    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    TSUNAMI WARNING, PREPAREDNESS, INTERAGENCY COOPERATION: LESSONS LEARNED

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

                    HOMELAND DEFENSE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 14, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-25

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    68-042                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                    Ranking Minority Member
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina   ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                         Columbia
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York          GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho              DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          PETER WELCH, Vermont
    JOE WALSH, Illinois                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida              JACKIE SPEIER, California
    FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

                       Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
                    John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
                         Robert Borden, General Counsel
                           Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

        Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
                                   Operations

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice        JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts,
        Chairman                             Ranking Minority Member
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 14, 2011...................................     1
    Statement of:
        Leith, William, Acting Associate Director for Natural
          Hazards, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of
          Interior; Mary Glackin, Deputy Under Secretary for
          Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
          Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Nancy Ward,
          Region IX Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
          Agency, accompanied by Kenneth Murphy, Region X
          Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
          John W. Madden, director, Alaska Division of Homeland
          Security and Emergency Management..........................    23
            Glackin, Mary............................................    32
            Leith, William...........................................    23
            Madden, John W...........................................    52
            Ward, Nancy..............................................    42
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah, various prepared statements.................     3
        Glackin, Mary, Deputy Under Secretary for Operations,
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
          Department of Commerce, prepared statement of..............    34
        Leith, William, Acting Associate Director for Natural
          Hazards, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of
          Interior, prepared statement of............................    26
        Madden, John W., director, Alaska Division of Homeland
          Security and Emergency Management, prepared statement of...    54
        Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of..............    21
        Ward, Nancy, Region IX Administrator, Federal Emergency
          Management Agency, prepared statement of...................    44

    TSUNAMI WARNING, PREPAREDNESS, INTERAGENCY COOPERATION: LESSONS LEARNED

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense
                                and Foreign Operations,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:12 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Gosar, Labrador, and
    Tierney.
        Also present: Representative Hanabusa.
        Staff present: Thomas A. Alexander, senior counsel; Molly
    Boyl, parliamentarian; Kate Dunbar, staff assistant; Adam P.
    Fromm, director of Member liaison and floor operations;
    Mitchell S. Kominsky, counsel; Justin Kim and Scott Lindsay,
    minority counsels; and Zieta Merchant, LCDR, fellow.
        Mr. Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
        Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing, Tsunami
    Warning, Preparedness and Interagency Cooperation: Lessons
    Learned. I would also like to welcome Ranking Member Tierney,
    members of the subcommittee and those of you watching live on
    the Web cast at oversight.house.gov. Thank you all for joining
    us.
        I appreciate your patience. We have a lot of votes and
    things happening on Capitol Hill today. I appreciate the
    distance that many of you have traveled, some short, some
    rather long. We appreciate it. This is an important topic and
    we appreciate your participation.
        Apologies in advance; we get called out for votes. Also, we
    have a markup going on in the committee I am participating in
    next door, and I may need to go to that as well. Nevertheless,
    we are glad you are here. This is an important topic that
    literally would affect millions of people's lives. Hopefully it
    will never come to that. Hopefully it is just a lesson in
    preparedness. But when that disaster, if, and hopefully it
    doesn't ever happen, the work that you are doing now and the
    preparation is vital to our country and the lives and safety of
    so many Americans and people around the world.
        Fifty thousand people were dead or went missing and
    millions more were suddenly homeless in 11 countries. Our
    Pacific states and territories are also in reach of the
    damaging effects of tsunamis. According to the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric administration, the contiguous United States
    has suffered from tsunamis originating in Chile, Japan, Russia
    and Alaska. In 2009, American Samoa was struck by a tsunami
    that killed 22 people. That is why we are here today.
        This subcommittee will examine the extent to which the
    Federal Government is capable of determining the threat from
    tsunamis, can issue timely and effective warnings about a
    tsunami and has the plans in place to respond to a tsunami.
    Also, the subcommittee will look at how successful the Federal
    Government is in helping local and State authorities develop
    tsunami-resilient communities, and how these entities conduct
    public outreach. We will also examine lessons learned from
    Japan and the extent to which they can be applied.
        Taxpayers have invested substantial resources to ensure
    U.S. preparedness. The Federal entities principally responsible
    for this mission are the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA and the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Career officials from
    these agencies are here today. We have also invited their State
    counterparts to testify about collaboration with the Federal
    Government.
        A representative from the State of Alaska is here with us
    today. The States of Oregon, Washington and Hawaii have
    submitted their statements for the record. We are only
    disappointed that California chose not to participate.
        I ask unanimous consent that those statements be placed in
    the hearing record. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.017

