    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

             FEMA REAUTHORIZATION: ENSURING THE NATION IS PREPARED

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

                                    (113-37)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 2, 2013

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    85-022                    WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,          Columbia
      Vice Chair                         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    GARY G. MILLER, California           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida       JANICE HAHN, California
    JEFF DENHAM, California              RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              DINA TITUS, Nevada
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    TREY RADEL, Florida
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
                                    ------                                7

     Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
                                   Management

                      LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas      Columbia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair  MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex       NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
        Officio)                           (Ex Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    iv

                                   TESTIMONY

    Bob Khan, Fire Chief, City of Phoenix, Arizona, Fire Department,
      and Central Region Sponsoring Agency Chief, FEMA Urban Search
      and Rescue System..............................................     8
    Barry Fisher, General Manager, WFMZ-TV, Allentown, PA, on behalf
      of the National Association of Broadcasters....................     8
    Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Executive Vice President, CTIA--The
      Wireless Association...........................................     8
    Bobby A. Courtney, M.P.H., J.D., Chief Programming Officer, MESH
      Coalition......................................................     8

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity
      Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Fred
      Endrikat, Urban Search and Rescue Branch Chief, Federal
      Emergency Management Agency, joint statement \\........    33
    Bob Khan.........................................................    43
    Barry Fisher.....................................................    47
    Christopher Guttman-McCabe.......................................    63
    Bobby A. Courtney................................................    69

                           SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

    Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., testimony for the
      record.........................................................    77

    ----------
    \\ Representatives of the Federal Emergency Management
      Agency were invited to attend the hearing as witnesses.
      However, they were furloughed as a result of the Government
      shutdown of October 1 through October 16, 2013, and were unable
      to attend. Their written statement was submitted for the
      record.

