I also need to thank Chairman Oberstar for including my legislation as part of his larger Stafford Act reform bill. That bill is a huge priority for him. The fact that he has allowed this bill to go on there is something obviously that we are all very grateful for. So, again, I thank you. I thank those of you who are going to be testifying in front of us. And with that, I would like to yield back the remaining part of my time. Ms. Norton. Mr. Cao, the gentleman from Louisiana, do you have any opening remarks? Mr. Cao. Thank you, Madam Chairman. On behalf of my constituents in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, I want to extend my thanks to the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for holding this important hearing today. I would like to also thank them for their sustained attention with hearings like those today and yesterday to discuss post- hurricane recovery. Getting the integrated public alert and warning systems up and running is critical to ensuring the safety of our citizens. This next-generation infrastructure will move away from the traditional audio-only radio and television emergency alert system and provide us state-of-the-art coverage. IPAWS will take advantage of all available warning networks, to include cell phones, land lines, pagers, faxes, personal digital systems, desktop computers, et cetera, and will enable us to communicate with one consistent message over more media to more people before, during and after a disaster. For a district like mine, which is vulnerable to hurricanes and other natural disasters, the comprehensive advance warning that IPAWS offers will be invaluable. That is why I am very disappointed to hear of the delays in implementation of this program that was first envisioned over 8 years ago. I am very eager to hear the GAO's explanation as to the status of this program and FEMA's explanation for the delays. Each day, month and year this program is delayed, we run the risk of losing lives. Over 2,000 Americans died during Hurricane Katrina. And in the written testimony for today's hearing, I saw one report of a man not knowing of the impending flood until the waters were rising around his house. Just from this example we can see the importance of communication. And for this reason, I have taken an active role in increasing the government's capacity for getting emergency information out to our citizens. I have authored legislation that directs GAO to conduct a study on our current ability to reach non-English speakers with emergency information and what additional government resources are required to adequately communicate with such communities. I have discussed this and other revisions to the Stafford Act with Chairman Oberstar, and he is supportive. I have authored legislation that would extend the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program through fiscal year 2012 to give States additional time to apply for these grants. I am a cosponsor of the Chairwoman and Ranking Member's bill to ensure the implementation of the IPAWS program. I organized Members from the Gulf Coast in sending a letter to the Department of Defense to look at pilot programs for implementation of IPAWS while FEMA is working out their implementation of IPAWS. This is the 21st century. With the technology we have available to us today, there is no excuse for any more delays in getting IPAWS up and running. I know that the Chairwoman and Ranking Member and I, we want to hear firm commitments to deadlines from FEMA for which you can be assured we will hold you accountable. There should be no more delays. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Ms. Norton. We will go to our first panel. And we will hear first from Mark Goldstein, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office. Mr. Goldstein. TESTIMONY OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND DAMON C. PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our report being released today on the status of the Nation's emergency public alert and warning systems. This system, the Emergency Alert System, EAS, provides the President and other authorized officials with the limited capacity to transmit emergency messages to the public. In our previous work, we have found that EAS relies upon antiquated methods that date back to 1963, exposing the system to weaknesses, including questionable reliability and versatility. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security, by executive order, was given the responsibility for modernizing public alert and warning systems to ensure their capability of distributing alerts through varied telecommunications modes and to tailor alerts to specific geographic areas. FEMA, the entity within DHS responsible for the program, is working on the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, which is intended to eventually integrate EAS into a larger warning network. When completed, EAS is expected to be superseded by the IPAWS "system of systems" to form the country's comprehensive public alert system. As FEMA develops IPAWS, State and local governments are implementing their own warning systems, which may be difficult to integrate with the broader IPAWS system. My testimony, based on our report today, focuses on the current status of EAS, the progress made on FEMA's efforts to modernize and integrate alert and warning systems, and coordination issues involved in implementing an Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. GAO's findings from today's report are as follows: First, as the primary national-level public warning system, EAS is an important alert tool, but it exhibits longstanding weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. In particular, the reliability of the national-level relay system, which would be critical if the President were to issue a national-level alert, remains questionable due to a lack of redundancy, gaps in coverage, a lack of testing and training, and limitations in how alerts are disseminated to the public. Further, EAS provides little capability to alert specific geographic regions. FEMA has projects underway to address some of these weaknesses; however, to date little progress has been made, and EAS remains largely unchanged since GAO's previous review completed in March 2007. As a result, EAS does not fulfill the need for a reliable comprehensive alert system. Second, initiated in 2004, FEMA's IPAWS program has made little progress. IPAWS is intended to integrate new and existing alert capabilities, including EAS, into a system of systems. However, national-level alert capabilities have remained unchanged, and new technologies have not been adopted. IPAWS efforts have been affected by shifting program goals, a lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly organized program information from which to make management decisions. The vision of IPAWS has changed twice over the course of the program, and strategic goals and milestones are not clearly defined as IPAWS has operated without an implementation plan from early 2007 until this summer. Subsequently, as State and local governments are forging ahead with their own alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has stalled, and many of the functional goals of IPAWS, such as geotargeting of messages and dissemination through redundant pathways to multiple devices, have yet to reach operational capacity. FEMA conducted a series of pilot projects without systemically assessing outcomes or lessons learned, and without substantially advancing alert and warning systems. FEMA does not periodically report on IPAWS' progress; therefore, program transparency and accountability are lacking. Third, FEMA faces coordination issues in developing and implementing IPAWS. Effective public warning depends on the expertise, efforts and cooperation of diverse stakeholders, such as State and local emergency managers and the telecommunications industry. However, many stakeholders GAO contacted know little about IPAWS and expressed a need for better coordination with FEMA. A GAO survey indicated that the majority of State emergency management directors had little communication with FEMA regarding IPAWS. FEMA has taken steps to improve its coordination efforts by planning to participate in emergency management conferences and building improved relationships between the IPAWS program and FEMA regional offices. However, despite stating its plan to create a stakeholder Subcommittee and state advisory committee, FEMA has established neither group and has no current plans to do so. In the report released today, GAO recommends that FEMA implement processes for systems development and deployment, report periodically on progress toward achieving an Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, and implementing a plan to verify the dependability of IPAWS and to train IPAWS participants. In response to our report, DHS agreed with all the recommendations and provided explanations of actions aimed at addressing them. However, FEMA's planned actions to address the recommendations may be not sufficient. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you have. Thank you. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity Programs, FEMA. Mr. Penn. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and Members of the Subcommittee. First, I would like to say that our hearts and prayers go out to the families of those affected by yesterday's tsunami in American Samoa and the adjoining regions. FEMA activated its National Response Coordination Center yesterday, and Administrator Fugate is moving lifesaving equipment into the area. I got notification just as I came into the room that the first assessment team has arrived on site. And I know you have gotten updates, and we will continue to provide those to you as the situation develops. I am Damon Penn, the Assistant Administrator for FEMA's National Continuity Programs Directorate. I recently joined FEMA after retiring from the United States Army. My first exposure to continuity programs came about 15 years ago when I began work on some Department of Defense programs, and my experience with FEMA began in 2004, when I served as Defense Coordinating Officer for Florida. There I was responsible for Department of Defense response and assets in support of the State emergency management's efforts for the four hurricanes that ravaged the State. I also served in that same capacity for Hurricane Katrina in 2004 in the State of Mississippi. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and give you an update on the status of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS. IPAWS, as you are well aware, is the Nation's next- generation public alerting system. Its purpose is to provide public alert and warning services to Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency managers. In partnership with organizations like the Association of Public Television Stations, IPAWS will integrate and modernize the emergency alert system by increasing the number of dissemination paths to the primary entry points, or PEP stations. Further, it will provide an interface to commercial cellular carriers, giving them a broadcast cellular alert capability. In addition, the program is developing interoperable standards to support the distribution of alert and warning messages to State and local warning systems, such as emergency telephone network dialers, Web sites, cellular phones, and other technologies. My vision of IPAWS is to provide an effective and comprehensive system that enables the proper authorities to alert and warn over 90 percent of the American people through multiple means under all conditions. The end state of the system is that it will deliver the Presidential State, territorial or tribal messages by multiple means. As an example, imagine that a toxic cloud is released from an industrial accident. The individual in the affected area can expect to be notified by a network public and private television, AM/FM or satellite radio, a call to his residence or a cell phone call, a text message to his cell phone, a message on the NOAA weather radio band, and if he or she is disabled or unable to speak English, a message in the format that they can understand. And the system will accomplish this by the end of fiscal year 2012. I realize the size of this undertaking and it is not without its challenges, but we have made great strides in the past few months. Just last week, the Organization for Advancement of Structural Information Standards, OASIS, which is an international standards organization, sent the CAP protocols in the balloting. This will provide us the standard for the industry protocols by as early as the end of next week. From there, vendors are already working on non-proprietary hardware, and broadcasters will have everything they need to be compliant with the new standards by late next summer. We successfully competed a test of the emergency alert system last week that represents step one of a three-part validation towards conducting a nationwide test of EAS. As you are well aware, a nationwide test has never been conducted. Our next step is a system-wide test that we will conduct in Alaska in January. This is to validate our current capabilities and provide the credibility that has been lacking that our stakeholder need so they will support a nationwide end-to-end test by the end of fiscal year 2010. Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with providing 38 new primary entry point stations. They have completed site surveys on 15, they will complete the other site surveys in the coming months, with a complete construction date 24 months from now. We have also updated our outreach at all levels. For example, we delivered 22 regional and State briefings since July of last year, and we have three major working groups that meet bimonthly. During my short tenure, I have personally met with Members who represent the broadcast industry, the Federal Communications Commission, the Primary Entry Point Administrative Council, the White House Resiliency Directorate, and several people that represent State and local governments. I am currently scheduled to attend four major conferences of stakeholders before the end of the calendar year. Our efforts have not been one-way communications. We have learned a great deal from our State, local, territorial, and tribal partners. For example, Florida and several other States are helping us leverage capabilities and technologies they already have using targeted cell phone calling and interfacing with communication devices for the disabled. Texas is sharing the software they piloted to integrate into the NOAA alert system. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are using satellite receivers to relay messages directly versus a daisy-chain approach. Texas and Washington have installed geotargeting systems and are testing the capability to integrate plume modeling into their systems, and we are trying to leverage this as well. The State, local, territorial and tribal governments are also clearly dictating their needs and their vision to serve their citizens so we can build an adequate capability into our systems and meet what they need and expect in the future. As the program runs its lifecycle, I am sure there are going to be developmental and engineering problems. There are going to be conflicts among stakeholders and program delays. But these will not be setbacks, they will be challenges we will overcome. Our policy is moving forward and is on schedule, and we will keep moving forward. FEMA and our State, local, territorial, and tribal partners are all committed to IPAWS and recognize the importance to United States citizens. I lead a highly dedicated group of professionals all of whom share my commitment and my vision of IPAWS. Madam Chairwoman, I again thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am pleased to take any questions you may have. Ms. Norton. Thank you both for your testimony. And Mr. Penn, we recognize you are new. We thank you for your testimony. I would like you to personally deliver this message to OMB. This Committee will not tolerate receiving testimony at 8:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. We believe that the holdup is at OMB. Deliver that message before it is delivered in unison by the Congress through the appropriation bill. Inexcusable. There was even an attempt to get us, in another Subcommittee-- or I think it may indeed have been in this one--to delay the hearing. It will never happen. It will never happen. Plenty of notice. And make sure they know it so they don't put you in that position again because we do not blame you. On your best judgment, both of you, if the President of the United States had to send out an emergency message today, who would receive the message and who would not? Mr. Goldstein. I think it is very unclear, Madam Chairwoman, who would receive it. The system, on its best day, only 82 percent of the population is covered by the primary stations. And when the message leaves the primary stations, as the limited testing has shown so far, there is no assurance that a message would get very far. Ms. Norton. After it leaves the primary stations, there is not an assurance that it would reach very far into the targeted area are you saying? Mr. Goldstein. That is correct. There