        Mr. Chaffetz. We look forward to hearing from our panel of
    witnesses. I would like to recognize the distinguished ranking
    member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank the witnesses
    for being with us here today.
        I am going to ask that my statement in its entirety be
    placed in the record, if there is no objection.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Tierney. I would just make a couple of quick points, in
    the interest of time here. One is obviously that we stand by
    the Japanese people during this very difficult time and we will
    continue to do that, I am sure.
        But also, by all accounts, it would seem to us that the
    response in this country worked admirably during the Japanese
    tsunami situation. So I want to thank all of you and
    congratulate you on that. According to the interim director of
    the Emergency Management Association from Oregon, ``The Federal
    response to this disaster was magnificent.''
        So it doesn't belie the fact that we all need to continue
    to be prepared. We can never be too prepared on that. And
    Congress has to make sure that there is adequate support for
    each and every one of these agencies in all of their
    responsibilities, but in particular on this topic with respect
    to the tsunamis.
        I am a bit concerned when I look at some of the budget
    proposals being put forward. They do reduce the budget for a
    number of the agencies, and I want to hear from the witnesses
    at some point during the time whether or not that is likely to
    impact our ability going forward to be as prepared and ready
    both to detect and to respond to these incidents.
        So with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.019

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for
    the record.
        We will now recognize our panel. Dr. William Leith is the
    Acting Associate Director for Natural Hazards at the U.S.
    Geological Survey. Ms. Mary Glackin is the Deputy Under
    Secretary for Operations at the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration. Ms. Nancy Ward is the Regional
    Administrator for Region IX of the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency. Kenneth Murphy is the Regional Administrator for Region
    X of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And Mr. John
    Madden is the director of the Division of Homeland Security and
    Emergency Management for the State of Alaska.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your
    right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Chaffetz. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
    answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
        We will now hear your testimony. If you would be so kind as
    to limit your comments to 5 minutes. Your full statement will
    be submitted for the record, for others to be able to peruse.
    But if you could keep your verbal comments to 5 minutes, in
    order to get through this, plus the questioning, we would
    certainly appreciate it. You should see a nice red light when
    you get to that 5 minutes.
        We will start with you, Dr. Leith. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM LEITH, ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
      NATURAL HAZARDS, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
    INTERIOR; MARY GLACKIN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR OPERATIONS,
         NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; NANCY WARD, REGION IX ADMINISTRATOR,
      FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH
     MURPHY, REGION X ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
       AGENCY; AND JOHN W. MADDEN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                       STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LEITH

        Mr. Leith. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for inviting the U.S. Geological Survey to testify at this
    hearing.
        The USGS is tasked under the Stafford Act to issue
    forecasts and warnings for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and
    landslides. For tsunami, we provide critical science and
    monitoring support to NOAA, FEMA and other agencies. We provide
    hazard alerts to a broad suite of users, including the general
    public.
        The scope of each notification depends on the severity and
    extent and possible impact of the event. Our key users include
    not only FEMA and NOAA, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
    State transportation and water Management agencies, including
    Utah, for example, local emergency managers and national and
    international disaster response organizations.
        To monitor earthquakes in the United States and abroad, the
    USGS operates the Advanced National Seismic System, and in
    partnership with the National Science Foundation, the Global
    Seismographic Network. ANSS and GSN seismic data are relayed
    directly to the NOAA tsunami warnings centers, enabling them to
    respond within minutes of a major event.
        We also participate in the National Tsunami Hazard
    Mitigation Program [NTHMP]. The USGS invested $2.3 million in
    fiscal year 2010 in research and assessment activities
    supporting the goals of the NTHMP. USGS contributes guidance in
    the preparation of tsunami inundation maps, as well as
    capabilities to survey coastal and near-shore bathymetry and
    topography, which of course strongly influence tsunami wave
    heights and inundations.
        The U.S. west coast, Hawaii and the Pacific territories are
    all at risk for damage from tsunami generated by earthquakes.
    Our shores host two subduction zones that are capable of
    magnitude 9 earthquakes: one offshore of Alaska, which last
    ruptured in 1964, and the other in the Pacific Northwest, known
    as Cascadia, which last ruptured in 1700. This latter one
    deserves special mention. Recent investigations of offshore
    deposits indicate that the zone may have produced magnitude 9
    size earthquakes perhaps 20 times in the last 10,000 years.
    Further research is therefore needed to fully document and
    assess the earthquake potential in this area.
        With respect to our southern and eastern shores, the USGS
    has done extensive research for the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission on tsunami history and potential in the Atlantic
    coast and the Caribbean. These regions have less frequent
    damaging tsunami than in the Pacific, and historic tsunami of
    the size that hit Japan on March 11th are not known. But the
    historic and geologic record suggests that the tsunami risk
    here cannot be dismissed.
        What did we learn from the recent Japanese earthquake and
    tsunami? On the day of the earthquake, technical coordination
    between NOAA, the tsunami warning centers and the USGS National
    Earthquake Information Center was seamless. Since then, close
    coordination of post-disaster information and response
    activities has occurred under the protocols of the National
    Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program.
        Also, while tsunami damage and loss of life were heavy in
    Japan, it appears that the investments made there in monitoring
    and warning systems, earthquake-resistant construction, public
    information and preparedness activities actually significantly
    limited the damage and loss of life before the earthquake.
    Still, the disaster has taught us that scientists need to
    thoroughly document the prehistoric record of large earthquakes
    in order to fully assess their likelihood and consequences.
        Looking forward, the United States can reduce tsunami
    risks, improve public warning and response in three basic
    areas. First, continued public education through ongoing
    efforts in the United States, Pacific States and territories,
    particularly in Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest. Second, the
    completion of this advanced national seismic system including
    the enhancement of networks in the eastern United States and
    the development of earthquake early warning capabilities which
    were in place in Japan and apparently effective. And third,
    enhanced research into the frequency and effects of prehistoric
    tsunamis. Our recorded history is simply too short to provide
    adequate probabilities for such rare events.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I would be
    happy to take any questions you or the committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Leith follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.025