      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.001

      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.002

      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.003

      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.004

      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.005

             FEMA REAUTHORIZATION: ENSURING THE NATION IS PREPARED

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2013

                      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 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Barletta. The committee will come to order.
        Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings to
    examine reforms to improve our Nation's emergency management
    capability. Last month we received testimony on recovering
    quicker and smarter following a disaster. We examined the
    implementation of reforms enacted earlier this year as part of
    the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act and what additional reforms
    may be needed to streamline the process.
        Today we will hear from local officials in the private
    sector on two critical components of our preparedness and
    response system: the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
    System, or IPAWS; the Urban Search and Rescue System, or US&R.
        Many people in the public may ask, why are these programs
    important to me? Some may not recognize the acronym IPAWS, but
    I am sure they would be familiar with the Emergency Alert
    System or the National Weather Service alerts that appear on
    their televisions or radios when a tornado or flood is
    approaching, and many people may have already received weather
    or AMBER Alerts on their cell phones. All of these components
    are pieces of IPAWS, a system of systems intended to integrate
    and streamline alerts through as many devices as possible.
        It sounds pretty straightforward in this age of technology
    that we should be able to alert people through TV, radio, cell
    phone and Internet, social media, and the list goes on and on.
    But as I am sure the witnesses before us will attest, it has
    not been easy to develop this system. While the Nation's alert
    system dates back to the old Emergency Broadcast System in the
    1960s, it was not until 2006, when former President Bush issued
    an Executive order directing the development of IPAWS, that
    there was a focused effort to modernize the old system. In
    fact, it was not until 2011 that there was a nationwide test to
    make sure it would even work in the event of a Presidential
    alert.
        While the Executive order provided direction for IPAWS in
    2009, the GAO raised a number of concerns about how it was
    being implemented and how effectively FEMA was working with key
    stakeholders, such as the broadcasters and wireless industries.
    In recent years, however, I am pleased to say, we have seen
    noticeable progress. The program office for IPAWS at FEMA has
    taken GAO's findings seriously and has taken steps to try and
    address key problems identified.
        I know FEMA has worked closely with this committee to
    address concerns and ensure we can conduct effective oversight
    of the program. In fact, in a more recent review completed
    earlier this year, the GAO found improvements in how the
    program is currently being implemented.
        While there has been progress, there are still issues that
    must be addressed as IPAWS continues to expand and integrate
    additional capabilities. The national test, for example, was a
    good first step. However, there were clear gaps identified in
    our alert system that still need to be fixed. Reform
    legislation can help ensure the development of IPAWS stays on
    track and minimizes waste.
        Another area we will examine today is the Urban Search and
    Rescue System. US&R has been a model of what a Federal, State,
    local, and private sector partnership can look like. There are
    28 US&R teams across the Nation, including in my home State of
    Pennsylvania. In fact, along with Fire Chief Khan, a number of
    the other US&R team members are also present today, including
    Special Operations Chief of Philadelphia Fire Department Craig
    Murphy.
        Each team has up to 70 personnel that are cross-trained in
    areas such as search, rescue, medical, hazardous materials, and
    logistics. The teams include physicians, structural engineers,
    and first responders. They are trained and equipped with help
    from FEMA and are called up by FEMA when needed to respond
    following a disaster.
        While the members of these teams are not Federal, they do
    not hesitate to respond to disasters in other States and even
    internationally, such as following the earthquake in Haiti.
    These teams have been deployed over the years to many
    disasters, including the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist
    attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and more recently Hurricane Sandy
    and the Colorado floods and storms.
        The problem has been that these team members, when
    Federalized, do not have clarity on liability and compensation
    issues. It is amazing that we ask men and women to go into
    collapsed structures searching for trapped survivors without
    providing them clarity on their legal status when it comes to
    liability issues and injuries.
        We want to explore today how US&R works, how US&R teams
    have responded to recent disasters, and what reforms may be
    needed to protect team members.
        I thank all of the witnesses for being here today, and I
    also would like to acknowledge and welcome Mr. Fisher, general
    manager of a broadcast station in my home State of
    Pennsylvania. Thank you all for being here today.
        I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
    Carson, for a brief opening statement.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman Barletta.
        Good morning and welcome to our distinguished panel of
    witnesses; also to Chairman Shuster who is here.
        I want to note at the outset that while the issues before
    us this morning are important, I believe that--as a former law
    enforcement officer this is an issue that is near and dear to
    my heart--but I personally believe that we are really doing a
    disservice to the American people. The shutdown has real-life
    impacts, and holding a hearing on a topic unrelated to the
    reopening of our Government, no matter how critical, is really
    counterproductive.
        We all know by now that the last shutdown, in the 1990s,
    cost over $1 billion, waste we can expect under this shutdown
    as well. This is money that emergency management programs like
    these could put to better use. Moreover, FEMA, a very relevant,
    critically important witness to the issues before us today,
    cannot attend because of the shutdown. Yes, we have their
    written testimony, but that is not the same as having a
    representative testify and respond to questioning. There is no
    urgent reason to hold this hearing today and it should have
    been postponed, quite frankly.
        But since the hearing is moving forward, I am very pleased
    that Hoosiers are well represented by Mr. Bobby Courtney with
    the Medical Emergency Services For Health Coalition. The MESH
    Coalition, which is located in my district, is one of only
    three entities of its kind nationwide. MESH supports healthcare
    emergency management, and this includes using emergency alerts
    to coordinate hospital preparedness, as well as working with
    emergency managers to provide real-time hospital capacity
    information.
        Today's hearing addresses very essential disaster
    preparedness and response functions, and I am happy to be here
    today, Mr. Chairman. And as Mr. Courtney can attest, modern
    technologies like IPAWS are a critical part of disaster
    response preparation. Several times a year the emergency
    response personnel like these leave behind their families to
    help those in need, and when they do Congress has a
    responsibility to make sure that they are supported. We must
    provide them with assurances that they and their families will
    be taken care of if they are hurt in the line of duty. This is
    something we can always do better, and so I am glad that it is
    a part of today's discussion.
        I welcome the testimony from today's witnesses as we
    consider priorities and provisions for this committee's
    upcoming FEMA reauthorization legislation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson.
        At this time I would like to recognize the chairman of the
    full committee, Mr. Shuster.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman Barletta. Thank you for
    holding this hearing today. The ranking member is correct that
    this shutdown is affecting all Americans, and we urge that the
    Senate and the President come to the table so we can dispense
    with this shutdown and get back on with business.
        I also want to just point out to make sure that everybody
    understands that FEMA provided us with testimony before the
    shutdown occurred, so we have their written testimony, and I am
    sure in the coming days when we solve this shutdown we will be
    talking with the folks at FEMA concerning these issues we are
    talking about today.
        But it is affecting all Americans. In fact, it is affecting
    this committee. We have furloughs beginning this week in our
    committee staff and our personal offices. So, again, we all
    want to get back to work and make sure that the Government is
    functioning for the American people.
        But, again, I want to thank Chairman Barletta for holding
    this hearing on FEMA reauthorization, ensuring that America is
    prepared for the next incident, and I think we all know there
    will be another incident, it is just when and where.
        I also want to welcome Mr. Fisher also from my home State
    of Pennsylvania. Thanks for making the trip down here.
        Last month the subcommittee held a hearing focusing on
    recover and rebuilding following disasters and reforms we
    enacted as part of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.
    Today we are focusing on those key programs that are critical
    to our Nation's preparedness and response capabilities, the
    IPAWS and the Urban Search and Rescue System. In previous
    Congresses this committee has proposed and passed reforms to
    improve capabilities, and we continue exploring similar reforms
    in the FEMA reauthorization, this bill, as I said, that
    continued examination of legislation clarifying those
    protections.
        I also want to thank our stakeholders for being here. I
    think it is extremely important that as we develop legislation,
    reforms, that the folks that are out in the real world that
    have to deal with them are testifying before us. You provide us
    with great insight, and I hope that we are going to make this a
    model for the committee, what Mr. Barletta is doing here today,
    and we have done that on water resources development and other
    bills that we are moving forward to make sure that stakeholders
    are at the table and get their say because we learn so much
    from your real world experiences. So, again, thank all of you
    for being here today.
        With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to recognize Congresswoman Norton, if she has
    any opening comments she would like to make.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
    pleased to see this bill. This bill came forward in the last
    Congress. It is a bill of some specific urgency as we have seen
    more events evolve beyond the original 9/11 events where
    communication is everything. I understand, of course, that
    there were some outstanding issues, and we agreed that we would
    work those through. So I am very pleased that we are looking
    specifically at the issues that had remained outstanding and
    believe and hope that, with them cleared up, this FEMA
    reauthorization can finally make it through.
        And I thank you very much for bringing this forward. It is
    an urgent and important piece of legislation. And I am pleased
    to be here with the new ranking member as well, who I see is
    settled in quite comfortably and quite well.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Mullin for a brief opening
    statement.
        Mr. Mullin. I don't know if you can call it a statement,
    more it is a gripe. I hear my colleague on the other side that
    is going to complain about us holding a hearing. Well, what are
    we supposed to do? Supposed to go back to our office and sit