has been limited testing of the system. FEMA, in the past, has not been very willing to test the system, but they did finally test it several years ago, and three of the primary stations never received the message at all, which would have affected potentially millions of people. And thenin an inadvertent, accidental test in Illinois in 2007, when someone frankly pushed a wrong button, what happened was that the cable companies never received the message either. The equipment that the cable companies used was not functioning. And so, no, there is very little assurance that the system is working properly today and that a Presidential message would get to the American public. Ms. Norton. Mr. Penn, before you answer, we have these different estimates, FEMA estimates, 82 percent of the population--whatever that means--are covered in the day and 75 percent at night. And just as an aside, how can it be that the State of Maine has no coverage--it is a big State--at all? Just so you know, Mr. Diaz-Balart, we believe that parts of your State may not have adequate coverage and that parts of Mr. Oberstar's district may not be covered. How can we have those kinds of ins and outs and gaps? Mr. Goldstein. The PEP stations, there are only 35 PEP stations, the primary stations that distribute the information to other stations. Ms. Norton. There were originally 34, and we upped to one more, 35. Mr. Goldstein. That is correct. Ms. Norton. What is taking so long? If PEP stations are what we have been relying on, why are we inching up, what takes so long? Mr. Goldstein. FEMA indicated the ability to put 69 of them in place within a short period of time, but they have been unable to reach that goal. Ms. Norton. If they had 69, would the coverage be---- Mr. Goldstein. The coverage would be approximately 90 percent at that point in time. Ms. Norton. Mr. Penn, what has slowed up the implementation of PEP stations? Mr. Penn. Madam Chair, I am not convinced that we had a comprehensive building program in our plan, and I am not sure that we took into consideration the time that it would take to build the stations out and establish the protocols needed for them. Our current plan is to build 74 stations, and we have the Corps of Engineers building those for us. As I mentioned earlier, 15 of those sites have already been site surveyed, so we know what the requirements are. The others will be done in the next few months. And then 24 months is what we estimate it will take for us to get all of those PEP stations in place and tested and ready to operate. Ms. Norton. So, for the record, you will have almost doubled or doubled the number of stations up to the numbers--is it 74--within how many months did you say? Mr. Penn. Within 24 months. Ms. Norton. Within 24 months. And you have an implementation plan for doing it rather than a simple goal of the kind FEMA has had and never met? Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am, we do. We have already contracted through the Corps of Engineers. The funds are available, they have them. They have given us a report that their program is on budget and that it is on time. And we don't expect to have a problem with delivering the stations, as promised. Ms. Norton. That is very good news. Is the PEP station the primary way we should be giving these alerts today? We are talking 50 years of progress since, or maybe not. You have to think what will reach the greatest number in the shortest amount of time, or should there be more than one way to reach the greatest number? What do you do in an infinitely mobile society to make sure that there is notification that is timely? Mr. Penn. Madam Chair, it is a primary entry point for the message to get to the broadcast community, so that is what makes the PEP station so important because it is the gateway into everything else, and all the other capabilities that we mention. As I mentioned in my earlier testimony, another major breakthrough has been the CAP program, the common alerting protocols that make sure that all equipment that the States and locals have and all the equipment that we develop will all talk to each other and all be of the same protocol, so it will be interoperable. Ms. Norton. Mr. Penn, this is very important what you are saying. By the way, how did you reach that number of 74? Why not 84 or 104? Mr. Penn. When we did a coverage survey, Madam Chairwoman, that is the number that we determined we were going to need based geographically. Ms. Norton. In order to get to what percentage of the population and in order to get to the State of Maine, for God sakes? Mr. Penn. With a target of better than 90 percent coverage. Ms. Norton. Does that include the State of Maine? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair, it does. Ms. Norton. Why is Maine a blackout here? Mr. Penn. To be honest with you, I do not know. Ms. Norton. I want you to report. I think it is very serious to have a State that is vast in its land space but not in its---- Mr. Goldstein. If I may, Madam Chair, Maine is covered by public radio stations, which are connected to the EAS system through satellite, but they don't have a primary entry point so there is a different approach. But there are problems with that approach. Ms. Norton. Does that mean they would get the notification, the State of Maine, as quickly as we would in the District of Columbia? Mr. Goldstein. That is unclear, and the primary reason is because they are not developed as PEP stations, and so, therefore, they are not designed to necessarily have someone at the stations all the time or to have fuel and redundant systems in place---- Ms. Norton. They may not have backup and so forth? Mr. Goldstein. That is correct. Ms. Norton. Mr. Diaz-Balart, I think you may have a vote. I, regretfully, do not yet have one, so--soon though. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Despite your best efforts. Ms. Norton. Indeed. So I am going to ask you for your questions at this time. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I believe there are three votes. Mr. Penn, let me first thank you for your service to the country and the military. And then also, yes, thank you also for the 2004 season. That was slightly busy when you were the DOD coordinator in Florida. Thank you for the job that you have done there. One of the concerns that I have is--and again, I preface this with the fact that we know that you haven't been there long. I know your background, and I know that you are a person who delivers. But obviously one of the concerns that we have is that these timelines have continued to constantly shift, so the purposes and the goals have continued to change. Obviously one of the concerns that we all have is the fact that this doesn't continue to happen. Secondly, so I can kind of get them both out, is it correct that, Mr. Goldstein, you mentioned that if 69 of those plans, PEPs, were out there, about 90 percent of the population would be subject to get notified, correct? But that is assuming that they work, and we have some questions about them working and the information being up. So even that is, frankly, a bit of a positive outlook, is it not, rosy outlook? Mr. Goldstein. Yes, it is. The limited testing that has been done so far indicate that there are problems with the system in which a message may not be received by intended recipients. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Now, am I to understand that there is not one of those in southern Florida? Mr. Goldstein. A PEP station, sir? Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. I would have to get back to you. I would be happy to. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great, thank you. And again, going back to my question--and Mr. Penn, I apologize, your rank was what when you retired? Mr. Penn. Colonel, sir. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, once a colonel always a colonel. So again, obviously, Colonel, our concern would be that these deadlines continue to slip. And I don't know if you want to comment on that whatsoever. Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, I would, please, if I could. First of all, we will provide an outline of the PEP station locations back to the Committee within 30 days, not just for Florida and for Maine, but to give you an idea of where they all outline. I apologize for this graphic and not having provided it ahead of time, but I thought about it at the last minute and thought I would bring it over. I think this will help explain part of your question about the timeliness and why things take so long for us to process. But I would like to preface those comments by saying that I am here now, I have a very clear vision, I have communicated that throughout, and I do not plan on changing that. We have also made some recent hires of some very dedicated, experienced professionals who will keep us on track. But the graphic is on my left. And it is not important that you be able to read the words, but I ask you for your attention to the three yellow bands that go horizontally, and then the three pieces that go down the left in blue. This is a snapshot of our overall systems plan. And what I did was took a small part of that to illustrate how things run concurrently and how some have to run sequentially. So if you take the first bullet there across the top that talks about the CAP, you can see in the fiscal year 2009 development process that we did, it took us an entire year. And you can see the blue arrow there, and that is the balloting that I mentioned as a major breakthrough with OASIS. And that is important again because it establishes a standard for everybody to adhere to for all equipment that they bring forward. The next period that you see between those two diamonds at the top is the amount of time that it will take us to have industry do their physical development of the hardware and the testing of the hardware that is required. And then the final part that is to the right of that diamond is the 180 days that are regulatorily required to give the broadcasters time to implement their plan. So when you look at that first row from left to right, it seems like a lot of time transpires, and it does, but a good portion of that is testing and fielding that we have to have to allow the hardware to be developed, and then the amount of time for the broadcasters to be able to implement that. Now, if you look at that chart from top to bottom, though, it will show two other programs that are happening simultaneously. Sea mass development, and then the PEP station development that we talked about before. So I say all that to tell you that I think my biggest personal challenge is to maintain momentum of our program. I think we are on the upswing on stakeholder buy-in, I think we are on the upswing on education, I think we are on the upswing on buy-in from the States, locals, territorials, and tribals, but my challenge is to make sure that when they look at single entries, as I just mentioned on this development plan, that they don't focus on where they necessarily fall into only that one line, but that they look vertically as well and see where they fall into the whole program and where we need their continued support throughout the whole program. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Colonel, let me ask you--and again, I said we obviously understand you are new, and I have seen your track record, and obviously I am also a big fan of the new FEMA Director as well, who we know very well in Florida. And I keep saying unfortunately because we wish we didn't have to deal with these issues, but we do. Now, can we get your commitment that you will commit to provide this Committee, this Subcommittee and this Committee, with regular progress reports on the implementation of IPAWS so we can track the progress and know if any of the changes are occurring and any timetable slips are happening, whatever; can we get that from you? Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. I propose that we send you a written report once a quarter. And then of course we will meet at your convenience any time you would like more testimony for an update. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, if I could indulge in one last question, thank you again for your courtesy. Most emergency managers often say that one of the biggest problems with alert systems is that they basically frankly hit way more people than are in harm's way, which obviously impacts their usefulness. So one of the benefits of the modern system would be the ability to target alerts to those affected communities. How localized would an emergency manager be able to target an alert under the system that you are looking at? Mr. Penn. Sir, with the systems that we have looked at so far in Texas and Washington, we have really asked to be able to do two different things. They have systems that fulfill part of this need, but their overall vision is the ability not only to target specific geographical areas, and those could be as large or as small as the communications infrastructure would support. If we are talking about sending a cellular message, of course there is a limit to the number of calls that can be made at one time. But over time then that number is, in essence, infinite. But our challenge there is to make sure that we target in the right sequence so we get the most affected areas first. That is some of the work that we are doing there. The other part of the work that we are doing, and it looks very promising is the ability to integrate plume modeling and other devices so it helps us decide which areas get targeted and which areas get notified first. So if you had an industrial spill, as I mentioned before, then to be able to target the people directly in the path of that cloud first. And those are the kinds of systems that we are working on there. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, both. I will be back right after votes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. I just can't get Maine off my mind, you have to forgive me. I haven't been to Maine very much, but whenever I see somebody really in need, I got to ask, are we going to build a PEP station there? Are your 74, your twice the number you have now? Mr. Penn. Ma'am, I will have to get back with you. Ms. Norton. I mean, there may be a reason. You will find me not a what person, but a why person and a how person. So my real question is why? Then I go on to, well, why? There may be a good reason. If they are relying on public broadcasting, well, you don't rely on it here, you don't rely on it in Florida. How come Maine got left to that? It has big cities, it has rural areas. So I need, within 30 days, an explanation as to why an entire State is left out there? I am looking here at this map, Mr. Penn and Mr. Goldstein. There are States where you, for efficiency reasons, and because of the way communication works, as in the District of Columbia, for example, Maryland and Virginia work very often through us, the center of the universe. And you will find other areas where the center of communications system will overlap. But I am looking on this map, and I just don't see any State--well, Vermont looks pretty much in need. Mr. Goldstein. Vermont is not covered either. Ms. Norton. Look, I see large gaps. I expect to see large gaps if you are doubling the number. So, it is a question of what are we going to do about Vermont and Maine? I would like to know why, in the first place, were--you know, you have got up in that area New Hampshire and Massachusetts saturated. And I am just at a loss to understand even the targeting mechanism for the PEP stations. If I can understand it, then it could be quite fine. But if you would make me understand that. And I would like to know in 30 days whether, one, what is going to be done? Because I have no idea what should be done, I am not saying what should be done, but if in fact with an almost doubling or more than doubling of the number of PEP stations, then I would want to know if Vermont and Maine are to remain uncovered, why? And what is to assure them of fairly equal access, by which I mean of course 24-hour access, somehow or the other somebody on the network has 24-hour access. Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair, I will get you that. And I will get you overall coverage for the Nation as well so that you understand what areas we can reach. The original plan for the PEP stations, as I understand it, was to focus on the larger populated areas first, and then, as you do the buildout plan, go to some of the more sparsely populated areas. And that may be why Maine doesn't currently have a station. But the focus was to try to reach as many people as you could as early as you could and then build out the capability from there. But I will get a proper response back to you, Madam Chair. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Penn. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee as well. We have been in a terrible conundrum about interoperability and the rest, but I must say I am really caught short on how to get my arms around State and local governments going out on their own. I do not know what they are doing, I have no idea whether it would be useful, I have no idea how it will be tied into whatever is being done at the national level; and I would like to hear from both of you. Make me understand why a single dollar which is spent at the State and local levels today is guaranteed in any way to have any relationship to what it is that is being done at the Federal level. Or perhaps we ought to have 1,000 flowers to bloom, so maybe there should be a multimedia approach. We have many different ways of communicating today. You could have a national system--this system that you are building out--plus these other systems; but I need to know how you envision, how you see what, for example, we would end up with and what it would look like, given where the State and local governments are. And I would like to know how far ahead of us they are. Mr. Goldstein. I think it varies, Madam Chair. For instance, in our survey, recently, that we did of all the State emergency management directors, we found that the majority of them are building their own systems without regard to what the Federal Government is doing. Ms. Norton. What kinds of systems are they focusing on? Mr. Goldstein. They vary in different kinds of ways. Some of them would be compatible with what the Federal is doing. In fact, 10 of them already use a CAP-compatible system, but most do not. Ms. Norton. So let me stop you there. If they are not using a compatible system, what would be the effect of what they are doing? Mr. Goldstein. Well, it is a potential Tower of Babel where the State and local governments and the Federal Government would not be able to get out a---- Ms. Norton. Smokestack systems then? Mr. Goldstein. That is correct. They would not be able to get out a message effectively. Ms. Norton. Well, I will ask you and Mr. Penn. It sounds to me as if States are in bad need of guidance. I am going to tell you that they are going to come in here and they are going to testify that we made them do it, that without Federal guidance, particularly in places that I would think people would feel themselves particularly vulnerable--if I were on the east coast or the west coast and you folks would not move, I would just have to move. Even in a matter that affects interstate commerce, as a matter of constitutional law if the Federal Government will not--if there is a hole, the courts will allow--here, of course, no legal question is raised, but to show you just how responsible State and local governments will feel, they will allow folks to do whatever they have to do. So I am very concerned that in the, shall we call it, fascination with technology, with people going around and selling people the Moon, that we are going to have systems upon systems built and billions of dollars spent for only one reason: There has been no Federal leadership, no Federal guidance. So what else can you expect people to do? You need to tell me what we should do, what the Subcommittee should be doing, what you should be doing right at the moment to inform or alert the States and localities of whatever it is you think they should know. Mr. Penn. Well, Madam Chair, I think your assessment is exactly correct. We have 50 States with 50 solutions because they have 50 different sets of problems. The reason they have had to develop their own solutions is because we have not given any national-level guidance and have not given them anything that they can use to build their systems on. I continue to go back to our Common Alert Protocols. I think that is the first step in making sure that all the hardware that everyone purchases in the future is compatible with all the other hardware. Ms. Norton. That is what you have just shown us? Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Norton. By the way, I am going to say to you, Mr. Penn, that is the kind of thing that impresses this Committee, and maybe your military background helps to explain why you understand goals, and how goals mean steps and that nobody believes in goals without steps. So I was very pleased to see what you offered us there. This is my concern: I am now the State of Podunk, located in the County of Nowhere. Administrator Penn, I am about to put out an order for this super-duper technology, way better than EAS and anything you could possibly do. What is your advice and counsel when I write you tomorrow, asking what you think I should do? I am about to put it out. We have got a little bit of stimulus money. We will use some of that up on it. We are committed to the rest. Mr. Federal Government, tell us what to do. Mr. Penn. Well, first, Madam Chair, I would ask that you adhere to the recently established Common Alert Protocols so we make sure that your systems can communicate with all the Federal systems. Ms. Norton. Mr. Federal Government, I am on board with everything you have given me so far, which ain't much, which is why we are doing our own. Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Norton. Now, Mr. Penn, you will also find, when I ask a direct question, I will not stop until I get a direct answer. If you need to go back and figure it out, that is the best answer. If you think you know what you would do, then that is an answer. But "doing what they are already doing well" is not an answer. Mr. Penn. No, Madam Chair. I am referring to the protocols that we are getting approved through the OASIS Foundation right now. Those will establish the language that all the computers need to speak. So I would ask you, as a State, if you were buying anything, that it adheres to those protocols. That way---- Ms. Norton. Protocols, which will mean your system will be compatible with whatever we do in the Federal Government, and those protocols already exist? Mr. Penn. Those are currently being balloted on by the organization. I expect those to come out and be published in the next week or two. And then those will become the industry standard for all the equipment that is developed that we are going to use as a Federal Government; and it will be--if you purchase equipment with the same protocols, you will be able to communicate with all the Federal Government equipment. You will also be able to communicate with all of the other States that are developing programs. So, if Indiana has a good idea and they develop a system, then you will be able to purchase your system to use in your State, and you will be ensured that it is compatible with everything else that the Federal Government is using and the other States are using. Ms. Norton. And it will all go through that Federal matrix of your protocols so that you will know about Indiana, et cetera? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. For lack of a better term, it will have a stamp on it that says it is compliant with CAP. Ms. Norton. So, in light of that, you would not say, Do not go. You would say, Go, if you would like, but with the protocols you have just described? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair, because throughout this whole process, as I mentioned, there are 50 States with 50 different sets of needs. They may have equipment that they need to develop to notify people in a rural area that might not necessarily be needed in an urban area. So they may need to do some of that to satisfy their own requirements as a State and their own alert notification requirements. But if they are lined up with these protocols, then they will also be able to channel from the Federal Government the message through all of those means that they have down to their citizens by the redundant capabilities that we are discussing. Ms. Norton. Mr. Penn, in my hypothetical--all of my hypotheticals come out of my experiences as a law professor. In my hypothetical, someone has had the prescience to actually ask you before spending his money. Your testimony and the testimony of Mr. Goldstein is, people are not asking the unresponsive Federal Government. So my next question is, don't you feel that you should put out proactive guidance of the kind you have just given and of, perhaps, other concerns or matters now to the States and localities throughout the United States? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. I think you are absolutely right. I think what we have done up to this point is, we have had a coalition of the willing; and the States that have participated and the broadcast organizations that have participated are already into what we are doing, and they are all very supportive. Ms. Norton. Say that again. Mr. Penn. I think the States that have elected to participate and the broadcasters and others that have elected to participate have all bought into what it is that we are asking, and they agree that we are going in the right direction. Ms. Norton. I do not know what the word "elected" means, because your testimony indicated that there had been outreach. Can you therefore explain--maybe those elected are the ones who cannot come forward or are knowledgeable--why it is that we have found many stakeholders, including broadcaster associations and local government officials, who are unaware of the IPAWS program? That was frightening. Some are unaware of your goals. Some have never heard of IPAWS. A majority of the States' survey respondents said they had received little or no information. So who is this, electing to come forward? Mr. Penn. Well, yes, Madam Chair, and that is why I said "elected," because we have not done a good job of educating and sharing our program across the broad spectrum. We have had some targeted engagements---- Ms. Norton. So how are you going to rectify that when you have whole gaps and who even knows what your initials stand for and you are way ahead of them now into protocols for their computers? Mr. Penn. Well, part of my outreach strategy is to start with Administrator Fugate, and when he meets this fall with--or actually this winter with the State emergency managers, one of the items on his agenda is to discuss IPAWS and to make sure they understand what the system is and how it works. Ms. Norton. Who is going to elect to come? Mr. Penn. That will be all of the State emergency managers in that forum. I think that is the first step. Ms. Norton. When is that to take place again, please? Mr. Penn. I think it is January, Madam Chair, but I will have to verify. It is either January or February. Ms. Norton. Within 30 days, would you verify when that will take place? Since those who "elect" to come may get the word from Administrator Fugate, would you also tell us within 30 days how you intend to inform the stakeholders of what you are doing in a readable and brief-enough form to be read? Particularly, I am concerned with them knowing about doing their own systems without making sure they are going to be compatible. Do you have any idea, Mr. Goldstein, how many of these systems are not compatible as of now? Mr. Goldstein. It is our understanding that, right now, only 10 States are CAP-compatible. But I need to also mention one thing, which is that CAP is not a magic bullet. CAP does not allow for the receipt of live audio, for instance, and so there are questions about the ability of CAP to be an effective protocol. Ms. Norton. Well, that leads me, of course, to the question of what is the ideal national system--CAP plus what? Now, I ask this question with some hesitation because the industry knows how to update and how to reinvent itself into newer and newer forms of technology. Okay. There comes a point when whatever is the next doodad is of not much interest to me. It may be of interest to my grandchild, but this is not about playing games. It is about systems that are state of the art, that will not have to be updated every year in order to be useful. If you have a vision of what you are doing--and Mr. Penn, I certainly see a new vision for IPAWS--what is the vision for a communication system that would incorporate more than the CAP system, recognizing that the States are already into some systems beyond the old, traditional system? Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. The CAP is, for lack of a better term, a language that says that any equipment that you have will follow this same language, so that is the thing that connects us together. Ms. Norton. But do we really want people to leave people to the salesmanship of high-tech types who always have a new doodad for you and some advice and counsel on what it is we are aiming for? Now, if people want to spend their money over and above what it would take to have a national system that incorporates technology, state-of-the-art technology, recognizing that that covers a broad field, would you be in a position now or in the future to offer them advice about what a national system ideally should look like? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. I think, in working with them, they will tell us what the system should look like. That is another deficiency, I think we have had: We have not actively solicited the solutions that are there and the needs for the States. Ms. Norton. What mechanism do we need to have in place to do that kind of solicitation? Mr. Penn. Well, the first thing we need to do, Madam Chair, is build some confidence and some credibility into what we are doing. Because part of the problem, I think we have with the stakeholders is, they are not ready to come forward because we have not proven as a Federal Government that we can deliver what I just told you we are going to deliver. I think we will go a long way with that with our tests that we are doing in January in Alaska, where we will do an end-to- end test of the network, which will be the first one that we have done at that level before; and then we will follow it by the end of 2010 with a nationwide test from end to end that will show that the whole system works. Ms. Norton. The testing is something that is happening, and it will be important, but these people are not even trained to use the present system. Too many of them are seeing nothing at the Federal level and have not even bothered. Here we have had to put in a bill directing that there be advisory committees. What would a true system of input look like? Are you building such a system? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. I see it as a series of conferences and Committees and Subcommittees, a real organization that does not address the overarching problem--we know what that is, and we have discussed the systems that we need. We need someone like Mr. Witmer behind me here, who is a technician and who can get together with a group of technicians; they can discuss the solutions and work out the nuts and bolts of how you do this. And we have started that on a small scale; we need to make that much larger. Ms. Norton. Mr. Penn, we point back to May 2008 when FEMA intended to create stakeholder and State Subcommittees for stakeholders in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that has not been done yet, apparently. Neither the Federal nor the State Advisory Committee has been implemented, and that is why, you know, we just put a bill in. You figure, when you are talking to grownups, you get a commitment, and that is all it will take, but we have other devices known as a matter of law. We also have appropriation bills that can cut people's funds or make people use their funds in certain ways, but that is really what you do with children. So you speak about these Committees; in 30 days, I want to see the outline to this committee of what a system with stakeholders embedded in your work--virtually embedded, since you are right that you cannot do this blueprint style, top to bottom--would look like. It does not have to have all of the stuff; we just want an outline of what it is you intend. If you submit that to us and would submit this around the country, it seems to me you would begin to let them know that it is coming, that it is a matter that the Subcommittee wants to do, that you want to do, and that it is going to happen this time because they have had their promises. Ms. Norton. You know, part of what happened to FEMA is, these people were shifted in and shifted out. No wonder there has been no vision of what IPAWS should look like and where it should go. Staff turnover. So, sure, if you can have a lot of staff turnover, then whoever comes in is going to do something that may be different unless it is so firmly established that there is a reason to continue it. And of course everyone knows--you have acknowledged that the personnel shifts have affected your work. Now, one of the problems this Subcommittee has--and we know that an agency is not serious if it is largely relying on contract workers, if it is not building it in. And contract workers can go off to the next contract if somebody happens to get a Federal contract. We were disturbed at the figures from FEMA as reported by GAO in June 2009--this is very recent--27 contractor staff, 5 FEMA IPAWS staff positions filled out of 11 noncontract, full- time positions available. See, that is a signal to a Subcommittee that these people are doing this out of their hip pocket. So I have got to ask you about staffing, permanent staffing, that shows us and shows States and localities that this is a new beginning for IPAWS and what goes with it. Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. We have also hired, sitting behind me, Mr. Antwane Johnson, who is a systems engineer with 20 years' experience. He just came over to us from DOD. So, with him and Mr. Whitmer, I think they are the leadership of IPAWS; and as you are aware, I just joined FEMA and this project recently, but I plan on being here through the completion of the program. Ms. Norton. Wait a minute. Are you hiring permanent staff to get this job done or are you going to continue to rely on contract people who can come and go? You know, do you have the positions or not? Mr. Penn. Madam Chair, I have a combination of both. Currently, I have 11 full-time positions in IPAWS. Of those 11, I have 7 that are filled. I have one that we just got a name against, we made an offer to. The other three close out this week in the government offering system. Ms. Norton. So you are going to fill most of these 11 positions? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. That is my goal, to fill all 11. Ms. Norton. Now, why have you been relying on--you know, the administration has said it is going to rely less on contract. The present majority believes that the proliferation of contract workers has meant more and more hands off as far as our ability and the Agency's ability to track its own progress, to know whether or not there has been any progress at all because of the way contracts work. Now, why is FEMA, at least at the moment, using a majority contractor staff for this national work that is vital to national security and to all we do to alert people about natural disasters? Why is there this division at all? You have still got to pay money out. Why are you preferring to pay it out to people who are responsible to your contractor? This may not be his most important contract, and he can put those people out any time he wants to if he thinks he has got another contract--I don't know, some DOD contract, he had better get that done; or they have got a deadline on this one, so off those people go. I mean, why, if this work is important, has FEMA got this kind of subdivision, this kind of division of work? Mr. Penn. Madam Chair, that is a good question. In addition to the 11 permanent staff that I just mentioned, we have 15 contractors that are part of our program management team. They do technical support and they do business operations. Ms. Norton. Do they have skills that you do not have in- house? Mr. Penn. Well, one of the challenges, Madam Chair, is, this is a program with an end date. We expect it to be completed in 2012. So you cannot necessarily hire full-time Federal employees for a program that we know is going to one day be completed. So that is one of the reasons why we have the contractor support. The other reason is, at different times throughout the project, we need certain capabilities and certain technical skill sets that we might not necessarily need when we get to other parts of the program. Ms. Norton. Oh, and we can understand that. If, in fact, you were to tell me that these 27 people had skill sets that are useless to, of all people, the Department of Homeland Security, except on its project, then I would understand. Because nobody would want to just hire permanently people for--particularly with these kinds of upgraded skills. But you are part of the Department of Homeland Security. I can tell you, as a Member of that Committee, I have not been particularly impressed by their own level of technology, so I can understand that this was supposed to be an end date. I must say, in light of the poor record of FEMA on IPAWS, it is amazing that they would use contract employees as a reason of saying, Well, you know, this is only a short time. They have almost done nothing since our last hearing, so these have become, in effect, full-time people because we have gone on for so long. Just to put you on notice--you are new, Mr. Penn--we are going to require you to justify contract employees as necessary in this top-heavy way and as useful only for this project, rather than to allow this division, because we believe this has lots to do with the ins and outs of the matter. Mr. Goldstein, how has having contract workers move on and off affected the ability of IPAWS to develop? Mr. Goldstein. I think the combination of not having much of a permanent staff in the government and the turnover of staff and the turnover of project managers--there have been four in 2 years--combined with a contract staff that is not permanent, has clearly affected the program's implementation, the changes in vision and the slowness of the program's development. I would also add that we think that some of the pilot projects that were put in place under IPAWS, because they have not been able to document lessons learned from these projects-- in fact, a consultant recently determined that, of 28 projects, there was only status information available for 18 and that was only partial information. They have had a very difficult time documenting information in the program and using that information to leverage actual changes in IPAWS. Ms. Norton. Well, I thought the whole point, Mr. Penn, of a pilot project--you have got to tell me what is going to come of this and how much has been expended, because I thought the point of a pilot project was precisely to document it so you could use the information to move forward. So whatever happened to these pilot projects? And how much in Federal funds has been spent on them? Mr. Penn. Madam Chair, I think Mr. Goldstein is referring to, among others, the Sandia contract project that we had several years ago where we, in fact, did not get the product that we were required to receive. We did not get the lessons learned; we did not get the results of the project as were outlined in the contract. That was a single overarching contract that covered pretty much the whole of IPAWS at that particular time. We do not have any contracts like that now, and I do not plan on initiating any contracts like that. The management of the system is my responsibility and mine alone, and we will continue to do that, but I think there are times in the foreseeable future that we will need short-term contracts for specific parts of our system and what we are doing. Ms. Norton. Out of the total number, there were reports on, did you say, 18? Mr. Goldstein. There was some information available on 18 of 28. It was not a lot of information. The status and deliverables were only partly available, according to the consultant, and a lot of the documentation that would help FEMA use the pilot projects to implement permanent solutions was simply not developed and moved forward either for their own use or for the use of the stakeholders. Ms. Norton. Mr. Penn, within 30 days, the Subcommittee wants the figure of how much has been spent in total, recognizing that some of it might have been useful. Ms. Norton. How much has been spent, total, on pilot projects? This Subcommittee wants notification ahead of--I mean, it is the separation of powers. You can do that if you want to do it. We want notification if you intend to do any pilot projects. We want to see what the pilot projects are for and what the deliverables will be and how you will enforce them. Do you intend to do any pilot projects in the future, in the near future? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. The program that I mentioned in Alaska, where we test the full system, is in fact a pilot project. Ms. Norton. When is that going to be? Mr. Penn. That happens in January of next year. Ms. Norton. In 30 days, we want to see it. We want to see what the plan is, how we will track it, how we will use it, why it was chosen. I am going to ask the Ranking Member, who has returned, if he has any questions before I finish my questions. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I know that you want to move along, so I will be brief. Ms. Norton. Go right ahead. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Before the votes, we talked a little bit about this, but I want to kind of go back to it. The GAO in its report--and frankly, today's testimony-- highlighted the number of areas of concern about the EAS and IPAWS. In particular, the GAO points to missed deadlines and to timelines and timetables; and we talked briefly about that. In fact, there appear to be a number of discrepancies between FEMA's IPAWS and the implementation plan issued in June of this year and what FEMA's previous timetables were; and I alluded to that before. For example, the current implementation plan includes a target date of 2010 for the GAO targeting capability, but FEMA's previous timeline was 2007. The implementation plan anticipates an EAS link this year, but the previous FEMA timeline anticipated completion of these by, again, 2007. For the PEP stations, expansion is now slated for 2010 to 2011, as opposed to, previously, when it was supposed to be 2008. So, you know, how can you account for why the IPAWS program has failed to meet these deadlines? Obviously, we need your assurances that we will meet those timelines, and I think you have already given us those assurances, but--obviously, I think you understand the nature of these questions when you look at some of the specifics in the GAO report. Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. I think, again, part of our problems with the overall project management and the way we have done that and what we have and have not done, I think, as an organization, is that we have also not done a good job of capturing the lessons learned and all of the deliverables as mentioned earlier from the contracts that we have let. So my plan for that is more vigilant management of the system, and I will provide the status of where we are and updates to you quarterly, as I committed to earlier. I would like to say that everything is going to proceed on track and that there are not going to be any problems or any time slippages of any programs that we have to support IPAWS. But I do not think that is realistic. I think the way we manage those and how we handle those and how we make them work with the other parts of the program are what is critical to a favorable outcome of IPAWS. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairman, two more if I may. I know that you want to move forward, and I know we have the other witnesses. Look, I am not going to lie to you. I have to admit to you--and I told you this before--I feel better just with the fact that I do know your track record in Florida. And I also know the FEMA administrator well, and there is nobody better in the country. However, obviously, I think there has been demonstrated an urgency for this legislation to move forward, and I appreciate your committing to getting back to this Committee. Mr. Goldstein, I do not expect you to comment specifically on a bill--you know, whether you like it or you don't. But could you comment, are some of your concerns dealt with in the legislation that the Chairwoman and I have been talking about today and that the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, has agreed to put into his bill, which is one that I have sponsored? Mr. Goldstein. I think that any effort to improve the accountability of FEMA to achieve the objectives and to be able to put together a program that runs effectively, that has goals and objectives and an implementation plan that is provided not just to Congress but can be used by stakeholders to chart their own course, all of that is very helpful. Being able to communicate with the public and the stakeholders will be critical as well. Mr. Diaz-Balart. You also mentioned in your testimony--and I have it marked--you mentioned, obviously, that State and local governments are implementing warning systems which may be difficult to integrate with the broader system. Would it be fair to say that time is of the essence? Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir. I think one of the reasons that States have moved out on their own is because there has not been clear direction from FEMA over the last couple of years, and they have felt the urgency to do so on their own. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Just one or two more questions. You know, probably ever since 9/11, people think of terrorism, and the alert that they most don't want to get would be one of those alerts. This Committee, as I indicated in my opening remarks, mainly deals with natural events. DHS, because of the all- hazards concept, should be particularly concerned with the slow movement here because DHS is fully involved in natural events as well. But what is the involvement of DHS with a system that has lagged so far behind after 9/11 when almost everybody was on alert to do better? For example, the GAO, if you look at that report, GAO was not able to document reporting requirements or performance measures that were mandated by FEMA or DHS. Are there now regular reporting requirements? Are there now regular performance measures? Mr. Penn. Madam Chair, there will be, from my perspective, now that I am in the Chair. I am not sure what the reporting was in the past and how that worked, but it is certainly my intention to---- Ms. Norton. Well, let's hear from Mr. Goldstein. What was it like before so we will know what a before-and- after would look like? Mr. Goldstein. Madam Chair, it was very difficult for GAO to obtain any documentation about how the goals were established, what the goals were, what kind of---- Ms. Norton. Were there goals? Mr. Goldstein. There were some very vague goals that most people would not commonly refer to as "goals." Ms. Norton. Different from those protocols, for example, than Mr. Penn spread across the---- Mr. Goldstein. There were some very vague, general objectives for what a program would be; and they changed fairly quickly. There were no--we were not able to obtain any performance measures. Implementation plans over a long period of time did not exist, and again, general documentation that you would expect to see in the audit of any program simply was not available. Ms. Norton. So, Mr. Penn, I will not ask you what you have got. You see what you don't have, and that is what the Committee is going to be looking for. GAO is going to be coming in. This is all about having an objective, outside evaluator. So they have got to be able to report to us on the performance goals, et cetera, the next time. Let me ask you about the training. It was very disconcerting to hear the stakeholders unable to use the existing system. In 2007, GAO recommended a training program. You mentioned that you are creating a training program. If you wanted to establish credibility with the stakeholders, probably the very best way to do it would be to offer training on what they have got now pending, what you are going to have, rather than saying, Oh, wait until you see these bells and whistles; then we will really train you. We think many of them don't know how to proceed on the present, old-fashioned system. Would you tell us what you expect and how you expect training to be accomplished? Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair. A number of solutions are available. We have just started working with the Emergency Management Institute, which is our controlling body that handles our training programs internally for emergency management. Within that, we have started to build a core structure with a number of courses that will be available online for emergency managers on the basics of how to work the system. Also, as we continue through our program model, we have several milestones for when we have to accomplish several training goals within that so that we keep the users on a level where they understand what kind of equipment we have and what they are supposed to do. So training is built into our long-term plan. Some will be electronic means training that they can access from the Internet, but some will be part of our emergency management training. Some are courses that already exist, and some are courses that we are going to have to add in the future. So we already have Federal-level courses for emergency managers. Adding parts into that curriculum as part of the solution and then adding specific courses for specific tasks is also part of the solution. Ms. Norton. Well, I am trying to find out how people get trained on what you do now and then how you then build up to training on what you are putting into effect. So our information is that the lapse in communication from Washington and help from Washington means many people are pretty rusty with the present system. I am concerned about that because it is clearly going to take you a few years to get the system up. Could you get us, within 30 days, a continuum on training beginning with right now? Ms. Norton. Now, some people will say, Well, that is one thing I know how to do. You can make people be trained, but if they know what they don't know by saying, Look, this training is a--what do you call it when you have already been trained? Mr. Penn. Sustainment training. Ms. Norton. Yes, something like that that we recommend for even those of you who think you know the system, and then go forward from there. That is a way of saying, Look, we care about the stakeholders, and one of the reasons you see it is, now we are doing this training; even for those of you who are most advanced, there are some things that you probably need to know. I would just like to know what the continuum on training is, given the fact that there has been very little training. Mr. Penn. Yes, Madam Chair, and that is it exactly. The problem is sustainment training. I think we all do a good job of initial training when we field a new piece of hardware or software. But sustainment training is where you make your money, and that is the part we don't do. Ms. Norton. We were pleased to hear you talk about tests. You plan a working group to test the system. For the record, when do you believe the President's EAS message will be able to reach the public? What is the end date for that, do you think? By that time, you will say it is---- Mr. Penn. For the record, Madam Chair, the end of fiscal year 2010 is when I plan to do a nationwide end-to-end test. Part of that depends on the outcome that I have from Alaska, that I mentioned. As I said before, that not only gives us the information we need to know, if the system is functioning as we think it is functioning, but it also gives us the buy-in that we need from all of the stakeholders. Part of the problem in the past has been that the broadcast community was not willing to donate airtime to do a systemwide test because, regardless of when it is, that interrupts some portion of their programming. Ms. Norton. I don't think you will have trouble saying, if we do a systemwide test based on your time frame, wherever you are--I can tell you, unquestionably, they interrupt right now. Would it be a test longer than that, than the one that beeps and goes out for, what can only be called a minute or so? Mr. Penn. No, Madam Chair, it would not necessarily have to be any longer, but it would not necessarily be at the time that they chose to do it. We could certainly do it at a time when it was not peak broadcasting. Ms. Norton. Yes, that is when they try to do a lot of them. I can tell you of somebody who has heard them in the dead of night here or, shall I say, the dead of morning. Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Norton. I just cannot believe that if they thought there was a serious effort in Washington, that you alerted people that you were going to do this test--we have chosen it based on where you are at what tends to be the lowest viewer point, if that is what you want--you are not trying to see how many people are listening, right? It is hard to believe that if, by that time--you go through training, you have your advisory groups, and people have greater confidence--that you would get much resistance if you chose the time based on the time zone in which a particular locality is found. Mr. Penn. That is my point exactly, Madam Chair. We have not given them the confidence in the system to this point so that they know that this time is well spent. And that is my challenge. Ms. Norton. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Penn. We have found this testimony to be very important and useful to us in reviving our own confidence that we are beginning to get something done. Thank you. You are excused. Ms. Norton. I am now going to call Panel II. We will hear from you just as you are seated. TESTIMONY OF RICHARD MUTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, STATE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER, REISTERSTOWN, MARYLAND; JIM COLETTA, COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 5, NAPLES, FLORIDA; TOM AXTELL, GENERAL MANAGER, VEGAS PBS, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; JUAN RAMON, REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND LISE HAMLIN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND STATE DEVELOPMENT, HEARING LOSS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, BETHESDA, MARYLAND Ms. Norton. First, Richard Muth, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, State Emergency Operations Center. Mr. Muth. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and Members of the Committee; and thank you for allowing me to discuss my concerns about the Emergency Alert System before your Subcommittee today. As you stated, my name is Richard Muth. I am the Director of Maryland Emergency Management Agency, and I am also here as a member of the National Emergency Management Association. Before being appointed to this position by Governor O'Malley in June of 2008, I spent 33 years as a first responder in Baltimore County, Maryland, including 15 years as the county's Emergency Manager and Director of Homeland Security. So, today, I bring to you both a State emergency management director perspective and also a local emergency manager's. My passion for the Emergency Alert System began in September of 2003 when the system failed the residents of Baltimore County as Tropical Storm Isabel was pounding the mid- Atlantic region. At approximately 9 p.m. the night of September 18, as Isabel was pushing water up the Chesapeake Bay, my office wrote an emergency alert message, urging residents of coastal areas of eastern Baltimore County to evacuate to higher ground. Unfortunately, the television stations decided not to air the broadcast immediately. Instead, they treated it as a press release, and ran the information on the 11 o'clock news. For some in the affected area, that was too late. By the time they were announcing evacuation recommendations on the late news, we were scrambling to get boats out to the stranded residents. We later learned that the broadcasters did not think it was appropriate to interrupt the regular programming to the entire Baltimore viewing area for a message affecting only a few dozen; but for the residents, it could have been life-or-death information. Fortunately, none of the residents of that area were killed or seriously injured because of the flooding. However, the emergency response did make for some anxious moments for the residents, and it also risked the lives of the first responders who rescued them. Much of that could have been avoided if we could have depended on the media to broadcast the alert in a timely fashion, allowing people to safely evacuate. So, today, more than 6 years later, have things gotten any better? In some ways, yes. With technology, in Maryland, we have improved the system for distributing EAS messages. Back in 2003, the system in Maryland relied on, as you heard, what is known as the "daisy chain system"; that is, alerts are first aired from larger stations and then carried by smaller ones. But if the primary station in that chain chooses not to air those messages, those below don't receive them and don't air any messages. Now, thanks to improved technology, we can notify a much larger portion of participating stations immediately, though a few still depend on the daisy chain system. Thanks to better coordination between my agency and the Maryland D.C. Delaware Broadcasters Association, I have more confidence that our State and local emergency managers, or my Agency, can get important messages out in a timely manner. Still, a State or local emergency manager nationally cannot depend on local radio and television stations to broadcast an emergency alert. That is because stations are not mandated to carry such broadcasts, although they would be required to broadcast a Presidential alert. There may be times that the President would be broadcasting lifesaving emergency information. In the global war on terror, for example, the President might be the right voice to calmly direct people across the Nation to take appropriate action in the face of an impending attack. But the vast majority of protective order messages are going to come from local and State emergency managers to warn the residents of impending floods, dam failures, chemical spills, and such. Without clear regulations requiring radio and television stations to broadcast State and local messages, we cannot be assured that the public will get the messages before it is too late. My written testimony contains a more detailed, technical description of the improvements we have made, a look at some of the improvements planned for the near future, along with some concerns about emerging technology and Federal regulations. But briefly here, let me offer several recommendations: First, because both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency control various aspects of the Emergency Alert System, delays have prevented needed regulations from being implemented in a timely manner. FEMA must adopt needed regulations, especially in regard to mandatory participation by broadcasters. While FEMA seems to be working towards enhanced public alerting in general, the progress is much too slow. The FCC, meanwhile, seems reluctant to allow the new procedures and technology capabilities that would make it easier to broadcast the right message to the right audience at the right time. Second, leadership and coordination issues between FEMA and the FCC related to alerting systems must be resolved immediately, and the coordination needs to be communicated down to the State and local levels. Finally, we need funds to help pay for the continued operations of various systems, including not just EAS but other complementary services, such as various text, cell phone, reverse 911, and other existing technologies. We are just now learning that the Department of Homeland Security and some of the grants we receive from them are now being restricted to not be used for a continuation of service, which will also hamper the States and their ability to maintain these systems. Once again, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today, and any questions I will be more than glad to handle. Thank you. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Muth. Jim Coletta, Collier County Commissioner, District 5, Naples, Florida. Mr. Diaz-Balart, you may want to introduce him. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for this opportunity. I am glad to have the commissioner here. I have known the commissioner for a number of years, and I can tell you that I have personally witnessed--hopefully, what he will be talking about a little bit today. But I have witnessed this man go out there before the storms and after the storms, going door-to- door, individually, to try to make sure that people get the message. Because, unfortunately, in some areas, there is no other way to do it. And I have been a personal witness of that. It is a privilege to have him here. It is a pleasure to represent Collier County, but particularly when you have public servants like Commissioner Coletta and his colleagues in the commission. I will mention that the Director of Emergency Management for Collier County is also here, accompanying him--a great professional. There is a reason why Florida does the best job in the country, and it is because of individuals, as you well know, and leadership. And so it is great to have one of those individuals who shows great leadership and great caring here with us today. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Coletta, with that kind of introduction, we expect great things of you and your testimony. Mr. Coletta. I appreciate the kind words. I truly do. Madam Chair and Members of this Subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Jim Coletta, and I am an elected County Commissioner of District 5 of Collier County in southwest Florida. Naples is the county seat. However, I represent a district that covers a land area equal in size to Delaware; it includes the Big Cypress National Preserve and parts of Everglades National Park. One community in my district is Immokalee, which has a population of approximately 20,000 people. The 2000 Census identified 71 percent of the population in Immokalee to be Latino, and I believe that that number has grown over the past decade. The per capita income is only $8,576, and 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Immokalee remains the center of the region's agricultural industry. The farms of Immokalee produce a significant portion of the Nation's produce and employ thousands of seasonal, or migrant, workers. I am here today to share with you my firsthand experience about the need for an improved public alert and warning system that can notify our citizens of a pending disaster. In the early morning hours of October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma, a Category 3 storm with winds of 120 miles an hour, made landfall in Collier County, the first hurricane to directly strike our community in 45 years. Thousands of county residents were impacted. Property damage was estimated to be in excess of $1.2 billion and, sadly, several deaths were attributed to the storm. While coastal Collier County was able to recover from Wilma in a relatively short period of time, thanks in part to good building codes that are strictly enforced, Immokalee, with its older homes and trailers that predated our building codes, took a major hit. That resulted in hardship for those residents. It was only by good planning by our emergency management team, led by Mr. Dan Summers, who has joined me here today, dedicated and hardworking government employees and the self-reliance of our citizens that recovery was achieved in a relatively short time. In the days and hours leading up to the storm, we found ourselves faced with the enormous challenge of trying to communicate to the residents of Immokalee the need to evacuate or seek shelter or take other protective measures, a problem that was compounded by the fact that it was harvest time, meaning that thousands of additional migrant laborers were in the community. The majority of the housing in Immokalee consisted of old trailers. It was evident that many of these trailers would not survive a major wind event, and these structures needed to be vacated, and the residents needed to be moved to public shelters at our local schools. The local media outlets were focused only on coastal Collier County where the bulk of the population lives, and on neighboring Lee and Charlotte Counties, with little information being provided to the residents of Immokalee, despite the best efforts of our emergency management office. There also existed at the time a weak communication structure between the commercial farms and local emergency management officials. The challenge became even more evident when commercial growers wanted to get in an additional day's harvest prior to the landfall of storm-force winds, which was deemed to be too risky based upon the timing variables of the storm. Of course, our biggest challenge was the language barrier. Only one Spanish language radio station serves Immokalee, along with one weekly newspaper. The Spanish radio station was abandoned by its staff and was off the air the day leading up to the event. In an effort to reach out to the Immokalee residents, I enlisted the help of Spanish-speaking and Creole- speaking county employees and volunteers from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and officers from the sheriff's department. We took to the streets of Immokalee, going door-to-door, encouraging people to go to the public shelters before the storm arrived. I also wanted to persuade them not to work in the fields until dark, as usual, the day before the storm. Otherwise, they would miss the free bus transportation the county was providing to take them to the shelters, or they might find themselves arriving at the shelters, filled to capacity, during the storm event. It was very clear to me that the farm workers I encountered that day were unaware of the dangers facing them as the storm approached and were prepared to go to work in the fields. They had not understood the radio and TV weather forecast reports in English only. As I knocked on the doors with the interpreter at my side, I was utterly amazed to find that most people did not know a major hurricane was coming and did not know that their lives were in danger. Remember, this was less than 12 hours before the hurricane made landfall. Some workers ended up staying in the field until dark, but we were able to convince the sheriff's office to keep the buses running to take the workers to available shelters, and fortunately, most people who wanted to get to a shelter managed to do so. The damage to Immokalee from Hurricane Wilma was enormous. The lessons learned from our Hurricane Wilma experience is that there has to be a better way to communicate emergency information to non-English-speaking communities. Our emergency management program has launched a number of initiatives to better serve the very unique challenge in the Immokalee area. One that seems very promising is called the Immokalee Recovery Coordination Group. It is a multiagency working group made up of the government agency's social service entities and faith-based organizations that represent the diverse language and culture of the Immokalee community. When activated, they are responding to and coordinating recovery efforts. We are also publishing and distributing Spanish-language storm preparation guides, storm-preparedness CDs in Spanish and Creole, and have door-hanger emergency information available. We are utilizing churches and civic groups to communicate disaster outreach messages, and are developing plans to enhance public transportation resources. We are very experienced in southwest Florida in preparing for hurricanes. During 2004 and 2005, in addition to Wilma, we were also threatened by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, and Rita. I believe we have learned that all disasters are local and that no two disasters are the same for any community. Rural farm communities which enjoy a rural lifestyle face many challenges as it relates to communication and coordination. Ever since Hurricane Wilma impacted my district in 2005, we have witnessed the continued explosion of new technology that enables us to communicate with each other from virtually any place at any time. It would seem reasonable to expect government to be able to harness this technology in a way that can help people during times of crisis, especially those who have traditionally not been connected to so-called mainstream communication channels. In closing, I would be remiss if I did not recognize Mr. Craig Fugate, the new FEMA Administrator. As you know, Craig served as the Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management under two governors, and did an outstanding job guiding the State's preparedness and recovery efforts during the hurricanes, wildfires and other emergencies. I am certain he will do an excellent job for FEMA. Craig understands the critical need to communicate with citizens who may be in harm's way, and we would certainly be grateful for any assistance that can be provided by our Federal Government to assist us in protecting lives and property during emergencies. Thank you. I would be glad top entertain any questions that you may have. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Coletta. The next witness is Tom Axtell, General Manager of Vegas PBS, Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Axtell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking Member, for inviting me to testify today and for having both the interest and quite a bit of passion on this subject. I am Tom Axtell, the General Manager of Vegas PBS. Mr. Diaz-Balart. If I may, we have a problem with the microphone. It looks like it is the same technology that we have. Mr. Axtell. This is the problem for broadcasters. Well, I am Tom Axtell, the General Manager of Vegas PBS, and we run 100 percent of all of the NOAA announcements, AMBER Alerts, dust alerts, and other messages from our health department and other sources. Today, I am representing the Association of Public Television Stations and more than 360 public television stations across the Nation. I also have good experience in this area as a person who was downwind after Mount St. Helens erupted, and saw the role, both the good and the bad, broadcasters play in these situations. Mr. Axtell. [Continuing.] When public television stations made their investment in digital transition equipment in the late 1990s, we quickly realized the significant advantages that digital technology could offer to education, public health, and public safety. Digital television's bandwidth can be partitioned into multiple, simultaneous, wireless content streams, creating a system that can serve the public in many different ways at the same time. One of these ways is sending data that contains emergency information, training videos, maps or blueprints to enhance public safety. Public television's congestion-free digital bandwidth is able to simultaneously support public alert and warning systems as well as encrypted networks to enable public safety and emergency management agencies to transmit vital information securely to personal computers, computers in police, fire, or ambulance vehicles, or computers connected to local area networks. In Las Vegas, this is done through the use of a small digital television receiver that we had manufactured and have installed in over 160 locations. This receiver was purchased and installed per vehicle for less than $300. When public television approached the Department of Homeland Security with a proposal developed in part by tests originating at our station in 2002, the Digital Emergency Alert System was born through a cooperative interagency agreement. Deployed nationally as a part of the original DHS FEMA IPAWS plan, the infrastructure provides for a digital Presidential emergency alert and warning system to supplement the current broadcasters' EAS. It also serves as the foundation that can facilitate governor and local authorities' use of DEAS for State and local emergencies. At Vegas PBS, we worked with this system by securing grants to build out the DEAS technology to deal with the school emergencies, earthquakes, and other threats. We have blueprints, hazardous material locations, utility connections, and other information on over 400 public buildings residing on a data server in our facility. In a school emergency, we can send first responders vital medical information on medically fragile students, complete blueprints, authorize parent or guardian information to reunification centers, and other data. We also have fiber links to the State's emergency data center with similar information on over 2,500 critical infrastructure sites they have identified and catalogued. Other local public television stations in the communities we serve across the country can replicate the successes we have had in Las Vegas with this system with appropriate assistance from Congress. I would like to offer two recommendations on behalf of public television that can enhance the national alert and warning system as well as public television's local emergency response capabilities in this area. First, a renewed focus on IPAWS by Congress, which you have so ably demonstrated today, is essential to ensure the quality and reliability of Federal alert and warning systems. The legislation introduced by the Chairwoman and Ranking Member in H.R. 2591 takes the right approach. We greatly appreciate being included in the IPAWS Modernization Advisory Committee as public television believes it can offer a unique perspective on these issues. Second, the WARN Act made funding available to stations to provide the equipment necessary to send geotargeted messaging and to allow for better bandwidth allocation management. This will enhance stations' ability to create local alert and warning systems. However, those funds are currently being held at NTIA, awaiting coordination with FEMA. We urge this Committee to request that FEMA work with NTIA to expedite the release of these funds in order to enhance the buildout of DEAS. Tomorrow will be the third anniversary when the bill authorizing the release of these funds was signed by the President. This week's headlines have featured fearful stories of people who were allegedly acquiring chemicals for potential subway bombings. It is clear to me that alert and warning cannot be put on hold or delayed. Again, thank you for inviting me today to describe public television's alert and warning capabilities. I look forward to answering any of your questions. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Axtell. The next witness, Juan Ramon, Representative of NFIB, which is a grassroots organization devoted to migrant workers. We have with him a translator. What is your name, sir? Mr. Wesley. Good afternoon, Representative. My name is Carlos Wesley. Ms. Norton. Thank you, sir. If you would be kind enough to translate, we would appreciate it. [The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] Mr. Ramon. Good afternoon. My name is Juan Ramon, and I am a community leader with the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, or FIOB. I have worked with the indigenous community in California for 10 years. I myself come from an indigenous community in Oaxaca, Mexico. FIOB provides support to indigenous farm workers who come from Mexico and Central America. We help them meet their basic needs and we educate them about their rights. I want to thank Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mario Diaz-Balart for inviting me. In my testimony, I will talk a little about the experiences of the farm workers during the 2007 wildfires in San Diego, and I will also offer some recommendations. I would like to begin by giving you a brief idea about the farm workers in San Diego. They come from southern Mexico seeking agricultural work. They sleep under plastic tents in the mountains of San Diego without electricity or running water. They live in the hills because they can't afford to pay rent. Their biggest barrier is language since they only speak indigenous languages. The October 2007 wildfires posed a great danger to San Diego. The fires threatened the areas where the farm workers live and work. We knew we had to physically go where they were. The workers already know us and they trust us because we speak their languages. In the places where they live, it is hard to get news from TV or radio; their only means of communication are cell phones, but sometimes those do not work because their phone cards run out or they have been unable to charge their phones. That is why we always have to be with them. When we got to the field, we asked people to leave. The fire was a mile away from the field and the air was filled with smoke. I spoke to them in Mixteco. I told them the fire was dangerous and that they should protect their lives and their health, and that we have found shelters for them. We were there for about 12 hours to ensure that if the fire changed direction, the farm workers would have a means of escape. Some were willing to go to the shelter, others did not. Ten of them did not come with us because they were afraid of losing their jobs or fear of immigration authorities. We advised them not to return to their homes because the fires were too close. They decided to sleep under the tomato plants. We were very concerned about the safety of the farm workers who were going to spend the night. We brought them sleeping bags and prepaid telephone cards, $5 worth. The next day, we returned at 6 a.m. To check on the farm workers, and we were there with them from 6 a.m. To 6 p.m. For a whole week. Most of the time it was only my organization that was communicating with the farm workers. We saw one of the bosses from the ranch, a fire chief, and people from the Mexican Consulate. The consulate tried to advise them to leave. The fire chief did not talk to the farm workers. Many farm workers experienced itchy throats and watery eyes. I took them to a clinic where they were given free medical treatment. Fortunately, none of the farm workers was seriously injured. We learned from this experience how to better prepare ourselves for the future. There are some recommendations I wish to offer to the Committee regarding how to improve communications with indigenous communities and with other difficult to communicate groups. First, local governments should partner with community organizations. We already know how to communicate with our people and to make sure that the emergency message gets to them. During an emergency, we can inform the local government about what is happening, and we can also transmit messages from the government to our communities. Two, help the community to organize itself. We want to organize groups and leaders. During an emergency, each leader will be responsible for their group. Three, support natural disaster preparedness education as to what to do and where to go. Use photos and videos to help the understanding of those who do not read or write. Four, local governments make a small investment in organizations such as ours so we can help the government to help save lives. Cell phones were used during the 2007 wildfires, but that was not enough. Text messages are a big step forward and could help in communicating with people who speak languages other than Mixteco. We recommend that the Committee pursue other options. Six, one such other option could be to use radio, television. We can reach many indigenous people through radio and TV programs. For example, we could alert them to the H1N1 epidemic. These proposals will help improve the emergency alert system for all communities. This is all. You already have a copy of my testimony, and it includes more detail, so you can read it. Many thanks. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Ramon. Finally, Lise Hamlin, Director of Public Policy and State Development, Hearing Loss Association of America. Ms. Hamlin. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today and provide testimony on behalf of Hearing Loss Association of America and approximately 37 million Americans with some kind of hearing loss. I am Lise Hamlin. I amthe Director of Public Policy and State Development for Hearing Loss Association. I have a significant hearing loss myself and have experienced emergency alerting issues from a very personal perspective. I would also like to thank the Committee for providing the captions that are appearing here. It has helped me participate in this hearing, too. Now, as part of my job, I have delivered presentations around the country about emergency preparedness for people with hearing loss. Over and over, I have heard stories about emergency situations that were more difficult, more frightening, even life-threatening because of communication difficulties during emergencies. And I have been there. On September 11, 2001, I was in my office in Manhattan when the World Trade Center was hit. My coworkers' first reaction was to turn on the television; when we did, we found the news was not captions. Now, for me, it wasn't as much of a problem because my coworkers interpreted for me. But for people who had no access to captions who were alone, it meant being isolated at a very scary time. Then I moved to the D.C. area around 2002, just before the sniper attacks. Now, when television programming was interrupted with breaking news about the shootings at gas stations or in malls or near schools, people with hearing loss were left behind. Now, those stories that were not captioned, they told us, because they were not obligated to because EAS had not been triggered. I guess what that means is that people with hearing loss don't deserve to have access to the same information at the same time as everyone else. So when I am asked, will EAS deliver the President's message to people with hearing loss, I wish I could give you a confident yes, but if a major disaster happened tomorrow, I cannot say with certainty that people with hearing loss will have received the message in an accessible way. Just this month, a woman from Kansas City, Missouri wrote me saying, Recently, the weather sirens went off, and the local station I was watching interrupted the news to report the storm, but without captions. I was left not knowing just what was happening, and I ended up calling the police to find out. I may be old, but I am still interested in the local news, and I also feel very unsafe in a bad storm. Now, when I asked that woman if I could use her story, she said yes, but don't bother about the name; I am not looking for fame, I just need help being able to keep up with the world. And that is all this community wants; we want to be able to keep up with the world just like everyone else. Now, we know technology has changed dramatically since 9/ 11, and people who are hard of hearing or deaf have embraced this new technology eagerly. We use text messaging to a greater degree than most people, except perhaps teenagers; they may have us beat. But we need to exploit this new technology. We need emergency messages that reach each and every mobile device directly. We need e-mails and Internet messages that be can accessed instantly. We need research on what makes these emergency messages understandable. We need video emergency messages that are posted online with open captions in addition to sign language versions for those who need that. We need our States and local communities to have the capacity and policy in place to caption their streamed videos just as we need the national messaging system to support that. And we need broadcasters who post videos online to caption those videos. And if it is an official who is talking with a sign language interpreter right next to them, why can't we get an angle that shows them both so people who need both can get that? That just makes sense. We also need to think about redundancy just as emergency managers will tell us. When the power goes out, many people can turn to portable televisions or their radios, but for people with hearing loss, that won't work. There is no requirement for captioning on televisions smaller than 13 inches, so we have no access to portable television and no access to radio. We need to change the rules so that smaller televisions and smaller devices altogether will be able to be captioned. And we need to support projects like the National Public Radio's project to make captioned radio a reality. We also need to support all the recommendations coming out of the National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH on the access to emergency alerts. And there has been research coming out of Gallaudet's RERC that has also been very valuable to help us get the access alerts we need, as well as through NIDRR, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. At a time when there is so much in the way of new research, new technology that offers hope to people with hearing loss, we find that we are frustrated that these new technologies are not being exploited in the way they could be. People with hearing loss find their needs are often forgotten or remembered after the fact. We need for that to change. We need to be included right from the start. Hearing Loss Association stands ready to work with you to provide information and resources as well as to get the word out to consumers. We have a list of recommendations, which, for the sake of time, I will let you see in the written testimony. But we thank you for this opportunity to provide our testimony, and we urge you to take the steps necessary to ensure people with hearing loss get all the information they need when they need it. Thank you. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Hamlin. Let us move on to questions. As a courtesy, I will ask Mr. Diaz-Balart if he wants to proceed first. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me thank all of you for your testimony. I have really just one question--and I asked the same question of the GAO, I will ask in different words. In your opinion--and I think, Mr. Axtell, you already mentioned it, but do you think that time is of the essence to move forward? And do you think that this legislation would be a positive step? And how much of a positive step in dealing with some of these issues? And whoever wants to deal with that, all of you, however the Chairwoman would like to deal with that. And that is all I would have at this stage. Mr. Coletta. Congressman, if I may go first. Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. Anything that you can enter into this mix to be able to get more information out to the public in a timely fashion would be extremely welcome. I don't think there is ever such a thing as too much redundant information going out at a time of emergency. I would welcome any opportunities. If you can possibly move this bill forward this year, beautiful; if you can't, we will support you next year, whatever it takes. Ms. Norton. Any of the rest of you have anything to add to that answer? Mr. Axtell. We would strongly support public television advancement of this bill, and also the expenditure of funds from the WARN Act that have already been authorized. I think that will greatly strengthen the system. I would like to just point out, technology is going to keep changing. We are now, in Las Vegas, building on a new 4G network. IPAWS shouldn't wait for the 4G network or the next computer card or the next thing. We need a system that we can deploy today for the next hurricane or earthquake or whatever the disaster is. And then as these new things come along, if they are CAP compliant and so on, we will be able to wire them into a system of systems. Mr. Diaz-Balart. On the issue of the WARN Act, both the Chairwoman and I took note of that, so we will be working on that. Thank you. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. I tore out the testimony of Mr. Muth where--we are pretty close to where you are, sir, as kind of a classic example where the stations decided not to air--apparently didn't have to--the storm Isabel message. They didn't want to interrupt their broadcast for the entire Baltimore County and area. And you can understand they are afraid somebody will switch from 24 to something else by the technology they don't even have. They argued that it only would affect a few dozen homes or so. Do you think that the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, as it is called, as it is being built out, would take care of that problem? What would you have the Federal Government do otherwise with respect to an emergency that is confined to an area and with respect to what the broadcasters should be required to do? Mr. Muth. Yes, ma'am. First of all, I am not familiar with IPAWS. I have very little, if any, knowledge of the system at all. We haven't been too engaged in the process. But regarding the problem we had in 2003 with---- Ms. Norton. Wait a minute. You are not familiar with IPAWS at all? Mr. Muth. No, ma'am. Ms. Norton. No one has ever contacted you to bring you into the system? Mr. Muth. No, ma'am. Not me personally, anyway. Ms. Norton. Or your agency, the Maryland Emergency Management? Mr. Muth. I was asking that question the other day preparing for this. They have been involved with two conference calls, but that has been about it. That has been the total engagement. Ms. Norton. This is one of the reasons we are having this hearing today. If you don't have the buy-in of an emergency management system located on the cusp of one of the centerpieces of the target, then you have lost the confidence of all of us. We are aware of how advanced your own system is, so it is important to get on the record. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Muth. Yes, ma'am. So I think our problem in 2003--and I would have the same concerns today--is, once again, that the broadcasters are not mandated to send anything out that is from the State or the local jurisdictions since, as was said earlier, there has never been a Presidential declaration on using the EAS system. They have always been used at the State or local level. Without that mandate, it leaves us hanging in never really knowing for sure whether these messages are reaching the public or not. Ms. Norton. Well, wait a minute. Now, the broadcasters-- that is why I am asking you what should the Federal Government do. The broadcasters are obviously mandated to do what is very, very, very, very, very--and put a lot of verys out there--rare. And so what is it that you think the Federal Government should mandate with respect to such territorial or area matters? Mr. Muth. From my perspective, both from local and State, I would still say that the FCC needs to mandate that the licensed broadcasters have no option, that if the message is alerted from a public official---- Ms. Norton. Because we are talking about a message of how long? Let's be clear. Mr. Muth. Thirty seconds. Ms. Norton. Is that too much to ask, is all I can say, if it were to save one life or one injury? Why, in a country where we are supposed to care somewhat for our neighbor, would that be too much to ask? So that is important. Is there anyone who disagrees with that? Do you think that even though it may be confined to an area within an area within an area, do you think it is too much to ask 30 seconds for everybody? Now, the reason I say everybody is because if it is not everybody, somebody is going to try to get the run-on of somebody who is taking 30 seconds out from his broadcast in order to hope that it will use that remote. So do you think it has to be a universal requirement in order to be effective? Mr. Muth. Yes, ma'am. With the present technology, I certainly do because it is the only tool we have. We can't do immediate notifications without such a tool. Ms. Norton. And there is no way to geotarget a national system like that. Yes, Mr. Axtell. Mr. Axtell. Well, I am not sure I should speak on behalf of all the broadcasters in the entire country, but I can certainly say on behalf of our station and I think most public broadcasters that we take these alerts very seriously. In the State of Nevada, we were concerned that many, many, many people at a whole level of decisions would want to access broadcasting for messages that may seem important to them, but in the scope of things, may or may not be. And so our State has a policy where the State police can initiate an initiative so there is some secondary look at the scale and scope of the issue. So we get Presidential alerts, we get local alerts. And we have made the decision locally that if our health department says that after a forest fire in Los Angeles comes in and threaten people with asthma or other lung problems, we will run those alerts as well. So I don't really have a problem with alerts from bona fide people who have perspective being mandatory--although I am not speaking for the industry per se. It is just philosophically I agree with you. Ms. Norton. I can understand how those in the immediate area might be required to issue an alert with greater frequency. But for one of us to get a zap to let us know that there is a very serious event occurring in our country. I mean, I wanted to know that American Samoa--I don't think I will ever go there, it is very far away, but one-time alert to the Continental United States, if everybody has got that alert, I don't see the argument. And I am open to it if anyone does for not taking 30 seconds to issue an alert. Why wouldn't they, if anything, instill confidence that if you get in trouble there is going to be a similar alert, and therefore the system works? Mr. Muth. Yes, ma'am. And I would like to counter Mr. Axtell only in that I certainly appreciate the concerns of the broadcasters. What I can't agree to is that I, as the emergency manager for the State of Maryland, as appointed by the Governor, would be second-guessed by anybody as to the issuance of a message that I think that goes out. And the same as a local emergency manager; if that person deems this message is important enough, then it should be pushed. It shouldn't be thought about as to somebody else who is not in that position to make that call makes those decisions. Ms. Norton. Because this was in your local area. Mr. Muth. Yes, ma'am, it was in my county. Ms. Norton. So it is hard to understand the justification in the affected area. Mr. Muth. And they can't isolate that. And I will be the first to say that, they can't isolate it just to the 20 square miles that we had impacted by the storm, and I certainly understand that. Ms. Norton. Because they broadcast to how many square miles? Mr. Muth. Many. These are major stations, so I am sure they handle a large part of the State. Ms. Norton. Mr. Coletta. Mr. Coletta. Yes, thank you again. If I may, I have had a little bit of experience with emergency management. I got involved well before I was a commissioner with a local emergency management director that came up with a couple of programs that I helped develop with him. I went for FEMA training two different summers in Emmitsburg, Maryland. I can tell you, for the most part, local control is the essence. If we wait for anything to come down from upstairs, State or Federal, it is going to be too late to react. We need to have clear channels to be able to work across. We need to be able to work on a local level. We know what the people need. But the problem is you don't always have the mechanism to be able to reach out when you need to. So it is not so much who the communicators are, we know who they should be, they should be local people sitting on top of the situation. The problem is, is how do you get the communications out to all the different medians that are out there? What Federal requirements can be put out there to make this possible in a meaningful way? Ms. Norton. Well, but you see there seems to be agreement that at least the 30-second warning should be on there. Now, Mr. Muth, you want that mandated, but at the same time you say in your testimony it is vital that States are allowed to manage their own EAS requirements. Well, what was the State of Maryland's requirement? And did it have a requirement that the county carry this life and death message for at least some residents of the county? Mr. Muth. We internally, ma'am, have the procedures and processes, but once again, we don't own the TV stations or radio stations, so once it got to them they chose not to push it. There is nothing we can do about that. Ms. Norton. That is where the Federal matter comes in. We don't own them, but we regulate them. Mr. Muth. You license them. Ms. Norton. And as long as the Federal Government doesn't say you have to carry it---- Mr. Muth. They are going to decide whether they want to or not. Ms. Norton. And they will be the first one out there after the damage occurs. They will be on the ground saying you poor thing, and send some stuff to all of you people, but not to warn them in the first place. Mr. Muth. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Norton. So we will be working very closely with the FCC to make sure this coordination takes place. Mr. Axtell. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to also point out that the WARN Act provided for geotargeting emergency messages, and that is exactly the complaint that you say the Maryland broadcasters were concerned about. So in our case, we have a broadcast and translator network that is about 380 miles north to south. We currently run emergency messages for snow emergencies in one of our counties even when it is 80 degrees in Las Vegas. We just do that because we carry every emergency message that we are asked to carry. But if we had geotargeting, we would just carry it in White Pine County, or a county like that, and not disrupt the viewing in Las Vegas. That is part of what the WARN Act permitted, and I think that would vastly increase voluntary compliance. But I am not arguing that you shouldn't have mandatory compliance for bona fide emergency messages. Ms. Norton. It was very concerning to me to hear your testimony, Mr. Coletta, and Mr. Ramon's testimony. I would like to understand, first of all, what percentage or portion of the population of the State of Florida is Spanish-speaking at this point? Mr. Coletta. I am sorry, Madam Chairman, but I really can't answer that question. I know in Collier County it is about 24 percent that speaks Spanish. That doesn't mean Spanish is their only language, it means it is their main language. Ms. Norton. You heard some promising testimony about a national test finally getting a test where we could have data and it would be written down so it could be checked, et cetera. If we were to do a test and it did not include ways to reach people such as those Ms. Hamlin testified about, people with special disabilities, did not reach people who speak a different language, could that be considered a test of a national system? Mr. Coletta. It could be. Ms. Norton. I am talking about the national-level exercise that we are working our way up to. Suppose you did a national- level exercise in English for people who have no special disabilities, what would that mean? Would that be an exercise? I think that is the way they do it now. Mr. Coletta. How you reach them is going to have to be one heck of a clever way, possibly through their cell phone. As far as reaching the people who speak a minority language, that was the big difficulty, and that is what drew me to Immokalee rather than going to other areas in Collier County that were being well served by the media at the time. I knew there was going to be a lack of communications there. How you reach them, in our case, was door to door because there was no other way available to be able to reach them. Ms. Norton. But have you had a real test since then---- Mr. Coletta. No. Ms. Norton. When I say a real test, you have almost constant storms of one kind of another. Since, was it Isabel? Mr. Coletta. To be honest with you, since then they were fairly minor storms that didn't require---- Ms. Norton. Well, you have begun to have relations with organizations like Mr. Ramon's, so would you have to go door to door next month---- Mr. Coletta. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Norton. --to reach people who speak Spanish as their first language? Mr. Coletta. Yes. If I may, we put together a mechanism in place so that I personally don't have to mobilize a large number of people. Ms. Norton. But you have some people who would mobilize? Mr. Coletta. I mobilize them in a manner of like an 8-hour period. Ms. Norton. But we still don't have any way to communicate through IPAWS, or through even the kind of system that Mr. Axtell is talking about. You have to have people on the ground in the storm to reach the people who would be disproportionately affected precisely because of their language or because of their disability? Mr. Coletta. The only thing that we have going for us other than door to door is a low-intensity FM station that the Coalition of Migrant Workers has. It is an organization. It is a low-intensity station that they reach a certain number of the population out there. We can run emergency warnings through there. The only problem is that they don't reach everyone. It is a limited clientele that they are reaching. At the last storm it was in place. The first thing it did, the antenna blew down and then the power went out. I got them a generator from emergency management, and they ran out of the tank of gas that came with it. No gas was available in the area, so I got a local marina to give them gasoline to get them back on the air. But, once again, this was a local initiative. Other than that radio station that was willing to stay there, the regular radio station, the commercial radio station abandoned their post at the time of the storm before the storm even got there. Ms. Norton. Suppose Mr. Ramon and people like him had cell phone devices or other similar devices, could the State, instead of sending out professional personnel who may not be close to the particular area, could the State deputize people in grassroots organizations, by supplying them with devices so that they who may be in the fields, who may be in the trailers, who, when trained, could indeed go out and do the job? And would Mr. Ramon and organizations like his be willing to take on that function if trained and if given the devices to inform them while we are getting a whole new system up? Mr. Coletta. Madam Chair, you are right on target. What I can tell you is that, other than 4 years ago when I was dealing with a situation, today just about every migrant laborer has a cell phone. Ms. Norton. They are already equipped, if we just have people who follow through. Mr. Coletta. We need to be able to have some system to be able to reach out to them. They have a reverse calling system, the sheriff department does in Collier County. The only problem is it won't reach cell phones. Ms. Norton. So what good is it? Everybody has a cell phone. Mr. Coletta. It is good for a lot of reasons, but not for something like this. Ms. Norton. Well, you could equip Mr. Ramon and people like him with whatever is required, just like people walk around with walkie-talkies these days still. Mr. Coletta. That would work, yes. But cell phones are something you carry as part of your person; a walkie-talkie, you are not going to carry it around. You are not going to carry a small AM/FM radio. Ms. Norton. What did you say the problem was with cell phones? Mr. Coletta. The problem was is that the technology, as we understand it at this point in time, makes it very difficult. A lot of these track phones are not quite the high-tech phones that a lot of us own today that we can instant message each other. Ms. Norton. That is why I am looking--understanding that I am looking for what happens between now and the time IPAWS 2, 3 or 4, whatever you want to call it, gets up because we haven't gone beyond one, to tell you the honest to goodness truth. Mr. Coletta. Madam Chair, I think you found your mission in life. Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Ramon needs, and his folks, in the interim, need an interim strategy. And we need to advise FEMA what to do while they are getting it up, particularly in Mr. Diaz-Balart's State. What did he say, 2010, or whenever. We have got to know what Mr. Ramon can do or people like him can do who are on the ground now other than you go out there yourselves---- Mr. Coletta. One of the first things, if I may suggest, Madam Chairman, is that I would allow Mr. Ramon and some members of his community attend the training sessions that FEMA offers in Emmitsburg. That would be a tremendous start. Ms. Norton. Now, Mr. Ramon, has anyone in your organization or in any local organization concerned with migrant workers or Latino workers ever been invited to attend any session that would train you on how to contact people in your community about a coming disaster? Mr. Ramon. No. Ms. Norton. Would you be willing to act on behalf of emergency management officials if you were equipped to do that contact work, people on the ground, people like yourselves, people in the organization? Mr. Ramon. Of course, yes. Ms. Norton. I don't know how to do these things sitting here trying to think of commonsense ways to fill the gap. It will not be acceptable to say, `well, they knew we were working.' Well, whoever sends the storms doesn't care, so it does seem to me imperative. I am going to ask staff to contact FEMA because I did not ask FEMA what you are going to do in the meantime. As far as I am concerned, Katrina is in the meantime. And the notion of the Federal Government saying, `well, my Lord, we were 30 percent of the way through, what do you expect of us?' We expect you to have, and staff, what I want to know is, in the absence of any way to communicate to Mr. Ramon and his fellow members of his organization, even as we heard how well they are doing with plans to get up, we need to know what to do until then. Makeshift as this may sound, that is how we have done it in this country all along. What do you think they did 100 years ago? You carried the word, you did what you could. I don't know what to tell you, but if they are reaching out, as they claim--reaching out means not only look what we are going to have when we have this spanking new wonderful system, it means that the Federal Government and FCC and local and State governments have a responsibility for public safety in between doing whatever you have to do, because that becomes extremely important with respect to Ms. Hamlin and Mr. Ramon. Ms. Hamlin, I am not sure what you would suggest as interim measures, but I would like to hear anything in the meantime regarding interim measures you think might be of use to the groups you represent. Ms. Hamlin. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have seen a few things work. We have seen Homeland Security give grants in this particular area, in the D.C. area, that provide text messaging about local events, which has been pretty effective. What the problem has been, I just received an e-mail last night from a person in California who had signed up for text alerts about tsunamis because she is concerned about what effects on the Pacific, and she got an alert that basically was impossible to read. She didn't know what to do. She got an alert, but she didn't know what to do. So we need more research to figure out what do you say when you get an alert. Because what is happening is ad hoc, the firefighter on the job is now sending out text messages. So that is a problem. The other problem, I am concerned when people talk about knocking on doors because people with hearing loss may not hear. I have heard situations where emergency managers have gone down the street with bull horns and people have been inside and not known what is going on. So my community, like what we just heard about cell phone use, we have access to text messages. In fact, in Maine also, Maine had a program specifically for people with hearing loss where they gave people an option of getting a NOAA radio, a NOAA weather radio or getting a PDA, something that would allow them to speak back and forth so that they would get specific emergency alerts in Maine because they knew that the cell phones wouldn't reach all areas. So they had a program with a grant which gave them the NOAA radios they would need so they would get those emergency alerts. So these are some of the ways, but even though States are strapped for money, it is very hard to get up a system like this unless they get money from Homeland Security or FEMA or some form of money to let the States know, some way for the States to get this up and running. Ms. Norton. One of the things we will be questioning FEMA about are the existing CERT teams, because apparently what we have is a system that has some technology in place, some way to contact people, the average person and a person who speaks English, but incorporating people with disabilities or--and here is where you really get interesting--people who speak a different language. Now, the fastest growing group of such people of course is Spanish-speaking. But think about what your country is becoming; a patchwork of people who speak all kinds of languages. Hey, look, that is what you are, that is what you are going to have to do, or else the injuries and the deaths will be disproportionate; we know exactly where they will be. I don't understand, Mr. Coletta, where you said the media outlets were focused only on coastal Collier County, where the bulk of the population lives, neighboring Lee and Charlotte Counties, with real information being provided to the residents of Immokalee, despite the best efforts of the emergency management office. I mean, doesn't the media outlet go to those places? What does it mean when it says little outreach? Doesn't it reach those places? What is the problem? Mr. Coletta. Well, the problem is very simple. Once again, it has to do with the division of language. Yes, Immokalee receives television, they have several stations, they have radios, but just about everything comes across in English. They weren't picking up on it. And that is why there were so many people that were not aware of what was happening. It is that simple. I mean, there have been some things that have taken place since then--of course we are talking 4 years ago, and we are trying to improve what we can as far as our communication infrastructure goes--but there is still a big gap in there, and it has to deal with the people that do not speak English. They just cannot get the message at this point in time. Ms. Norton. Is that people who don't speak English, or people like the people where Mr. Ramon is who are located where they may be away from radio and TV? I mean, the State is full of Spanish-speaking people. How about those people? Mr. Coletta. Well, we are talking different elements here. My element is very similar to what Mr. Ramon referred to. We are talking about laborers who are coming into this country that only speak Spanish, that are concentrating on one thing; that is, trying to make enough money to be able to survive and to maybe send a little bit back home again. They are a very narrow scope of people. Generally, Spanish-speaking people that are permanent residents within the community have picked up enough English, they understand what is taking place, there doesn't seem to be that kind of a problem. Ms. Norton. Are Spanish-speaking stations tuned into this system the way other stations are, giving the emergency alerts and the rest? Mr. Coletta. For the most part, yes, but in this one case in Immokalee, and that is what prompted me to go there to try to---- Ms. Norton. What was up with them? Mr. Coletta. Well, what happened was the station was abandoned. Ms. Norton. I am talking about the station--you said the stations that mostly were tuned to the---- Mr. Coletta. Well, I am talking about the regular commercial television stations, radio stations, English- speaking stations. Ms. Norton. I see. Well, what about English-speaking stations located in areas where there may be a significant Spanish-speaking population and a significant English-speaking population, what are they supposed to do with the EAS alert? Mr. Coletta. I couldn't answer that, why they don't put it across in Spanish other than the fact that they probably don't see a need for it. I don't know what the requirement is. Ms. Norton. Should that be mandated? As long as you are doing it for 30 seconds? Mr. Coletta. It would be even better if there was some way to be able to separate the bandwidth where you could have a person just dial up a different language, any language, it doesn't have to be Spanish, it could being Vietnamese, and they would be able to hear that translation take place. Now, I just read a little bit of some of the literature I received coming here ahead of time that something like this is in the works. I don't know where it is. So I am just making that a suggestion of where to go. If you try to divide an established television station or radio station into English and Spanish in a time of emergency, I have no idea what the outcome would be. Ms. Norton. Well, somebody has to figure that out because it is not enough to have it on Spanish-speaking stations and English-speaking stations. Hispanics learn English just like that. It is amazing how bilingual they are, especially since the rest of us are so dumb we can hardly speak English. So they are going to be quite able, millions of them. Ms. Norton. But when you have got that kind of mixture, Federal guidance, it seems to me, itis going to be necessary for people to know what to do, since they do not want to do any of it. Mr. Muth. Ma'am, if I can, even in the State of Maryland, in Baltimore County--the county I came from--we have a very strong Russian community, and so they will never end. I mean the communities are there. Ms. Norton. Yes, but you know, we may get to the point where there has to be dialogue. You know, if you come from New York City, heaven help you. We are not here to facilitate down to the lowest common denominator, but if there is information out here saying you can find out what that says and if you are dealing with the largest groups, just like, you know, you have Christmas--you know, if you are in New York, you may have Yom Kippur. We do not have it here, so you are going to have to make those decisions, but it looks like those decisions are not even being made. Mr. Muth. They are not made, and you mentioned this earlier in the first panel: What you have happening is every State is doing their own thing. Ms. Norton. With no Federal guidance, what else is there? Mr. Muth. Exactly. I concur. Ms. Norton. Mr. Ramon, you had wanted to say something further, please. Mr. Ramon. Yes. Our organization has not been invited to this training, but when I used to work with the clinic, a clinic called Vista in northern San Diego, the Red Cross would come and offer us training and ask us to participate in help fairs and so forth, but since the funding ran out, I was laid off, and now I work as a volunteer with my organization. Then what I also know is that, in Fresno, there is a radio station that hooks up with a number of radio stations all the way down to Oaxaca, in Mexico. They have a program on Sundays, and they call it the Mixteco Hour. During that hour, people can send their greetings, and information is shared as to what is happening all over that area, all the way up to Oregon, from Fresno to Oregon as well; but the problem is this: only 1 hour on Sunday and it is only on the Pacific Coast. Ms. Norton. But it does show you that there is the capability even now before we get the technology where it should be. Mr. Ramon. Yes, we can, not only with Mixteco. In Oregon, I understand that they are working with the Mixteco languages, and they are getting it out also in Trique, in Amuzgo, in Zapoteco. There are 22 languages we have in Oaxaca, and in Oregon they are able to put out this information through this radio station. I saw this in a report. I think it was on CNN. Ms. Norton. FEMA has a lot to learn, it seems to me, from what people have done with their own leadership. I have to ask Mr. Ramon another question. Perhaps Mr. Ramon or the elected officials in the area received an explanation. It was troubling to hear you say that in the 2007 wildfires that the fire chief was in the area, but did not communicate with farm workers. I would like you to elaborate. Perhaps there was some oversight because of something you did not know. Why did that occur? Mr. Ramon. When we got there, we asked the people if somebody had told them to leave the area because it was an evacuation area, and they said, No, no one has spoken to us. We have only seen this gentleman going back and forth, but he has not spoken to us. We asked the fire chief if he had given out any information, and he said, Well, they can leave voluntarily if they want to, but it is up to them. Ms. Norton. Did he say it in Spanish or English? Mr. Ramon. In English. Someone else was translating for me. Ms. Norton. Well, here is an area where you would expect especially to warn people away because of their greater vulnerability outdoors and in trailers and the like, but he was an English speaker, and you say that you saw him going back and forth. It may speak to the necessity to arm, even if with translators, people who are major figures, such as the fire chief, with somebody who can communicate to people who need it. Of course they can go or not go if they want to. That goes without saying. Except, if it is an order of evacuation, you are not supposed to have any recourse, and of course you need to know how to get out. So, even having somebody on the ground--and we have been talking about, I guess it was, what Mr. Coletta had to do--it may not be enough if that person cannot speak the language either and, therefore, will take care of the people who speak his language, first and foremost, and then will go on his merry way. I only have another question or so. I have to ask about this, about the use of digital. Now that digital came on, it looks as if there is a whole new way, Mr. Axtell, for Maine, Vermont and, for that matter, for greater redundancy elsewhere, you know, with the digital bandwidth, not as much congestion. Are we seeing PBS jump onto this and Maine have now a whole new way to be alerted and Vermont? Mr. Axtell. Well, there are a lot of stations that are very interested in pursuing this, but it is a financial issue. Ms. Norton. Financially, how much? You had something that you said was only $300 or something. Mr. Axtell. That is a solution. That is a device, and that is because we did a small run on a custom activity. I think, if you mass produced it, you would get it for a much lower price. We have a whole variety of PBS stations that are interested in working on this. Kentucky sends out wireless messages about tornadoes and other weather information to highway rest stops and other kinds of innovative activities. Wisconsin has sent some material to hospitals and to ambulances. Alabama is proposing to have a system that would replicate the system and enhance it, that which we have in Nevada. So you have lots of people who want to move forward, but the trick is you have got to have your emergency management folks who have critical databases say that you will become a redundant provider of data or they have to help define what the services are that they need, and as you pointed out, urban versus rural services will be very different. Ms. Norton. Well, if FEMA had done what it was supposed to do, it would have beat digital. Now digital is here, providing whole new, very important technology to feed into the system. I want to thank all of you for this testimony. Of course we heard from the responsible officials, but I want to say, for the record, that your testimony has been equally important to this Subcommittee, and thank you very much for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]