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.
        Ms. Glackin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF MARY GLACKIN

        Ms. Glackin. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Tierney and others members of the committee. We
    appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important topic
    this afternoon.
        NOAA plays a critical role in ensuring our Nation is warned
    of many natural and man-made hazards and prepared to respond to
    these. The March 11th Japanese earthquake and tsunami served as
    reminders of our vulnerability to these hazards. And as my
    colleague has just described, there are major threats in our
    coastal regions. A rupture along any of these faults could set
    off a tsunami relatively close to the shore and impact coastal
    communities in mere minutes. NOAA is working to ensure our
    Nation is prepared for such potential catastrophes.
        A comprehensive and effective tsunami warning process
    requires three parts. First, observations for detection and
    models to forecast the path and the impact. Second, timely and
    accurate alerts. And perhaps most importantly, community
    education and awareness to ensure the proper public response to
    alerts and warnings.
        Today I want to discuss very briefly how NOAA integrates
    all three of these components and works with our customers and
    partners to ensure our Nation is prepared. We provide a host of
    products and services that minimize the impact of tsunamis,
    from advance preparedness of coastal communities to detection
    and warning service to post-event response and recovery
    efforts. NOAA operates a suite of instruments and tools,
    including an array of ocean buoys and monitoring stations more
    to the sea floor, sea level gauges at the coastline, our polar
    orbiting satellites are involved and that of our advanced
    computer modeling.
        NOAA's services include around the clock forecast and
    warning centers and extensive public outreach and education
    efforts. Within minutes of the Japanese earthquake, NOAA
    received seismic data from USGS and other partners, and issued
    tsunami warnings and information statements for both domestic
    and international communities through our two centers in Hawaii
    and Alaska.
        Wave data from our deep ocean data buoys and coastal data
    from our tide gauges were relayed via satellites and integrated
    into tsunami models. Our talented professionals translated this
    into warnings and forecasts. These alerts and warnings provided
    lead times of 7 hours for Hawaii, 4 hours for Alaska, and 9
    hours for the west coast. Local and national weather service
    forecast offices that serve the U.S. coastline issued localized
    tsunami impact statements.
        Together, this information helped emergency managers and
    local officials evaluate the ongoing threat until all the
    warnings and advisories were finally dropped over 36 hours
    after the initial earthquake.
        The best warning information, however, is worth little
    unless those at risk are prepared and ready to respond. To
    achieve this level of preparedness, NOAA is engaged in an
    extensive array of outreach and education efforts. We work with
    our Federal partners, with local and State governments through
    the National Tsunami Hazards Mitigation program. This program,
    formed in 1995 and reauthorized by Congress in 2006, works to
    reduce the impact of tsunamis on the U.S. coastal communities
    and includes all 28 U.S. coastal States, territories and
    commonwealths.
        This program stresses the importance of NOAA's tsunami-
    ready program, a voluntary partnership among NOAA, State and
    local emergency management agencies. It strives to increase the
    public awareness of the threat that tsunamis pose, improve
    hazard planning and strengthen warning communication, linking
    the emergency management community with the public. Currently,
    there are 83 tsunami-ready communities. NOAA's goal is to
    recognize 105 by 2013.
        We believe that tsunami-ready and the National Tsunami
    Hazards Mitigation Program is a model program for how the
    government at all levels can work together to improve hazard
    resilience in the United States.
        In summary, the investments made by Congress and the
    administration in NOAA's tsunami warning system and the
    National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program directly saved lives
    in the United States during last month's Pacific-wide tsunami
    disaster. Nothing can eliminate the physical threat that
    tsunamis pose. However, NOAA remains committed to leading U.S.
    efforts to save lives and property through tsunami
    preparedness, detection and forecasting efforts.
        We will work in partnership to continuously improve our
    natural hazard services to the Nation. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Glackin follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.033