    there, watch movies, play cards? We are here to work.
        The gentlemen that are sitting in front of us, they don't
    have a choice. If called, they are going to go to work. Until
    we can figure out how we are going to work together, how we are
    going to move forward, what do we propose? We have to work.
        Party politics is causing this gridlock to begin with, and
    unfortunately we are playing with real people's lives. We have
    a situation that is in front of us that we have got to take
    care of. We are talking about responding in the most critical
    times, and my colleague from the other side is going to
    complain because we are having a hearing? That is absurd. We
    have got to continue moving forward regardless.
        I am glad I am here. I am glad I am still not just sitting
    in my office. I am glad I am ready to go to work. And we are
    still going to be one day moving this ball forward. This
    gridlock isn't going to last forever. Why have a backlog here?
    Let's be ready to act immediately. And that is what we are
    trying to do in this committee, is we are trying to make sure
    that we are ready to move forward. We have done that in this
    committee over and over and over again. We have had bipartisan
    approaches over and over and over again and our chairman has
    shown that. And to sit here and get slammed because we are
    having a committee hearing is ridiculous.
        So thank you for being here. I am going to listen to
    everything you have to say. And I hope--I hope--that we get
    this right, because so far we are getting it wrong up here in
    DC.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Mullin.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Walz for opening comments.
        Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Chairman, and thank the ranking
    member.
        I, too, would like to thank you for traveling here and
    coming.
        I would respond to that, to the gentleman. We are high and
    dry up here, receiving a paycheck. FEMA representatives and
    FEMA V in Chicago are not today. I think that the ranking
    member's position was clear. I don't know if we are writing for
    Jon Stewart now or not. The title of the hearing is ``FEMA
    Reauthorization: Ensuring the Nation is Prepared.''
        FEMA is not there, and they are not there because they are
    furloughed. That is where the anger lies. Of course we should
    be here working. This is about partnerships. Every one of these
    gentleman is going to testify that it is about building a
    partnership. What they do is critically important. What FEMA
    does is critically important. They are not here because of us.
    That is the point. So let's fix that part first so FEMA can
    come here and do their job.
        Nobody is disagreeing that we want to do what is right by
    our people, but it is not sitting here at a dry dais. FEMA is
    the one who walked through the crap in Rushford when we had the
    flooding and the sewers backed up.
        Mr. Mullin. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Walz. Not at this time. I came here, too, to do my job.
    I came here, too, to talk to that. I want to talk to FEMA. They
    are not here because they can't be, and the frustration lies in
    do you want to pretend like everything is fine, you want to
    pretend and write a hearing that is ensuring the Nation is
    prepared. They are not prepared today. That is where the
    frustration lies. Not a question of whether we are going to
    posture who is working harder, not who is coming to do here,
    not that we are going through this. The frustration lies in fix
    first problems first. We fix the shutdown, FEMA can show up. We
    fix it where FEMA is showing here, we can fix this
    communication issue.
        I have stood on the top of garages in Rushford, Minnesota,
    because we had no communication. I have talked to a sheriff who
    left his vehicle to jump over a hot power line to pull somebody
    out of an oncoming tornado in Albert Lea and had no
    communication back. His people lost where he was at.
        This issue of being able to communicate, this issue of
    preparedness, this issue of interoperability, Federal, State,
    National Guard, local law enforcement, first responders, and
    all that is critically important. But when we break that chain
    and one of our critical partners is not here--the chairman is
    right, they provided their testimony ahead of time. Did they
    provide sandbags ahead of time in case we need them if they are
    there?
        This is about getting it right. So the posturing again and
    the frustration, the gentleman is a friend of mine. I trust his
    judgment. I know he is working. I know you want to be here. I
    don't question your work ethic. I question what the chairman
    was saying on this is let's go take up that business first. We
    can end this today.
        And, yes, I understand the chairman has a different point
    on how we can get to that, but if I am the American people
    looking on here and we are holding a hearing on ensuring the
    Nation is prepared, FEMA is not here because of layoff, I call
    Region V and ask where they are at. You have dedicated public
    servants here who want to get this right and they are looking
    at saying, what is this nonsense?
        Mr. Mullin. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Walz. Yes, I will yield to my friend.
        Mr. Mullin. The first responders isn't FEMA, the first
    responders are the men and women back home like our volunteer
    fire department, our volunteer police department, which I am a
    volunteer. And we are the first responders. I understand FEMA
    is not here, but FEMA is just a little bit of the niche.
        Mr. Walz. A little bit of the niche?
        Mr. Mullin. They are not the first ones to walk in. We are
    the first ones to walk in. And as far as the paycheck, I am
    giving mine back to the Treasury.
        Mr. Walz. So am I, and I reclaim my time. That is not the
    posturing we need.
        Mr. Mullin. OK, but----
        Mr. Walz. No, I reclaim my time.
        Mr. Mullin. OK.
        Mr. Walz. I reclaim my time.
        The point about this is, so now we are going to elevate one
    group over another. I respect the first responders who are
    there, but my people will tell you this: Without FEMA being
    there and without that you are never made whole again. So if we
    are ensuring the Nation is prepared, we are going to pick the
    winners and losers and put it here and denigrate the Federal
    employee at FEMA who is not here to defend themselves and the
    work they have done. No one is criticizing or trying to pick
    who does a better job. We are all in it together. And so my
    frustration lies is, is that, yeah--well, I am here to hear the
    witnesses. I yield back.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Meadows for opening comments.
        Mr. Meadows. I just want to say thank you, gentlemen, for
    being here. Thank you for your service. I enjoy great support
    from the men and women who respond, who truly miss
    anniversaries and birthdays and special events to make sure
    that they serve the people. And I just want to say a very
    heartfelt thank you for the job that all of you do to make
    sure. Because the only time, the only time that you ever get
    recognized or highlighted is when you don't do your job well,
    and that is a sad commentary.
        And so today I want to go on record to say thank you for
    doing your job well, thank you for answering a call, because
    indeed it is a call to serve our Nation, to serve our
    communities, to serve families and friends. You answer that
    call. Day in, day out you stand on ready, for when the alarm
    goes off and we have a need you are there. I just want to say
    thank you on behalf of a grateful Nation, on behalf of a
    grateful community. And I am committed to work around the clock
    in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that not only we address
    these issues, but also that we are better prepared going
    forward.
        I was able to participate in a FEMA drill for natural
    disasters, saw it firsthand, saw the unbelievable coordination,
    setting up cities at an event where we can truly make sure that
    every single detail is taken care of, rehearse over and over
    and over again, so that nobody comes in harm's way. And so I
    want to say thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barletta. I recognize Mr. Nolan for some opening
    comments.
        Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I, too, would like to express my thanks and gratitude to
    the local, State and Federal FEMA officials who are, if not
    first, why, they are right behind the first responders, and I
    know in many cases they are first to help people during these
    tragic times.
        But I would like to, if I might, at the risk of sounding
    Pollyannic here, associate myself with the remarks of both our
    good friend Representative Mullin and my very dear and beloved
    friend Representative Walz and ask that we all give serious
    consideration to the solution to this Government shutdown and
    crisis that precludes Federal FEMA officials from being here,
    that we all give serious consideration to the solution that all
    of the observers of the process in this town know what the
    solution and the answer is, and that is to go to our Speaker
    and to convince him to allow us a simple vote on a continuing
    resolution to fund the Government at the current levels.
        And I don't mind telling my colleagues that many of us on
    this side of the aisle, myself included, were prepared to vote
    against the continuing resolution which funds the Government at
    2008 levels and maintains sequesters, both of which most of us
    on this side of the aisle oppose. But we are prepared to vote
    for that and to make that compromise. And we are not talking
    about putting that in stone, you know, ad infinitum into the
    future. Just give us a vote and join us in pleading with the
    Speaker to give us a simple vote on a clean resolution to fund
    the Government at these levels for the next 4, 5, 6 weeks, and
    then we can carry on and have this debate about all the
    important and great issues of our time, not only the Affordable
    Care Act, but the future of FEMA and tax reform and immigration
    and trade and all the great issues.
        So forgive me for getting a little off track here, because
    I know we are here to talk about FEMA. But the way to get FEMA
    here is for all of us to join in allowing a vote on a simple,
    clean CR, and then we can all get back to the business,
    Markwayne, that you so eloquently have articulated the need for
    us to do.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        And let me just say that I certainly appreciate my
    colleagues' strong feelings, and they are all warranted, and I
    certainly understand where they are coming from. But just for
    clarity for the public to make it clear that FEMA is still
    responding to disasters. They are still available to respond.
    They are limited in the activities to only protecting life and
    property, and that is why they are not here today. The Disaster
    Relief Fund is fully appropriated, and that is why they can
    continue to respond to disasters.
        So our panel today, and again we would like to thank you
    all for being here, Mr. Bob Khan, fire chief, city of Phoenix,
    Arizona, and central region sponsoring agency chief, FEMA Urban
    Search and Rescue System. Mr. Barry Fisher, general manager,
    WFMZ-TV, Allentown, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National
    Association of Broadcasters. Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe,
    executive vice president, CTIA--The Wireless Association. And
    Bobby Courtney, chief programming officer, the MESH Coalition.
        I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
    record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral
    testimony to 5 minutes.
        Fire Chief Khan, you may proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF BOB KHAN, FIRE CHIEF, CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA,
     FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND CENTRAL REGION SPONSORING AGENCY CHIEF,
      FEMA URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE SYSTEM; BARRY FISHER, GENERAL
      MANAGER, WFMZ-TV, ALLENTOWN, PA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
       ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE,
     EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; AND
      BOBBY A. COURTNEY, M.P.H., J.D., CHIEF PROGRAMMING OFFICER,
                             MESH COALITION