        Ms. Ward, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF NANCY WARD

        Ms. Ward. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Tierney and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        I am the Regional Administrator for FEMA Region IX. My
    region encompasses California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada,
    American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
    Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated
    States of Micronesia.
        I am pleased to be here alongside Ken Murphy, Regional
    Administrator for FEMA Region X, which encompasses Alaska,
    Idaho, Oregon and Washington. We are honored to be here today.
        I would first like to say that our thoughts and prayers go
    out to the people of Japan as they continue to recover from the
    devastation of the past several weeks. The events in Japan also
    serve, however, as a reminder of the importance of tsunami
    preparedness in our own country. While tsunamis occur
    infrequently, they have the potential to cause major
    destruction to the coastal communities in several FEMA regions.
        Because tsunamis present great potential for damage to both
    people and property, all levels of government must be prepared
    for the threats associated with them. We in government also
    have a responsibility to coordinate our preparedness efforts
    with non-governmental entities, including private sector
    organizations, non-profit and faith-based groups, and perhaps
    most important, the individuals and families who live in these
    potentially affected communities.
        My written testimony discusses FEMA's catastrophic planning
    efforts, which both includes all hazards approaches, a certain
    hazard-specific plans in areas at heightened risk for tsunami.
    This afternoon, however, I would like to discuss the recent
    tsunami threat to Region IX as an example of how FEMA works to
    support our State and local partners in the event of tsunami
    threat.
        Just after 10 p.m. March 9th, FEMA region was alerted to a
    magnitude 9 earthquake, soon followed by a Pacific-wide tsunami
    warning. The Region IX watch center immediately alerted Region
    IX senior staff and made contact with our national watch
    center. Within the hour, the FEMA regional support team and our
    regional support coordination center was activated to a Level
    1, FEMA's highest activation level. Our regional on-call
    incident management assistance team was noticed and placed on
    alert for immediate deployment to a potential tsunami-impacted
    area. Key Federal agency partners were also mobilized and
    directed to report to the RRCC to emergency support function
    coordination and assets.
        Immediately following activation of our regional response
    coordination center, Region IX established lines of
    communication with our States and territorial partners,
    including FEMA Region X as a communication hub for
    jurisdictions throughout the Pacific. Simultaneously, in
    Hawaii, the FEMA Region IX Pacific Area office, located out in
    Fort Shafter in Hawaii, went operational. The Pacific Area
    office deputy director was dispatched to the State of Hawaii's
    civil defense emergency operations center and co-located with
    our State partners throughout the entire incident period.
        In the aftermath of the tsunami, Region IX worked closely
    with Hawaii and California to conduct preliminary damage
    assessments. These PDAs resulted in disaster declarations
    requests for both Hawaii and California, a disaster declared
    last week for the State of Hawaii and California's request is
    still under review. Similarly, in Region X, FEMA's activation
    and coordination with their States resulted in a disaster
    declaration for the State of Oregon.
        As is both policy and doctrine at FEMA, we worked very
    closely with all of our Federal Government partners, including
    invaluable contributions by both NOAA and the USGS. We also
    plan, train and exercise year around with State, local, tribal
    and territorial governments to help with tsunami and other
    planning education and awareness. As an example, FEMA supports
    the National Weather Service to promote the tsunami-ready
    campaign. We also encourage States and localities to use their
    grant funding to increase their disaster preparedness.
        While no coastal community is tsunami-proof, we work with
    the community leaders and emergency managers to reduce the
    potential for disastrous tsunami-related consequences. The
    events in Japan have also raised important questions as to how
    a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami might affect our nuclear
    facilities and surrounding areas. At the direction of
    Administrator Fugate, we have increased our participation and
    exercises associated with our nuclear plants.
        We are focused on conducting exercises that provide a true
    test of our emergency protocols and capabilities. This week,
    for instance, in San Onofre, California, State emergency
    experts are leading a mandated biennial exercise of the
    Southern California Edison Beachfront Nuclear Power Plant
    stationed in Orange County, California, a site, I might add,
    that supports the National Weather Service's tsunami-ready
    designation. As would be the case in any actual event, the NRC
    and the State have the primary authority. FEMA Region IX is
    participating in the exercise, both as a player and as an
    evaluator of how the exercise unfolds.
        Most important, however, we work to instill a commitment to
    personal preparedness. April is also earthquake preparedness
    month, which will provide more of a platform for us to
    disseminate information. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ward follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.041

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Mr. Murphy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Oh, joint
    statement. My apologies. Thank you. Well done, Mr. Murphy.
    [Laughter.]
        Best one we have heard yet. No offense. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Madden, we appreciate the distance that you have
    traveled here. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MADDEN

        Mr. Madden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Tierney, and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity.
        I am the director of Homeland Security and Emergency
    Management for the State of Alaska. I am responsible for
    confronting the entire range of hazards that nature and humans
    can inflict on our citizens and economy.
        We are no stranger to disasters. We have fires, floods,
    storms and cold every year. But the seismic hazards of
    earthquakes and tsunamis give little or no warning and require
    a different approach to preparedness.
        In our history are many destructive earthquakes. The
    largest was the 9.2 earthquake which generated many tsunamis.
    It happened on Good Friday in 1964. That killed 131 people in
    Alaska, Oregon and California.
        We believe that tsunami preparedness is an enterprise, a
    purposeful and industrious undertaking that requires extreme
    coordination. The State of Alaska works with many organizations
    on this enterprise, including several that are here at the
    table today.
        We recently conducted the latest tsunami operations
    workshop in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, for communities throughout
    the 1,500 miles of the Aleutian Islands, the Alaskan peninsula
    and Kodiak Island. Many of these communities are within the
    areas that were threatened by the Japanese tsunami. Each
    community left that workshop with plans on evacuation,
    emergency operations and solid understanding of warnings,
    advisories and watches which were put to the test just a few
    weeks ago.
        On March 10th, Alaska received almost instant notification
    of the earthquake and shortly thereafter received the first
    advisories from the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning
    Center. This emergency combined four factors that greatly
    complicated our response. The warnings came in the middle of
    the night, in winter, in adverse weather and in isolated
    communities far remote from each other and from the nearest
    help. We established voice contact with every community in the
    warning and advisory area, and ensured that community leaders
    had the information necessary for their local decisions.
        Alaska was very fortunate that only limited damage occurred
    in our coastal communities.
        During last month's event, the tsunami preparedness
    enterprise worked as designed overall. The continuous
    monitoring yielded immediate detection. The computer models
    determined the potential for tsunami. The alert and warning
    centers transmitted the critical information. The deepwater
    buoys provided data to recalculate the estimated arrival times
    and amplitudes to very high accuracy. And all the State assets
    were primed and ready to respond as needed. Most importantly,
    the communities received the information and invoked the plans
    that had been recently validated.
        The State of Alaska strongly supports this tsunami
    enterprise, and particularly the continued authorization and
    funding of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program
    within the Federal Government. Through funding to the States
    with tsunami risk, this program advances preparedness through
    tsunami-ready communities, sirens, training, exercises, signage
    and much more. We also recommend that resilient and redundant
    communications systems be made the highest priority to ensure
    continuity of the tsunami warning network.
        The most critical element of the entire enterprise is
    public outreach and education. All the science, all the
    computers, all the warnings are useless if the affected
    community does not know how to respond to that threat. We must
    create and sustain a posture of preparedness in each person
    living or visiting our coastal communities. Only through
    exemplary interagency cooperation can we prepare for this most
    unpredictable and potentially devastating hazard.
        With the continued support of Congress, you can provide the
    partners in this vital enterprise, Federal, State and local
    governments and the general public, with the means to continue
    effectively to protect lives and property.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Madden follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.046