        Chief Khan. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
    Carson, and distinguished members of the committee. This is a
    great opportunity to appear before the U.S. House of
    Representatives Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management.
        My name is Bob Khan. I am a 31-year member of the Phoenix
    Fire Department. In that role I serve as the task force leader
    for Arizona Task Force 1, one of 28 Urban Search and Rescue
    teams in the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I have been
    asked to serve the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Program as one
    of three sponsoring agency chief representatives representing
    the 10 central region teams.
        I appear before you today as a sponsoring agency chief. I
    want you to know how proud I am of this program. The men and
    women that serve the Nation through the US&R program are
    competent and committed professionals that care deeply for the
    program and for the citizens that we serve.
        Each and every team member is a professional provider in
    his or her town or village. Whether a firefighter or medical
    doctor or trained search dog handler, these personnel respond
    to natural disasters with the same skill sets that they apply
    every day in their hometowns. The concept is fairly simple:
    utilization of an all-hazards approach to incident mitigation
    using special training, special equipment, and very special
    people.
        The US&R system is part of a tiered approach to disaster
    management. The system has the capability to augment local and
    State resources with federally sponsored teams that can readily
    plug into operations at the local level following the National
    Incident Management System model. These US&R teams are made up
    of local providers that are on their own local payrolls until
    activated. They are far less expensive to maintain than a
    resource that may be fully funded by the Federal Government.
        The 28 US&R teams and their localities benefit from
    training, equipment, and experience that come from being part
    of this great program. Just as the system members apply the
    skills learned at home to national disasters, they apply the
    lessons learned while on Federal missions to emergency or
    planning needs of their local jurisdictions.
        The same search and rescue methods that were utilized and
    refined during responses to September 11th, Hurricanes Katrina,
    Sandy, and tornado responses in Oklahoma, are performed daily
    throughout your hometowns in America by our members. Many of
    the planning methods learned by the team members in this system
    were applied just 2 weeks ago while responding to the Colorado
    floods.
        All five of the task forces deployed to the recent flooding
    in Colorado were from the central region. Our training and
    equipment worked and saved lives. These deployed teams knew
    each other and operated from a common operating platform
    grounded in training, similar equipment, and common policies.
    Many of the areas in Colorado, because of the flooding, were
    only accessible by aircraft or boats. Fortunately for the
    victims in Colorado, all 28 task forces were able to increase
    their water operation capabilities by adding needed watercraft
    to their equipment cache during this past fiscal year, which
    allowed us more effectively to respond to the vast needs that
    resulted from this catastrophic flooding.
        Several of the remaining 28 US&R teams were on standby at
    their points of departure waiting to be deployed as either
    augmentation or relief of the first teams that had been
    deployed. The US&R program office worked diligently to
    coordinate the deployment of the teams and to ensure the
    practices applied to any domestic response would also be
    consistently applied here in Colorado. As the central region
    sponsoring agency chief of the deployed teams, it was
    gratifying to know that the Federal support was there and the
    activation orders were spelled out.
        In the aftermath of the tornado-caused destruction in
    Oklahoma, capabilities brought to the theater of operation
    included structural evaluation of buildings by structural
    engineers, including stabilization of damaged structures,
    including shoring, cribbing of walls, roofs, and flooring,
    along with critical expertise needed to determine the
    structural integrity of a building prior to inserting teams
    with search and rescue efforts of any possible victims. In
    comparison to a typical local first responder, a US&R task
    force is able to conduct physical search and heavy rescue
    operations in collapsed reinforced concrete buildings.
        From a sponsoring agency chief's perspective there are
    legal and financial liabilities that we are concerned of. We
    want to send the best trained teams to assist other teams while
    assuring our localities are not left vulnerable and exposed. In
    this economic climate, expenses that have been borne by
    sponsoring agencies in the past are being more closely
    scrutinized by our localities. Many of the sponsoring agencies
    are suffering cuts that have not been seen in 30 years. We feel
    it is important for this program to have consistent funding in
    order to support training and exercises, acquisition and
    maintenance of equipment, and medical monitoring for
    responders.
        Workman's compensation and liability protection for our
    civilian personnel are also of critical importance. There is a
    very real risk of injury and death to our task force members
    when they are deployed. God forbid anything awful happen here.
        These are things that we have to think about to ensure the
    proper liability protections, coverage, and compensation, and
    making sure they are in place for their family members.
    Additionally, we want to assure our deployed members' jobs
    remain safe until they return home. These assurances protect
    civilians from the US&R program from employment discrimination
    and retaliation as a result of engaging in Federal activities.
        In conclusion, I am thankful to the committee for this
    opportunity to discuss the US&R program and how it benefits our
    communities. We look forward to working with the committee on
    the FEMA reauthorization and stand by to make any assistance
    proven to make the system better for the future. Thank you.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Chief Khan.
        Mr. Fisher, you may proceed.
        Mr. Fisher. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
    Carson, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Barry
    Fisher. I am the president and general manager of WFMZ-TV,
    Allentown, Pennsylvania. We are a community-oriented local
    broadcaster with 83 live newscasts each week and a 24-hour
    digital weather channel. I am here today representing the
    National Association of Broadcasters. Thank you for this
    opportunity to speak to you today about emergency
    communications and the valuable asset of often lifesaving
    services that local broadcasters provide during emergencies.
        When the power goes out, when phone service is limited,
    when the Internet goes down, broadcasters are always there and
    always on the air. Broadcasters are first informers. We are the
    go-to source for vital information before, during, and after an
    emergency. I would like to show you a brief video clip that
    underscores the critical services broadcasters provide.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Fisher. During Hurricane Sandy, WFMZ provided around-
    the-clock coverage to our viewers to keep them informed. We
    knew there would be widespread power and communication outages,
    so we began alerting the public about what areas would be hit,
    what essentials were needed, and how to stay safe. We also
    encouraged our viewers to buy battery-operated televisions in
    case they lost power. In one of our counties in the viewing
    area, an estimated 67 percent of the county was without power,
    but we stayed on the air, keeping viewers abreast of what was
    happening. We worked closely with local radio stations to
    simulcast our news to reach people without battery-operated
    televisions.
        This type of cooperation among broadcasters is common
    during emergencies. I am proud of our station's performance
    during Hurricane Sandy, as well as all broadcasters in the
    storm zone.
        We are also proud to be the backbone of the emergency
    communication system. The EAS is a national public warning
    network that connects public safety authorities to the public
    through over-the-air broadcast stations with the simple push of
    the button. We consider the delivery of timely alerts and
    warnings to be the most important use of our spectrum and an
    indispensable service to the public.
        The EAS is also used for AMBER Alerts, which was created by
    broadcasters and local law enforcement in 1996. To date, AMBER
    Alerts have aided in the successful recovery of over 656
    abducted children across the United States.
        Broadcasters have made investments in their Internet and
    social media sites, some of the most viewed content on the Web.
    When the public receives an email, text, alerts, or social
    messages from local broadcasters, they know it is accurate and
    from an authoritative source. In fact, even wireless alerts
    received on your mobile phone direct you to local media for
    more information.
        In November 2011, FEMA and the FCC conducted the first ever
    EAS test where broadcasters participated across the United
    States. The test served its purpose to diagnose problems in the
    system that are now being addressed. This is precisely why NAB
    fully supports EAS testing on a regular basis.
        The continued success of EAS depends on a few factors.
    First, State and local safety officials should receive ongoing
    training in the proper use and to protect the integrity of the
    EAS system. Broadcasters stand ready to deliver the message,
    but we first need someone to deliver it to us. We strongly urge
    the committee to incorporate training into any legislation that
    is considered.
        Second, we ask the committee to create a national advisory
    committee on emergency alerting. The committee would bring all
    stakeholders together to ensure continual improvements to the
    system.
        I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on
    this indispensable role that broadcasters play in communicating
    emergency information to the public. We look forward to working
    with you toward our shared goal of keeping the American people
    safe through timely alerts and warnings. Thank you very much
    for your time.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe, you may proceed.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you and good morning, Chairman
    Barletta and Ranking Member Carson and members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in
    this morning's hearing.
        My name is Chris Guttman-McCabe and I serve as the
    association's executive vice president. In this role I have
    been involved in the wireless industry's efforts to implement
    the Commercial Mobile Alert Service, and I am pleased to be
    here today to update you on the wireless industry's efforts to
    deliver a state-of-the-art alerting system to America's
    wireless consumers.
        The Commercial Mobile Alert Service, which has been renamed
    Wireless Emergency Alerts by the FCC, grew out of the Warning,
    Alert and Response Network Act, which became law as part of the
    SAFE Ports Act in late 2006. The WARN Act was intended to
    harness the creativity of the wireless ecosystem and take
    advantage of the ubiquity of the mobile platform to augment the
    existing emergency alerting system, all without imposing new
    substantial costs or technology mandates on the wireless
    ecosystem. This approach was consistent with and built upon
    previous public-private partnerships that led to the successful
    creation of the Wireless Priority Service and the AMBER Alert
    programs.
        In the WARN Act, Congress developed an innovative procedure
    to address the problem of emergency alerting by securing the
    participation of interested nongovernmental parties in the
    development and deployment of what has become a 90-character,
    geotargeted alerting capability that lets consumers carrying a
    wireless device know that there is an imminent threat to health
    or safety.
        The Wireless Emergency Alert system went live in April 2012
    and since then carriers serving 98 percent of U.S. wireless
    consumers have opted to participate in the program. Over the
    last year alone, more than 8,600 Wireless Emergency Alerts have
    been issued and many have played a key role in protecting the
    public. These include AMBER Alerts that have helped to directly
    recover abducted children, including an 8-month-old in the
    State of Minnesota, and 8- and 6-year-old children in
    Pennsylvania. The alerts also have directed the public to take
    shelter, evacuate, or engage in some other action in the face
    of impending danger, often from weather events.
        As the examples highlighted in my written testimony
    demonstrate, the Wireless Emergency Alert program is working,
    offering a valuable mobile augmentation to the Emergency Alert
    Broadcast System we all grew up with while giving emergency
    managers a, quote/unquote, ``game changer'' that helps them to
    inform and protect members of the public who may not be within
    reach of traditional television or radio alerts.
        While industry is working hard to make the Wireless
    Emergency Alert program an ongoing success test, the
    effectiveness of the effort also depends on how well the public
    understands and uses the system. While carriers and others in
    the industry can and do provide important assistance in the
    area of education, FEMA and other Government agencies have an
    important role to play to promote uniform and comprehensive
    education across all parts of the country and all affected
    sectors of the emergency response community.
        We applaud FEMA on its recent rollout of a public service
    announcement on Wireless Emergency Alerts, and we agree that
    this should remain a focus for FEMA and its IPAWS office.
    Moreover, it is incumbent on alerting authorities to similarly
    educate their constituents about the alerts they may send, as
    only they have the knowledge to answer specific questions about
    incidents and alerts in their area.
        The wireless industry is committed to working with FEMA and
    the FCC to ensure that subsequent generations of the alert
    system support additional functionality and granularity. With
    this in mind, we do not believe that wireless carriers that
    participate in the Wireless Emergency Alerting system should be
    subject to any new requirements that emanate from the
    implementation of IPAWS. While IPAWS may help to modernize the
    distribution of alerts on other communications platforms, the
    WARN Act framework remains the proper path to deliver and
    modernize emergency alerts provided over wireless networks.
    CTIA urges you to keep this in mind as you consider legislative
    efforts to modernize IPAWS and reauthorize FEMA.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in
    today's hearing. CTIA looks forward to working with the
    subcommittee, FEMA, and others in the public safety community
    to ensure that the Wireless Emergency Alert program continues
    to offer a unique and useful way to help protect the American
    public. I look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Guttman-
    McCabe.
        Mr. Courtney, you may proceed.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barletta,
    Ranking Member Carson, and members of the subcommittee. On
    behalf of the MESH Coalition, I appreciate the opportunity to
    describe our efforts to ensure that central Indiana communities
    are prepared to respond to emergency events, and I applaud your
    commitment to these important issues.
        I am pleased to report at the outset of my testimony that
    as a result of cooperative efforts of central Indiana
    healthcare, public health, emergency management, and public
    safety partners through the MESH Coalition, that the healthcare
    infrastructure in central Indiana is well positioned to respond
    to a wide range of emergency events.
        The MESH Coalition is a nonprofit public-partnership that
    enables healthcare providers to effectively respond to
    emergency events and remain viable through a recovery. Our
    programs increase capacity in healthcare providers to respond
    to emergency events, protect our healthcare safety net, and
    promote integration and coordination between the Government and
    private sector.
        Today I would like to briefly share three points with you.
    First, through a comprehensive portfolio of programs, the MESH
    Coalition is continuously improving central Indiana's ability
    to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from
    both small and large-scale emergency events. Second, the MESH
    Coalition is one of the most progressive models of healthcare
    emergency management, and we believe it can and should be
    replicated throughout the United States. Third, we believe that
    in order to promote the adoption of healthcare coalitions, we
    must find creative and cost-effective ways of providing
    sustainable support to these efforts while maintaining
    appropriate stewardship of public resources.
        With respect to MESH Coalition programs, in order for
    healthcare providers to prepare for emergency events they must
    understand threats to the healthcare system and know how to
    mitigate against them. Analysts in our healthcare intelligence
    program conduct real-time monitoring of public and private data
    and disseminate information on potential threats in order to
    develop a common operating picture every day.
        Our community-based planning program involves the whole
    community in preparing for potential threats, as well as large-
    scale anticipated events. Our staff facilitate a number of
    working groups helping participants develop plans and programs
    that we implement throughout the year. Our policy program
    provides objective analyses of policy issues designed to assist
    coalition partners with planning for long-term sustainability
    following an emergency event.
        We know that the difference that makes a difference between
    healthcare organizations that respond effectively to emergency
    events and those that don't is clinicians that make good
    decisions under tough conditions. As such, our training and
    education programs focus on clinical decisionmaking that is
    hands on, practical, and uses high-fidelity simulation to
    prepare providers to respond to all hazard scenarios.
        In addition, we are committed to training the future of the
    healthcare emergency management workforce, as evidenced by our
    multidisciplinary internships and fellowships that include
    physicians, nurses, public health graduate students, law
    students, and librarians.
        Under the authority of the Marion County Public Health
    Department director and in cooperation with the Indianapolis
    Department of Public Safety, we also serve as the Marion County
    Multi-Agency Coordination Center, or MedMACC. The MedMACC is
    staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to provide a critical
    operational link between central Indiana healthcare facilities,
    the Marion County Public Health Department, and the governments
    of the city of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana. As you
    can see, our programs are ambitious and address the entire
    emergency management process.
        The second point I would like to share is that the MESH
    Coalition is one of the most progressive models of healthcare
    emergency management in the United States, and we believe it
    can and should be replicated throughout the Nation. The U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services has identified the
    strength of the coalition model and is working to encourage its
    adoption through two emergency management grant programs.
        We are also helping to promote coalition building through
    the National Healthcare Coalition Resource Center, a
    partnership between MESH, the Northwest Health Care Response
    Network in King and Pierce Counties, Washington, and the
    Northern Virginia Hospital Alliance.
        The MESH Coalition is also sustainable, as we pair grant
    funding with private subscription fees and fee-for-service
    funding. Nearly 55 percent of our 2013 budget came from private
    funds, and we expect this to grow in 2014. This does not mean
    that Federal funding is unnecessary. Indeed, our coalition was
    started with HHS funding and has been maintained in part by
    funding from the Department of Homeland Security's MMRS and
    UASI programs.
        Finally, we believe that in order to promote the adoption
    of healthcare coalitions, we must find creative and cost-
    effective ways of providing sustainable support to these
    efforts while maintaining appropriate stewardship of resources.
    While grant funding alone is not a sustainable solution to
    protecting and preserving public health and safety, private
    sector health care should not be solely responsible for
    responding to emergencies of national significance. This is why
    FEMA's role in supporting citizens and first responders is so
    critical. Hospitals cannot and should not be expected to bear
    this burden alone.
        Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and members of
    the subcommittee, on behalf the MESH Coalition, I thank you for
    your leadership and for the opportunity to describe our efforts
    to ensure that central Indiana communities are prepared to
    respond to emergency events. We hope that our experience will
    provide insight for other communities across the country. Happy
    to respond to any questions you may have.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Courtney.
        I will now begin the first round of questions, limited to 5
    minutes for each Member. If there are additional questions
    following the first round we will have additional rounds of
    questions as needed.
        Mr. Khan and Mr. Fisher, can each of you briefly talk about
    why each of these two systems, US&R and IPAWS, are so critical
    to ensuring we are prepared as a Nation? Mr. Khan, do you want
    to go first, Chief Khan?
        Chief Khan. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. If
    you look at the local resources that respond to an emergency,
    to be blunt, no matter how large they are, even New York City,
    they soon become overwhelmed with a significant event. These 28
    teams can deploy, the first three closest teams can deploy
    immediately, and then followed by a box deployment that we have
    in place. And they are 72-hour, self-sustained teams with the
    ability to do search and rescue, different operations for
    emergency services, under the all-hazards umbrella.
        As those local resources get deplenished from the emergency
    itself, we can come in as a fresh set of hands all working on
    the same page with the same equipment and provide rescue,
    search, and treatment to a lot of the people that are out there
    who need help. We did it in Katrina, we did at the World Trade
    Center, we did it most recently in New York where we were doing
    humanitarian efforts. That ability enables the local
    jurisdictions to do the work they would normally do and not be
    overwhelmed simply with the number of victims that we have seen
    with either manmade or natural disasters.
        Mr. Fisher. IPAWS is important because we all have to be
    speaking the same language and communicating as clearly as
    possible so that when an emergency occurs, the information that
    is important gets to the people that are affected, and is
    delivered quickly, efficiently, and clearly.
        And when you are speaking on a national level, when we have
    only first done our test in 2011 on a national level, it
    becomes even more important that should communication systems
    be interrupted, that there is some way to get messages through
    to the public, multiple ways to get it through, but IPAWS is a
    good start for getting everyone speaking on the same page so
    that the message is received and that platforms across the
    universe--television, radio, wireless communications,
    billboards along the roads, whatever method it is--can take
    this information and immediately put it out. And IPAWS is the
    beginning of that, it is the framework, and it is important to
    continue pursuing cooperation between everyone in developing
    IPAWS so that it is fulfilled in a way that is universal.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        Chief Khan, as you point out in your testimony, because
    US&R teams are composed of local and private sector personnel,
    there have been serious concerns about liability and workers'
    comp issues. Yet in similar situations, as with the National
    Guard or the Public Health Service, many of these issues have
    been addressed in statute.
        Can you give us some examples as to why clarifying these
    issues for the US&R team members is important?
        Chief Khan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I can.
        The bottom line is that, when we put these teams together,
    if you have first responders, firefighters, paramedics, even
    police officers that come onboard, they typically are under
    that first responder umbrella. But for the technical rescues
    that we do, for the medical evaluations and procedures that we
    need, or for using the animals, the dogs, we need private
    citizens to join our teams. Many times they are not covered by
    the statutes.
        And so to provide the best talent and to have some sort of
    fallback in case they are injured in the line of duty, we feel
    that it is our obligation to provide them some sort of
    coverage. Right now it is unclear as to how we get them
    covered, and it makes applying and being participants in such a
    great program very limited to a lot of these people that are
    physicians and engineers and dog handlers.
        Mr. Barletta. And, Mr. Khan, even with the uncertainties
    regarding liability and compensation protections, US&R team
    members still respond when they are called to do so. What would
    happen, however, if any team members determined they cannot go
    because of these risks? Will the rest of the team deploy
    anyway?
        Chief Khan. We do operational ready evaluations. The rest
    of the team would deploy, but then again you are not going with
    critical components. Hopefully we would have some fallback
    staffing that we could rely on. But that is a gray area, sir,
    at best.
        I think the opportunity to shore that up lies within this
    subcommittee and the ability to fund those individuals that are
    taking a sacrifice away from their families, taking a chance
    and responding to the theaters that we go to. There are
    unsound, unsafe theaters that we respond to and there is
    liability associated with that, not to mention in addition,
    too, job security. We had one member who decided to respond
    regardless of his secure job as a civilian and lost employment
    because of his response with Arizona Task Force 1 to Katrina.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Carson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Barletta.
        Mr. Khan, you testified about the need for workers'
    compensation and liability protections for US&R team members.
    Would you please explain in more detail the type of situations
    where this is needed and how the lack of such protections
    impacts the ability of US&R teams to respond?
        Chief Khan. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. The bottom
    line is if you go into--and I can best describe a scenario
    where you are going into a situation like Haiti or the World
    Trade Center where you have structural collapse, you actually
    are putting people into voids where other victims are in order
    to treat and rescue those victims. And you are asking these
    civilians to take the same risk and the same chances that you
    have trained firefighters or paramedics doing that are
    specially trained in rescue.
        They are covered under the local municipality's workman's
    comp insurance coverage. The civilians don't have that. If they
    get injured, many times they will be on their own. That makes
    it hard for us to recruit the best of the best to go on
    deployments with these teams so that we are not in need of
    those resources when we respond as a task force. And that goes
    across the Nation. Especially for the jurisdictions that don't
    have any or as many physicians or engineers to draw from, it
    becomes even more challenging, sir.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you.
        Mr. Courtney, do you believe, sir, that the grant guidance
    for the Metropolitan Medical Response System is responsive to
    the growing need for our metropolitan areas to develop the
    capacity for mass casualties?
        Mr. Courtney. Yes. We have relied on--I shouldn't say
    relied on--we have utilized MMRS funds through the MESH
    Coalition in a number of ways, largely to develop our programs.
    Our MCI protocol, our mass casualty incident protocol that has
    been redeveloped over the past year has really developed better
    communications between first responders and the hospitals.
    During a mass casualty incident our 24-hour duty officer is
    paged out, like a piece of fire or EMS apparatus. They directly
    communicate with hospitals to determine emergency department
    capacity. We provide that to on-scene commanders, and they are
    better able to make appropriate transport decisions, really
    with the ultimate goal of not overwhelming a single hospital
    facility.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, you mentioned the emerging use and capabilities
    of mobile DTV-capable devices. Are emergency alerts to mobile
    DTV devices able to target by geography and region?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, I can speak to the mobile DTV platform