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate all your testimony.
    We will now move to a round of questioning. I am going to
    recognize myself to start for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Glackin, let's talk about the modeling. Because the key
    to all of this is that chain reaction that all starts with the
    modeling that says, here it comes. How complete is that? As you
    look at the U.S. coastline, including our territories,
    obviously Alaska and Hawaii, are there parts of that aren't
    mapped? I don't know the technical way to ask that, but where
    are the vulnerabilities in the detection models?
        Ms. Glackin. It is not all mapped. This is an area that we
    have been working on and in particular, using some of the
    resources that we have gotten from the Spectrum sale, which
    happened after the Indonesian tsunami. We have approached this
    in dealing with where we know there are risk areas. For
    example, as has been highlighted, off of Alaska and off of the
    Cascadia zone there.
        We have a recent report, we have gone to the National
    Academies of Science to ask for a review of our tsunami warning
    program overall. One of the things that they have encouraged us
    to do is, in partnership with our Federal partners and States
    is to do an overall risk assessment across the United States to
    really have a handle on what the particular challenge areas
    are. We would like to take that on as one of the things that we
    will be looking at to find ways to resource this.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So of our coastline, what percentage is not?
        Ms. Glackin. We are able to issue a tsunami warning for any
    part of our coastline. It is not that there would not be a
    tsunami warning. We will be able to give you a better, where we
    have the more detailed modeling done, we will be able to give
    you more information about what the potential impacts will be,
    how much inundation and things like that. I will have to get
    back to you with exactly what percentage of all that.
        Mr. Chaffetz. And that is the curiosity, as to where the
    vulnerabilities are. We have talked a lot about the Pacific,
    and my other part of the question is what about the Atlantic
    and obviously the Gulf and what-not? I don't know if you can
    speak to that.
        Ms. Glackin. I think that when you think about
    vulnerabilities, tsunamis are caused primarily by the seismic
    activity there. They can also be caused by landslides under
    water. There is a more technical term for this, my colleague
    knows, to do that. And so a lot of what we have been doing in
    partnership is being driven by the seismic assessment of
    theirs. So we have done that risk assessment. That has informed
    how we put out our monitoring stations, what we call our DART
    buoys for doing this. So that level is done.
        For us to make more progress, we have to do mapping of the
    inland areas there, so we have better handles on how the water
    will actually roll up.
        Mr. Chaffetz. As a followup, I would be very curious again,
    as to where the vulnerabilities are.
        Let me go to another part. In your written testimony you
    stated that ``NOAA provides a host of products and services
    that minimize the impacts from tsunamis, from advanced
    preparedness of coastal communities to detection and warning
    services to post-event response and recovery efforts.''
        Ms. Glackin. I can use exactly the example for this recent
    event. One of the things that NOAA does as part of our National
    Ocean Service is we do navigational mapping. So we went into
    Crescent Harbor in California, where there had been so much
    destruction, and our ships did surveys there to identify debris
    that was on the sea bed floor and allowed the Coast Guard to be
    able to, we found out where it is, the Coast Guard comes in and
    removes it. So they were able to open the ports in a timely
    fashion.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Let me go to Mr. Murphy. Your perceptions of
    concerns about what happens in your region, how good is this
    information that you are going to get? How is the coordination
    between the two different agencies?
        Mr. Murphy. I can tell you that it is very good, Mr.
    Chairman. We totally rely, actually not only on NOAA, but USGS
    products. And I can tell you from this recent Japanese
    earthquake and tsunami, everybody that I work with in our
    States usually are well wired into both the tsunami warning
    centers. You can also get your own personal alerts on your
    smart phone, BlackBerrys, computers. So I think a lot of that
    really pays dividends.
        I agree with Ms. Glackin, I know that we have reached out
    to them, because we had damage in some of the ports in Oregon.
    We had great partners, working together to try and get those
    ports back open. Because there are so many issues where you
    need NOAA and USGS, Coast Guard, a few other agencies to get
    these communities in a recovery mode and back operating.
        So I think as a group of agencies, we really do have to
    work together pre-event and post-event.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. My time is expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Glackin, I just want to cover a little bit of territory
    with you. I note that there was some speculation when the H.R.
    1, the so-called fiscal year 2011 proposal was originally
    presented, and was aiming to cut 16 percent of NOAA's budget,
    particularly that area devoted to operations, research and
    facilities, which would in fact fund some of the things yo have
    been talking about here today, including the DART buoys that
    are currently inoperative and the ability to maintain and
    repair them.
        Do we still run that risk? How much of a budget cut could
    you sustain without running that type of risk, which seems to
    me to be quite serious?
        Ms. Glackin. We were much relieved to see the numbers this
    week, compared to H.R. 1, in allowing us to be able to resource
    some of our critical operations. We are in the process of
    putting together a spend plan in terms of going forward in
    this. I think even importantly, getting some stability in the
    full-year funding is important, because we need to get out
    there with our ships and maintain some of our buoys, which we
    will be able to do once we all hope, I think, there is
    successful action this week on an appropriation.
        Mr. Tierney. I take it that the fact that you suspended the
    maintenance and detection infrastructure and repair on that
    basis would indicate that 16 percent was certainly going to
    require that you cut some?
        Ms. Glackin. That is right.
        Mr. Tierney. And now you are looking to see how much you
    have to cut? Or is there a chance that you won't have to cut
    anything?
        Ms. Glackin. I think it is premature for me to say. We have
    challenges, certainly, at the funding level that is presented
    to us. And NOAA is working within the administration to develop
    a spend plan, which it will bring up for approval in Congress.
    So I think we will have tough choices to make in that, but it
    is premature to say what they would be.
        Mr. Tierney. Now, the nine DART buoys that are currently
    inoperative, how long have they been inoperative?
        Ms. Glackin. Sir, let me say a few words about that. Our
    DART buoy network is designed with some redundancy in it.
        Mr. Tierney. I would assume.
        Ms. Glackin. Yes, because you have them off the coast of
    Alaska. They will fail becomes sometimes the weather just pulls
    the moorings out and things like that.
        What we like to do is get out there as soon as possible
    when we get good weather, get our ships out there and get those
    repaired. So we have been delayed in doing that this year,
    because of the lack of funding situation. So with the stability
    and funding going, we will be able to get those ships out there
    and get them repaired.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador.
        Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Thanks for taking the time and
    also thanks for waiting for a long time. We have had a hectic
    day and I know it has been difficult for you waiting. So I
    appreciate that.
        Dr. Leith, in your testimony you state that the west coast
    of the United States, Hawaii and the Pacific Territories are
    all at risk for damage from tsunamis generated by distant
    earthquakes. How do you think, and Ms. Glackin, how do risks of
    such destructive tsunamis for the United States compare to what
    we have seen in Japan historically? And can you describe the
    potential damage that would result, and are we prepared as a
    Nation?
        Mr. Leith. The example that I would like to give in terms
    of the risk that we face is coming from Alaska, a known zone
    which can produce very large earthquakes and tsunami, is that
    we have had tsunamigenic earthquakes in the 1920's and 1930's,
    1940's, 1950's and 1960's. But we have not had any since the
    1960's. So we are in a situation, the earth is quite
    unpredictable in its generation, the timeliness of its
    generation of earthquakes. And what I would say as an earth
    scientist is that stress is building up. We can expect another
    tsunami coming from Alaska.
        I can't comment, and it is outside the work of our agency,
    in terms of the preparedness on the coastline for that. But we
    are working with NOAA and FEMA and developing scenarios for a
    large earthquake generated in Alaska and its impact all the way
    down on the coast. USGS provides the scientific basis for that
    scenario, and then the other partners, Federal, State and
    local, take it from there to evaluate the impacts.
        Mr. Labrador. Ms. Glackin.
        Ms. Glackin. Thank you. I think all of us appreciate this
    committee taking the time to have this hearing. Because I think
    what we can't afford as a Nation is complacency. That is the
    danger with events that are infrequent, like tsunamis.
        I think with respect to the vulnerability in this country
    that our ability to put out warnings, as long as we are able to
    sustain our infrastructure that is there, I feel good about. I
    think that there is a real challenge, though, in keeping the
    local communities ready to respond for this.
        I really want to make the point to this committee that is
    in my written testimony but I didn't say here, when you have
    these local tsunamis, you really need to know, to move and not
    wait for the warning. People have to be trained and in tune and
    when that ground is shaking and the water is receding, you
    move. You are not waiting for your cell phone to tell you
    something.
        And the fact that this is in the coastline, where we have
    so many visitors, populations swell there, people are
    unfamiliar with roads, it is incredibly important that they are
    able to move from that coastline and know what to do.
        So that is going to take a continued, I think, investment
    and attention at all levels of government.
        Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
        To followup on that comment, Mr. Murphy, and I am going to
    ask the question of all the panelists, what can we do to
    improve warning and response times?
        Mr. Murphy. I think probably, and I would agree with Ms.
    Glackin, we can never be too prepared. As you might well
    imagine, we have so many visitors on the Pacific coast, both in
    Ms. Ward's region and mine, that you never can over-educate the
    people. I think it is something you have to consistently do.
    You clearly have to partner with everybody.
        In FEMA, we have taken an initiative called the whole of
    community. You really have to share resources and make
    everybody a part of that team.
        I can tell you that some of our States in Region X, Oregon
    and Washington, you have to partner with the hotel association
    and get them to make some investments about teaching their
    visitors who stay in their facilities what to do. Because
    somebody from a landlocked State or part of the country may not
    understand what you need to do in a tsunami. I know we promote
    really, don't drive, you go up a hill or things like that, and
    try to teach them some things. And of course, basic