    that is being created right now. It was very useful in Japan.
    It is widespread in Japan. And when they had their tsunami and
    nuclear crisis, people were hanging on everything that was
    coming across mobile DTV. As for is it addressable for a
    specific location, I would have to get back to you on that. I
    don't have a specific answer. It is not part of what I am fully
    aware of at this point.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. McCabe, I know that the broadcasters are working with
    cell phone companies, and I think most cell phones now have
    radio capabilities. There is a new arrangement now between
    Sprint and broadcasters, but I understand that other mobile
    phone operators may be reluctant to include an activated FM
    chip in mobile phone plans for alerts. Please explain the
    reluctance by these cell phone providers to the FM chips.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sure, Ranking Member. First of all, I
    think it is--we have taken to calling the industry an ecosystem
    over the last 5 or 6 years because it has changed so
    dramatically. I have been CTIA for 13 years, and it is--you
    know, 5, 5\1/2\ years ago, you didn't have an iPhone; you
    didn't have tablets. You can--what you see now didn't exist.
        The reality is our manufacturers, our handset
    manufacturers, manufacture devices for, you know, a wide range
    of carriers and countries, and they try to fit in a range of
    products, a range of services into the devices, so not--you
    know, obviously, with 32 handset manufacturers, they are
    competing with one another. And when we look at the issue of FM
    chip sets or issues like that, a DTV, a mobile DTV, whether
    there is a satellite chip in it, as you look at the range of
    capabilities or possibilities that can go into a phone, the
    reality is that choice is made both by the handset
    manufacturers, and to the extent that carriers are going to
    subsidize handsets, by the carriers looking at what is going to
    sell and what consumers are going to want. And so they offer a
    broad range of solutions, and the reality--or broad range of
    options. The reality is those change monthly because consumers'
    desires change monthly. I mean, things like, you know,
    facilitating Twitter or Facebook or the different photo sharing
    sites.
        And as we look at handsets, a great test case for FM chip
    sets is going to be Sprint's efforts with regard to putting in
    FM chip set. And if that sells and is successful, I have a
    sense that you will see it in many, many more phones. And if it
    doesn't, you will see it in less, and that is how the market
    works from--from this perspective.
        When we look at 32 different handset manufacturers that put
    hundreds and hundreds of handsets into the market at any one
    point in time, the reality is that diversity is king, and the
    ecosystem tries to chase or, if it can do it well, get ahead of
    consumers' tastes, and that is why you see an evolution,
    constantly evolving handsets. I mean, we have phones and
    tablets, and now we have phablets, sort of that split between a
    phone and a tablet that maybe can almost fit in your pocket.
    And what we see at our trade show shows us that what is coming
    is going to, you know, really boggle the mind. Handsets that
    fit on your watch, the ability to use a watch and not have to
    have a handset attached to it anymore.
        And so when we address issues like FM chip sets, we leave
    it up to that ecosystem, and the carriers will compete against
    each other as well as the handset manufacturers.
        Mr. Carson. All right. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fisher, obviously, there is no doubt the great work the
    local broadcasters have done. Just in Oklahoma, we know it
    saved many lives during the May tornados. And the question I
    have is to what extent or any did--did you experience or expect
    IPAWS to help in this? How is it helping? What cost did--did
    your company incur to put this in or did it--did it cost you
    anything?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, in Pennsylvania, we have a little bit of
    a unique situation. We have incorporated a statewide system
    that is based on EMnet, which we began about 10 years ago.
    EMnet ties basically every television station and every radio
    station in the State together through a common source, so we
    can receive alerts from local municipalities, State agencies,
    FEMA--PEMA, I should say, directly via satellite to each of our
    stations and it is addressable.
        Because we had that network in place, it was a rather
    simple case of interfacing IPAWS into our existing system, so
    stations in Pennsylvania did not have to invest--most stations
    did not have to invest in any additional equipment.
        If you would like more detail on that, I have the manager
    of our EAS system, EMnet system, here with us, and he could
    comment further if you would like.
        Mr. Mullin. Was there funding available if, say, stations,
    smaller stations that maybe didn't have the system already in
    place, was there funding available from the Federal Government
    to comply with this?
        Mr. Fisher. I am told no.
        Mr. Mullin. Do you know what the average cost would have
    been? Once again, I know I am kind of putting you in a
    situation, but what I am trying to get to is the fact that----
        Mr. Fisher. It cost $2,000 per station.
        Mr. Mullin. Per station?
        Mr. Fisher. Per station.
        Mr. Mullin. The fact that what I am trying to get to, is
    there is no question, and I don't think anybody is arguing,
    that we need to communicate together----
        Mr. Fisher. Yes.
        Mr. Mullin [continuing]. But we have a system going on and
    problems right now. I represent rural Oklahoma, and we have
    fire--fire stations that are all volunteer, we have police
    stations that are truly all volunteer. We have very small radio
    stations, and we are asking them all to spend money in one area
    and not providing them funding. And unfunded mandates that are
    coming out of this city is killing smaller areas. And I agree,
    we all need to be there, but what we really need to be looking
    to, if we are going to require this and we want this to happen,
    then we are going to have to find funding for it. I know that
    is a lot of conversations we are having up here today,
    obviously, but is it--do you see this being a problem down the
    road even with----
        Mr. Fisher. No.
        Mr. Mullin. How are you budgeting for this, or do you just
    kind of take on the chin when it comes in?
        Mr. Fisher. I would have to say that you are touching on a
    topic that is important to broadcasters. Essentially many
    things are passed that cost us a lot of money without much
    warning, so funding is an important issue. It is very difficult
    for small radio stations especially to have a regulation passed
    and then have to spend $2,000 that they weren't thinking of. So
    it should always be a consideration.
        The beauty of IPAWS would be that eventually, we wouldn't
    have to be changing on a regular basis to some other format. It
    is important to get to a format and then maintain it. And the
    importance of getting to that format, you need to hit it right
    on the money so that whatever is decided upon is universal and
    can last 10 or 15, 20 years' worth of time. We don't want to go
    out and buy the equipment and reinvent this 5, 10 years from
    now. It doesn't benefit anybody, and it creates a lot of
    issues.
        Mr. Mullin. I mean, we know technology is changing
    constantly, though. And so I appreciate your service, I mean,
    truly, getting it to the public and willing to invest and
    really out of your own pocket to make sure that the public is
    informed, because it is vitally important to us, especially in
    rural areas.
        Real quick before I run out of time, Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mullin. Hope I said that right.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. You did.
        Mr. Mullin. Kind of used to two names. My first name is
    Markwayne.
        So, currently, the wireless alerts include 90 characters.
    Is that right?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes.
        Mr. Mullin. Can you--can the capabilities be expanded to
    other forms of data, such as audio or visual information, if
    needed?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. So, Congressman, the way the product
    was launched, it was sort of ``let's walk before we run,'' but
    one of the things we considered as part of the Alert Advisory
    Committee that put this together were, you know, what are the
    next steps, how can we evolve this system? There are several
    issues in front of the FCC's, let's see, the Communications
    Security Reliability Interoperability Council, it is a
    mouthful, but the CSRIC is looking at evolving and addressing
    sort of the next step of the service.
        Right now the way the broadcast system works within the
    wireless alert is a single 90-character message is broadcast
    out to everyone who is in an area. We wanted to make sure the
    technology was utilized in a way that, since our customers are
    mobile, that those that came into the area would get it.
        Mr. Mullin. So it is possible, we are just--this is just a
    first step. We are looking to go further with it.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Correct. We are looking at evolving it
    to other areas.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Mullin.
        Mr. Walz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for bringing your expertise. It is incredibly
    helpful, and each of you articulated very well. Mr. Fisher, you
    talked about, and I have witnesses before, the integration, all
    of you have, of things going together, and you mentioned, I
    think it is one of the outdoor advertisers, seems like maybe
    one of the oldest advertising, the billboard, but with the
    advent of electronic billboards, we have seen in Minnesota
    alerts go up and have successes within the hour because of
    that. And we all know, and that is an important thing.
        And the issue for me, and I think for many of my colleagues
    that is the challenge, and it has been the challenge whether it
    was rural electrification or getting roads, is economy of scale
    makes it very difficult for rural areas. And our fellow
    citizens who happen to live in incredibly small or
    unincorporated areas, Mr. Guttman-McCabe did an excellent job
    of how the market works on the FM chip sets. If there is going
    to be a need, they will do that. And one of the things is the
    market mentality does not support building cell phone towers
    for some of these areas or reaching them. And that is a reality
    that everyone up here gets that. So that is where there is the
    gap. That is where that fill in gap.
        And this is challenging to me. I know the primary entry
    points, the goal was to be to 90 percent coverage, which it
    will feel to me like all 10 percent is in my district that is
    not covered in 2015, but the fact of the matter is, for that
    one person, the 90 percent is irrelevant if they are not
    getting it.
        So I guess my question to you, and this is a very
    challenging one, goes back, again, to the beginning of, how do
    you serve rural areas when it comes to things that are no
    longer luxuries, electricity, paved roads, now being alerted to
    these situations? How do we do that? What is the model, and do
    you have some suggestion? Because we have talked in the funding
    issue, we have talked the market. How do we do it, if you can,
    if just--your expertise?
        Mr. Fisher. So if you are asking, from a broadcast
    perspective, I believe we do cover the areas quite effectively
    throughout the United States, because we are rather ubiquitous.
    There are probably very few places in the United States you can
    go that you can't pick up a radio station or a television
    station, and we carry those emergency messages in a very timely
    fashion. So I think from a broadcast standpoint, we are meeting
    that challenge and doing it very well.
        With the addition of mobile TV, the beauty of that will be
    that while you can watch television stationary now, and the
    mobile TV will be something that, as the marketplace evolves,
    will allow it to be on your iPhone or on your mobile device.
    And this is where things work together very well. When the
    wireless industry delivers a 90-character message that says
    something terrible is happening, tune to your local station,
    and you are in the middle of one of your rural areas, if they
    don't have a television or a radio with them at that moment,
    having that mobile DTV built into their smartphones will allow
    them to immediately tune without any connection to the
    Internet. Assuming the Internet has gone down, assuming the
    wireless went down now because something drastic happened, they
    still have that connection to the local broadcast station,
    either with mobile TV or with an FM chip, that allows them to
    continue to receive that information. After we have told them
    that there is something major going on, broadcasters are there
    to fill in the gaps: What do I have to do? Where do I have to
    go? What do I do for safety, because alerting them is just the
    first step?
        Mr. Walz. Your mobile TV, where is the cost point on that
    right now? Because this is the issue for mine, that they do get
    it; it is in Minnesota, but they get it out of South Dakota,
    Sioux Falls. They don't have cell phone coverage yet in many of
    these areas.
        Mr. Fisher. Right.
        Mr. Walz. What is the cost?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, mobile TV is in the process, stations are
    rolling it out. And there are some companies that are making--I
    believe it is Samsung has a unit now that will receive mobile
    DT signals in their wireless device, and some will receive
    terrestrial signals as well, so that even without mobile TV,
    you could receive DTV in your community, if you have a station
    that is on the air with just regular broadcast, some of the
    mobile devices could actually receive that. But the FM chip
    experiment that Sprint is now launching is also a great way for
    broadcast radio stations to reach that device, because
    everybody's attached to that device now. I mean, you can't
    leave home without it. The industry has done a great job with
    it. And if you had that extra utility of a broadcast TV and
    radio chip, just like you have the flashlight built into it
    that works when you need a flashlight, it is great, it is
    there. You don't usually carry a flashlight, but now you always
    have one when you need it. Broadcast television--broadcast
    radio is like that utility. I need it right now. Something
    major is happening; I am in a rural area. The cell tower is
    down, whatever; a broadcast television or radio chip will keep
    you in touch.
        Mr. Walz. Well, I can tell you, and those members up here
    who have received that alert, and maybe it is the new novelty