    preparedness for any type of disaster. If that family takes the
    time to have a family plan, build a kit and stay informed of
    what is going on, they will have a much better chance.
        Then I would finally say, both Ms. Ward and I in our
    regions continue to work on catastrophic planning of what can
    happen. Since this is a no-notice event, the Cascadia
    Subduction Zone lies very close to the west coast of the United
    States, it would take a very quick second to change how life
    would be out there. So we keep working on the catastrophic
    issue and how we might deal with it.
        Mr. Chaffetz. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Chaffetz. Yes?
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii be allowed to participate on the
    panel. And given that all the Members have asked at least one
    round, be now allowed to ask 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        Mr. Chaffetz. We will now recognize the gentlewoman from
    Hawaii.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    members of this committee.
        To those who are testifying, thank you for being here. As
    mentioned, I represent Hawaii, and I represent the first
    congressional district, which as some of you may know, contains
    the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. It is a place and an issue
    that is very dear to many of us, especially in light of the
    last tsunami that hit Japan. And we do know the impact of what
    the warning system meant for the people of Hawaii. We were very
    fortunate, we had no deaths. We did have property damage. But I
    credit that to really how well it operates. Because of that, I
    asked to be permitted to sit here.
        My main concern, of course, first, and I guess we can start
    with Ms. Glackin, is to discover the NOAA budget, which is
    presently scheduled to be cut. What impact will that have on,
    for example, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center? I know I am
    reading your statement, you felt the Continuing Resolution has
    had an impact in terms of the DARTs not being able to be
    repaired and so forth. I think you said nine are inoperative at
    this time.
        So can you tell me exactly what impact it would have, at
    the present funding level?
        Ms. Glackin. With the proposed funding level of the bill
    that is under consideration now, it does present challenges for
    NOAA. We will have some very tough choices in front of us given
    the breadth of activities that we have and the many critical
    services we provide. I didn't go into it here but mentioned
    elsewhere are things like hurricane services, severe weather,
    we have flooding going on in the country now, in the north
    central part of the country, and dams that are in danger of
    failing there.
        So we will have very tough challenges in front of us. It is
    premature to say, and I am not able to today, because decisions
    haven't been made about how we will make all of those
    decisions. But we are anxious, getting the DART buoys repaired
    is, I can tell you, near the top of our list. So I expect to
    see action on that, shortly after getting this next pot of
    money in our checkbooks at NOAA.
        Ms. Hanabusa. The issue of the DARTs, and I think our
    written testimony stated that there are nine that are
    inoperative. Can you tell me where those nine are located?
        Ms. Glackin. They are along Alaska and along the Aleutian
    Islands. I have a little map here that will tell me that.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Is that the map in your testimony?
        Ms. Glackin. Yes, it is the map in the testimony. So there
    is one on the Aleutians, there is one off of the Puget Sound,
    out that way. They are in the territories, in the Midway
    between Hawaii and Japan. And then there are several, one in
    the Caribbean, one off the Atlantic coast and two down toward
    Australia.
        Ms. Hanabusa. So are those the ones in red in your map?
        Ms. Glackin. Yes.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Can you explain, I only have a minute plus
    here, but can you explain what the DART does and how
    significant they are to the warning system?
        Ms. Glackin. One of the things I think it is important to
    understand about warnings is, you don't want to cry wolf. If
    you warn too much, people won't take action. We have talked
    about here today how important it is for people to take action.
    NOAA will make its first judgment about issuing information
    based on the seismic activity. So when we hit a 7.1, we are
    going to go ahead and alert people of this potential.
        What the DART does is allow us to actually detect whether a
    wave is moving. And if a wave isn't moving, we will immediately
    tell people to stand down. We haven't cried wolf, you will be
    more responsive next time.
        So that is what the DART buoy does. It helps us pick up the
    wave moving across the ocean. Then we further confirm that with
    coastal tide gauge stations. So for example, off of Hawaii, we
    have a good network of tide gauge stations. They will also
    begin to detect water level changes.
        Ms. Hanabusa. I would like to say that you were spot on on
    the height of the waves as they hit the Hawaiian Islands. I
    believe that is really due to the DART system that you have in
    place.
        I also wanted to emphasize that my understanding is the
    biggest tsunami we had in Hawaii, that killed about 159 people,
    and the biggest one that hit Alaska, were off the Aleutian
    islands, weren't they?
        Ms. Glackin. Yes, that is correct.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        I would now like to recognize myself for another 5 minutes.
        Mr. Madden, you are right there on the front lines. You
    have testified that in terms of your interactions that things
    are as they are supposed to be. But this is a golden
    opportunity to suggest, crystal clear for the committee and for
    the Congress, what it is you think is missing from what the
    Federal Government is providing you in terms of information,
    etc.
        Mr. Madden. Mr. Chairman, there are two items on that. One
    is that the emphasis so far has been on the seismic-generated
    tsunamis. The major killer in 1964 were the local tsunamis. The
    earthquake caused half of a mountain to slide down into the
    water. The water then proceeded in, not at a 33 feet height,
    but at a 200 feet height. And that gives almost no notice.
        So it is the shaking of the ground, which is the only
    notice that the people have. That is why the preparedness is so
    important.
        The second part is that, during this event, I am fortunate
    that the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center is only
    40 miles from my emergency operations center. I put a person in
    that center with a cell phone and a radio just in case
    something happened. And in this event, there was so much
    worldwide interest that the Web site could no longer put out
    their notices. They were still putting it out by fax and other
    means. But they lacked the bandwidth to fully accommodate all
    of the interest and all of the system's demand.
        We accommodated that within our State, that served us. Had
    it been longer than that, we were standing ready to contact our
    counterparts in Hawaii to act as that go-between. So it is
    communications system, bandwidth and enough capacity to handle
    a worldwide interest item, and that public education that for
    those coastal communities, if the earth shakes, don't wait, go
    to higher ground. That is the only way that the local tsunami
    threat will be reduced and save lives.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Ms. Ward, we don't have California represented, and I
    believe that is part of your region. From your perspective, the
    Federal Government perspective, what are the States doing right
    or wrong? How well prepared are they?
        Ms. Ward. Mr. Chairman, I think that along with my
    counterparts in Region X and the State of Alaska, they are
    doing the things that they need to do to get out the
    preparedness campaign, all hazards. And we have a couple of
    things, tsunami awareness week that ironically was just last
    week. And we do all hazards and catastrophic planning that we
    have focused on for the last several years significantly.
        While some of those plans have focused on earthquake-
    specific, what we use and what we saw just recently for the
    State of Hawaii, as an example, is that planning, we use that
    specific plan that was for a Category 5 hurricane hitting
    Honolulu, we used the same elements of that plan, those
    checklists, to start our response activities for this event.
        So we feel that they are doing what they need to be doing
    in partnership with all of us for preparing. But as you have
    heard from the panel, the complacency of preparedness,
    especially in an event or scenario that doesn't happen very
    often but that can have devastating effects to coastlines where
    we all share, at least at this end of the table, with tourists
    who come now and then to a place where they may not be as aware
    of these types of risks. It is a challenge and a balance to
    keep that preparedness.
        Mr. Chaffetz. From your perspective, Ms. Ward and Mr.
    Murphy, are any of the States not doing what they are supposed
    to be doing? From your perspective, your professional
    perspective, are there any that are lagging behind or just
    ignoring the threat?
        Ms. Ward. Mr. Chairman, I would say no. But I would also
    caution that in these economic times, for State governments and
    our territorial governments, that it is a challenge to
    prioritize these types of activities. But it is certainly a
    priority for all of my States and territories.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. As we kind of wrap up here, maybe
    you could just, we will start with Mr. Madden, the No. 1 thing
    you would like to see happen moving forward.
        Mr. Madden. The ability for communities to make informed
    decisions requires the network and on the training and exercise
    for them. So it is continuous emphasis on the individual's and
    the community's decisionmaking.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Mr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. I would concur with Mr. Madden, but I would
    also say that we need to continue to improve and escalate our
    efforts in catastrophic planning. If we really did have
    something that would hit the entire west coast, you really need
    a plan that will deal with that. So more and continued work.
        Ms. Ward. And I would agree with both of them and add that
    the emphasis on personal preparedness for a plethora of risks
    is extremely important.
        Ms. Glackin. I think what I would say is sustained
    improvement of the services we have now. And going to your
    first question, Mr. Chairman, I would say your point about
    really having the overall national assessment of tsunami risk
    done for the Nation, so that we are ensuring that we are
    covering everything that needs to be done.
        Mr. Leith. Thank you. I would come in from the technical
    and scientific side and say that I would very much like to see
    the completion of a seismic network and delivery system in the
    United States, a modern one that replaces the one that was
    built over the decades at the last part of the previous
    century.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Very good.
        Thank you all for attending. Please, if there are
    additional comments that you wish to submit, information that
    you can provide the committee, we would certainly appreciate
    that. Your full testimony, if you weren't able to get through
    it all, will be submitted again for the record. We appreciate
    the great length and time, we appreciate your understanding. We
    started a bit late, given the votes on the floor. Particularly
    Mr. Madden, who traveled such a great distance, we appreciate
    you all being here.
        The great work that you do, it is a thankless job in many
    ways, but so vital when that disaster hits. We appreciate your
    dedication and your work for our country and thank you for
    being here.
        At this time, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 68042.053