    of it where you can tone out the hard tone on the TV and turn--
    you know, turn it down or whatever, the first time you get an
    alert on heavy weather with tornado warning, you pay attention
    to it. So, I mean, it is about habituating the public to that
    new.
        So I thank you all, and I appreciate you still continuing
    to push this forward for folks to get it right.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Walz.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Meadows for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would agree with my colleague opposite, the first time I
    got the alert, you know, I started looking over my shoulder
    and--and trying to figure out, well, how in the world did they
    know that it is coming at me? And so I would--I concur.
        And I represent a rural district, so, you know, when we
    look at--I represent the mountains of western North Carolina.
    And, you know, a lot of people, they look at population
    centers, and they say, well, that is what it is all about, but
    candidly, when you have a disaster in those rural areas, it
    becomes even more problematic with logistics on just how to
    serve it, how to reach out.
        But before I ask my question of Mr. Khan, I am going to
    come to you first, I want to thank the chairman. You know, when
    we deal with issues like this, nobody sees it as an important
    thing. It is not a high priority. It is not in--until there is
    a disaster, and then it comes back on the chairman and say, Mr.
    Chairman, why didn't you--you know, why weren't you proactive?
    So I want to say thank you for being proactive in doing this.
        And, Mr. Khan, I want to focus to the US&R teams. Are they
    funded exclusively by the Federal Government, or is there a
    cost sharing with--with local jurisdictions on that?
        Chief Khan. Sir, there is a cost sharing. Some of it is
    tangible, some of it is not tangible. I can use my jurisdiction
    for example. As a metropolitan department, we share--it is
    almost an even split, without the deployment aspect of it, just
    maintaining the Type 1 team of about 70 members. To staff that,
    we have a little over 200 members in our system. The bottom
    line is, is it costs us just roughly what it costs the Federal
    Government to keep them up and running. What is not tangible
    would be the chief officers----
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Chief Khan [continuing]. The training, the backfill welder
    training, things of that nature, which we get the reward, as I
    said in my testimony, of the experience for the training, the
    deployments themselves and some of the physical resources that
    we get. So we feel that that is a pretty even split in Phoenix,
    and just the experience of being part of a national response
    team.
        So for us to go back to our elected officials and our
    policymakers in Phoenix, we can justify our participation in
    the program.
        Mr. Meadows. So let me--I know US&R teams have been
    deployed to many disaster areas, including the World Trade
    Center, you know, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy. Can you
    explain to me how these teams are chosen, because, you know, we
    have got uniquely defined groups, and then how are they called
    up and deployed?
        Chief Khan. Well, the process is actually managed out of--
    out of home office, the program office on C Street, through
    FEMA. There is a branch chief that coordinates it, and it is
    done through Mr. Farmer, Mr. Fenton, and Chief Endrikat. And
    then there are three regional sponsoring agency chiefs, one in
    the west is Ray Jones. He is soon to be retired. The central
    region is myself. And the eastern region is Chief Steve Cover.
        As those orders come in, we will respond to the three
    closest teams. So if something happens in Florida, you are
    going to get the Florida teams to respond, unless somehow they
    are out of service because of the storm itself. Typically, we
    will send the three closest teams, and then we have a box
    formula that is a rotation, and those members in the box
    formula as it rotates will be basically a numeric number that
    you have that you will rotate out, based on the number of teams
    you need. For Colorado, for example, you have got the
    surrounding teams----
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Chief Khan [continuing]. Then you went to the box response.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So you have, it sounds like, a
    pretty good system for calling up and deployment. One of my
    concerns really has to do with the evaluation of the
    effectiveness of that response. And I am not asking you today
    in today's testimony to point out good and bad response teams,
    but I would be--if you could get back to the committee with
    some recommendations on where you can see how we evaluate that
    better, because, obviously, when the command center makes a
    deployment, there are some who are extremely good and there are
    some that have perhaps logistical challenges. And I would love
    for you to, if you want to comment, you can, and if not, come
    up with some recommendations for the committee on how we can
    address that.
        Chief Khan. I can give you a half answer.
        Mr. Meadows. OK. A half answer is better than no answer.
        Chief Khan. We do an operational ready evaluation, which
    allows us to know if the teams are ready to be deployed. That
    is an ongoing process that we work on through home office here
    in Washington, DC, and through the strategic committee, which
    oversees the overall operation. Those give us an indication
    whether teams are ready to respond or not.
        The other half of your question, I will defer to home
    office here and have them get back to you, sir.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the Chair's indulgence.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Edwards for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our ranking
    member for holding this hearing. I want to thank our witnesses
    for being here, but I have to tell you, I have been searching
    for the right word this morning to figure out how I am feeling
    about this, and I think the right word is flummoxed as to why
    we are here this morning on such an important subject of
    emergency alert that doesn't have a Democrat or Republican
    behind it, but what we don't have sitting at this table is a
    representative from FEMA. And the reason that we don't and the
    reason that you could only give a half answer, and with all
    due----
        Mr. Meadows. Will----
        Ms. Edwards. No, I will not yield. With all due respect to
    my colleague, a half answer is not acceptable when it comes to
    emergency alert.
        And the reason that there is not a--there is only a half
    answer and that our witnesses are here sort of challenged to
    explain how it is that FEMA works in these circumstances is
    because FEMA is not at the table because the Government is shut
    down. And the Government is shut down because we have a handful
    of renegade colleagues who are determined, bound and determined
    to take this country down, to shut down this Government, and we
    ought to have FEMA----
        Mr. Barletta. Ms.----
        Ms. Edwards [continuing]. Have--I have my----
        Mr. Barletta. Please----
        Ms. Edwards [continuing]. My 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barletta. Would you please keep our comments----
        Ms. Edwards. I have my----
        Mr. Barletta [continuing]. To the hearing, please.
        Ms. Edwards. With all due respect, I will reclaim my
    additional 5 seconds to finish my statement as a Member of this
    House of Representatives.
        And I will tell you, I want to know, because I have gotten
    one of those alerts. I have been around our beltway and gotten
    an alert for a hurricane--a tornado that was in fact coming
    right at me. I have gotten an alert that came at the same time
    on my--on my car device; I don't even know how it works. And so
    I want to answer those questions, because I think it is
    important for the American people, but I have to tell you this:
    It is unacceptable in this country for almost a million workers
    to be out of jobs today because the Government is shut down. It
    is unacceptable that veterans, seniors, people who are--
    actually have claims in to FEMA for disaster response and
    don't--can't have those claims moved because the Government is
    shut down. This is completely unacceptable.
        And it is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    trying to have a pretense of a hearing in the face of a
    Government shutdown; this is not right for the American people.
    And I have to tell you, everybody on that side and on this side
    knows that we could have FEMA at this table today if we put a
    clean continuing resolution on the floor that fully funds FEMA
    and all of our Government agencies, that takes care of services
    for our veterans, our seniors and children who are going hungry
    today because of a Government shutdown. It is unacceptable in
    this country that we have a handful of renegades who are
    running this country----
        Mr. Barletta. Ms. Edwards----
        Ms. Edwards [continuing]. Running this----
        Mr. Barletta [continuing]. Please keep your comments----
        Ms. Edwards [continuing]. Running this Congress----
        Mr. Barletta. Please keep----
        Ms. Edwards. Renegade is a word. Renegade is a word, and
    that is what they are doing. They are running this country,
    they are running this Congress, and they are running us in the
    ground, and it--and the American people find this completely
    unacceptable. And as a Member of Congress who represents a lot
    of Federal employees--and I represent FEMA employees in my
    district who are sitting at home today; they are at home today.
    They can't come to work and do the job of the American people
    and serve the American people, and the reason that they cannot
    come is because some small band of people have decided that
    they are going to shut everything down because they want to
    deny health care to the American people? This is completely
    unacceptable. So I want to feed our young children and our
    women, infants and children.
        Mr. Barletta. Ms. Edwards----
        Ms. Edwards. I want to feed our women, infants and
    children, who deserve to have----
        Mr. Barletta. Please--direct your questions to our
    witnesses, please.
        Ms. Edwards. I want to make certain--I have a right to use
    my time the way that I want, Mr. Chairman--who would--who
    should have the ability to get services in this country; our
    veterans, who should have the ability to make sure that they
    have educational and avocational counseling and mental health
    services; to make sure that our emergency responders are able
    to respond appropriately should there be an emergency.
        And my district is a home to the--to NOAA and to the
    weather center. And what if there is an emergency? Sure, we can
    monitor satellites, but do we have all hands on deck? We do not
    have all hands on deck. And I have to tell you, it is really
    disturbing.
        And I respect the witnesses who are here today. I have work
    closely with CTIA. I think I am one of your award winners, as a
    matter of fact. I believe in what our broadcasters are doing in
    terms of public service and meeting their public
    responsibilities.
        And, you know, to you, Mr. Chief, I appreciate what you are
    doing to make sure that our emergency response system works,
    but not to have FEMA at the table because of a Government
    shutdown is unacceptable.
        And I yield my time. And I would love to have you back so
    that we really can ask you questions that are important for the
    American people. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
        We will begin our second round of questions, and I will
    begin.
        Mr. Courtney, timely and accurate alerts are critical in
    responding to a disaster. For example, in Wilkes-Barre,
    Pennsylvania, a proper alert to deploy a river gauge on the
    Susquehanna River was not issued in Tropical Storm Lee. This
    resulted in significant flooding.
        As a user of alerts and other information in the context of
    mass and medical care, how critical is it for you to receive
    accurate and timely alerts and information?
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you for that question, Chairman
    Barletta. It is absolutely critical that we receive timely
    information. We are not only consumers of the emergency alert
    system, of IPAWS, but we also constantly disseminate
    information to medical providers, to hospitals, to first
    responders, oftentimes proactive in advance of severe weather
    coming, things like that.
        I think there is an opportunity to further develop more
    targeted messaging through the public alert system. We operate
    a number of programs that are looking at, you know, how do we
    pre-warn vulnerable populations who may be, you know, dependent
    on electricity due to medical devices that they have in their
    homes, you know, the opportunity to be able to target messaging
    to them, to, you know, get to power safe locations, to, you
    know, ensure that they have backup battery power for, say, home
    ventilators, things like that; it is critical that that
    information be sent out and targeted if we can.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher and Mr. Guttman-McCabe, this question will go to
    you. How important do you think public alert--public alerts are
    to saving lives? Do you think a modernized and integrated
    public alert system will be able to save even more lives than
    the current system we have?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I guess, I will go first, Mr. Chairman.
        The way we look at the system is we look at it as a range
    of complements; the IPAWS system to offset sort of the central
    point that pushes messages out to a significant range of
    different options for consumers to gather that information. So
    we think it is unbelievably valuable. Our industry actually
    signed on and committed to doing it voluntarily before we even
    knew what ``it'' was. The deadline for committing to deliver
    emergency alerts came before the committee finished determining
    what was going to be delivered, what it was going to cost, what
    impact it would have, and we took that as part of our sort of
    social responsibility and are happy we did.
        We look at the systems--or at the different ways of
    delivering the technology as real true complements to one
    another. And as I was talking to our CEOs, when we were sort of
    pitching the idea of supporting legislation, it was around the
    time of the tsunami in south Asia. And one of the stories that
    I read talked about that if the people had been 400 yards off
    the beach, over 90 percent of them would have survived. And so,
    for us, it was just a matter of you just need a little bell
    ringer at times. You don't need full information; you just need
    to know--and, of course, on that beach, no one had a--people
    don't have radios. They don't have their television. They don't
    have their SSTRS system, but many have their mobile phones. And
    we looked at wireless as being a complement to that system and
    have embraced it and think that, you know, modernizing IPAWS on
    the IPAWS side of it and then working in coordination with the
    WARN Act portion on the wireless side is a sensible way to move
    forward.
        Mr. Barletta. Mr. Fisher?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes. I would say it is obvious that as we
    continue to get more platforms included in EAS and with IPAWS
    that more lives will be saved, because we are communicating in
    every possible way at any possible time we can. But as we are
    progressing forward, we always have to remember that we need
    redundancy in whatever system we are developing, because
    nothing's 100 percent, and in an emergency, you can count on
    things failing. I am sure that Mr. Khan can definitely attest
    to that.
        And in communications, while wireless is very good, and
    Internet is good, a lot is happening on that pipeline now. We
    have to remember there are other means we have to continue to
    support as backups that get around that, because we are getting
    so reliant as a Nation on data, that we think we plug things
    into that Internet connection, and it is always going to make
    it from point A to point B. And if something substantial
    happens, wire cut, fiber cut, international espionage,
    terrorism, whatever, disrupts that data, we can't have our
    communications. Our emergency communication is disrupted.
        In Pennsylvania, we are still waiting for a PEP station, a
    Primary Entry Point, which is one of those means of a backup. A
    PEP station is a broadcast station that is hardened and ready
    for that eventuality. It is fed by both IPAWS and also by a
    dedicated phone line to an undisclosed location for security
    reasons, so that in the event everything fails, the PEP station
    will still be out there to communicate and broadcast emergency
    messages that other stations can pick up in a daisy chain
    fashion and get across the State. But in Pennsylvania, we are
    without that right now. And we are hoping that as FEMA expands
    the PEP network of stations, which I believe there are probably
    70 at this point in the country, that at least we get one
    station, especially in central western Pennsylvania, areas that
    would be without communications in the event all these other
    systems that we are working on fail.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking
    Member Carson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Courtney, in your opinion, do you think that the WEA
    system should be used to alert the public to potential
    epidemics of infectious diseases or pandemics?
        Mr. Courtney. Certainly, as long as--and I think Mr.
    Guttman-McCabe pointed this out, you know, as long as that
    information can be actionable, as long as folks know how to
    respond and what they should do as a result of those--those
    messages that are pushed out, most certainly, you know,
    awareness in creating that common operating picture, like I
    talked about earlier, that we do every day is really critical
    for, not only the public, but for emergency responders, first
    responders to be able to respond effectively to an emergency
    event.
        Mr. Carson. Mr. McCabe, given the success of the rollout of
    WEA, how do you balance the need to alert the public about an
    emergency without overwhelming the public with so many messages
    that they begin to ignore those alerts?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sure. And thank you, Ranking Member. I
    think Mr. Courtney said it perfectly, that the buzz word being
    ``actionable.'' You want to make sure that they are alerts that
    actually have a direct impact and people can respond to. I
    remember as I was testifying years ago on the WARN Act, I
    collected a binder full of alerts that came from two local
    areas--I won't say, because one we are in, and one I live in--
    but I remember getting alert about a rapid dog. I think they
    meant rabid dog, but they--so I got an alert about a rapid dog.
    Now, to make matters worse, I actually found out that the alert
    was 3 days old.
        And so you hit sort of what we call really a threshold
    issue, which is, make sure we don't go down the path of the car
    alarm syndrome, right. You know, no one pays attention to car
    alarms anymore. If you hear a car alarm going off, you just
    keep walking past. We want to make sure that there is a
    balance. And we think Congress struck that balance: It was a
    Presidential alert, imminent threat to health or life, and
    AMBER Alert, and those were the only three categories. And as
    long as you can fit into that center category, which is where
    the overwhelming majority of alerts fit, I think then that is
    sensible.
        I would--we actually got one out of a local county that
    said it was flu season. I don't think that is one you want to
    send, because you are diminishing the value of the actual
    alert. And we want people when they get those alerts in the
    middle of the night, and they are awakened for the first time,
    yeah, you can be angry that you are awakened, but you can
    realize that you were awakened for a reasonable--a reasonable--
    or a good reason. And we look at the AMBER Alerts. We have had
    some people complain about being awakened at 1:00 or 2:00 in
    the morning because of an AMBER Alert. We just had a child that
    was recovered at 4:00 a.m. with an AMBER Alert that went out at
    2:00 a.m.
        And so for us, there is a balance. You have to--the alert
    originators have to strike and recognize that balance. And you
    want to make sure, as Mr. Courtney said, it is actionable. I
    think that is key.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, Pennsylvania has developed a hub-and-spoke
    system for distributing emergency alerts in addition to daisy
    chain--a daisy chain system used through the PEP stations. How
    do you avoid redundancy and mixed messages when both systems
    are effectively used simultaneously?
        Mr. Fisher. I am sorry. Would you ask--would you ask the
    last part of that question again.
        Mr. Carson. How do you avoid redundancy and mixed messages
    when both systems are used simultaneously?
        Mr. Fisher. I would like to ask Matt Lightner, who is
    actually our engineer----
        Mr. Carson. OK.
        Mr. Fisher [continuing]. PEMA and broadcasters employ. He
    works directly with PEMA and knows every detail about----
        Mr. Carson. Sure.
        Mr. Fisher [continuing]. That system, and can answer this
    question.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Barletta. Could you please state your name for the
    record?
        Mr. Lightner. Sure. My name is Matt Lightner. I am the
    chairman of the State Emergency Communications Commission in
    Pennsylvania.
        Our EMnet system we deployed in 2003. It actually was a
    model for the Nation when we deployed it. It is a satellite-
    based system, it is in all 67 of our county emergency operation
    centers and our State emergency operations center. It allows
    any of our emergency operations centers to instantly gain
    access to all of our broadcasters, via satellite and via
    Internet. So if the Internet is down, the system would work
    over satellite directly to the broadcasters.
        All the messages are time stamped; so when a message is
    sent out, if it has arrived via multiple different means, the
    device on the other ends says I have already received this
    message from EMnet. Now I am getting it from IPAWS as well. I
    am going to ignore this message; it was already sent to the
    public.
        Another great thing with the EMnet system is the reporting
    capability. Sending a normal emergency message, the emergency
    manager doesn't really know if the message went out over the
    airwaves. The EMnet system gives us response back immediately
    saying, this station carried your message, and it went out over
    the air, and the public was notified. So it is a great system
    that we have deployed in our State.
        Mr. Fisher. I would like to follow up on the comment Mr.
    McCabe made about not overusing the system. One of my comments
    in my testimony was training is essential. It is something we
    have learned in Pennsylvania.
        When you give so much capability and so much ease to use
    the system, it is easy for someone who is not trained to alert
    you that there is a rabid dog or it is flu season, and that is
    a frustration to the entire process. People tune it out. People
    won't pay attention anymore. And as he said, it becomes a
    distraction. So the education and the communication on how to
    use this, when to use it, what is appropriate, what is not,
    restrains the inappropriate use so that when it goes off, you
    pay attention, is very critical.
        Mr. Carson. Possibly different tones and different buzzes
    for different messages or different alerts?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, a low-priority message, like the rabid
    dog or flu season, is a nonpriority, that could be a text, a
    tweet, it could be broadcast just as an informational thing on
    radio without activating the EAS system.
        EMnet actually has a second channel that we have just for
    that purpose, so if a county wants to tell a station something
    that is not on the level of an emergency alert, but they want
    to communicate with us that this area is having this issue
    right now, please ask people to stay out of it, we actually
    have a secondary path that they can communicate with a station
    and let us know that information so a disc jockey can just say,
    oh, by the way or something can be done at a lower level.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, gentlemen.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. I really don't have anything. I am just
    listening. Thank you.
        Mr. Barletta. OK. Thank you, Mr. Mullin.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Walz for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walz. I follow Mr. Mullin.
        Mr. Barletta. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Fisher, last Congress, the National Association of
    Broadcasters supported IPAWS reform, and you mentioned in your
    testimony the importance of having a national working group for
    IPAWS, as proposed in the reform legislation. Such a working
    group would be composed of FEMA and other Federal, State, local
    and private sector stakeholders to ensure IPAWS continues to be
    developed in a way that makes sense. Why is this important?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, personal experience, I have been in
    broadcasting for 37 years. I have watched the evolution of EAS.
    Fortunately, I was after CONELRAD, so I can't tell you anything
    about that. I am not that old. But I have watched it evolve
    through to where we are now with EAS. I have been involved with
    multiple committees, and I have watched what happens when you
    get stakeholders together in a room who can exchange
    experiences. And we meet once a year, occasionally twice a
    year, at the PEMA headquarters; that is Pennsylvania Emergency
    Management Agency in Harrisburg, to bring all the stakeholders
    together, the State police, fire officials, National Weather
    Service in our area, broadcaster representatives. And they are
    just representatives. It is a room with maybe 10 or 15 people.
    And the communication that goes on there helps us to evaluate
    what worked last time when we had to use the system, what needs
    to be changed, and also talks about who else do we have to
    include into the system to make it more robust, including at
    one point, we discussed how to get wireless onboard. How can we
    get the billboards onboard? Because we are trying as a group to
    work out how do we reach the American people. We get along
    pretty well. We have developed relationships, and it goes back
    and forth. And it has helped make a system, I think, in
    Pennsylvania, not to toot our horn too loud, a very robust,
    solid system that broadcasters can get messages out and
    emergency officials can get messages out in a very efficient
    way.
        Mr. Barletta. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, one of the key advantages
    of a modern digital alert system would be the potential to geo
    target alerts to only those people in the immediate danger area
    and avoid over-alerting people that are not directly affected.
        Why do you think--what do you think about that concept, and
    what are some of the technical issues involved with geo
    targeting alerts to smaller locations?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of
    the things--so I happen to benefit from being part of the Alert
    Advisory Committee that Congress established when we put the
    original rules together, and one of the things we debated or
    discussed, I guess--not debated but discussed in great detail
    was geo targeting. And what we ultimately came down to was to
    begin--it goes back to the ``walk, don't run'' thought I
    mentioned before--was let's begin at the county level. There is
    nothing magical about a county, but we decided to pick a county
    level, and that was the area that we were going to originally
    direct alerts to.
        Already a number of the carriers even further geo target
    their alerts, and the CSRIC is actually looking at maybe sort
    of formalizing that, but in our world, you have to realize that
    because of the nature of our devices, our constituents are
    mobile, and so if you want to alert, you know, an area in the
    northeast of DC, the reality is you can't only send that alert
    to the northeast, because by the time the alert goes out, 20
    percent of the population has moved into the northeast and 20
    percent of the population has moved out.
        So what we have found over time is that even with the
    capability to more--to have a more granular geo-targeted alert,
    we found that States or counties over--you know, take an area
    where they think the event might be happening and then pick the
    half dozen counties around it. And when we saw--I think all of
    us watched on TV that young woman who was kidnapped, a lot of
    the alerts went out from State--as they were realizing she was
    being moved to different States, alerts were going out
    statewide, because no one was sure which county she was in.
        So I think having the capability to geo target more
    granularly makes sense, and I think in practice, it probably
    won't be used as often as we might think, because the
    constituents, because the users are mobile. And you certainly,
    you know, if you look at what just happened in--around the
    world with the attack on the mall, you don't want to just alert
    people at the mall; you want to alert everyone who might be
    driving to the mall. And so, you know, you want to make sure
    that, in essence, at times you over-alert because of the mobile
    nature of the consumers, but having the capability makes sense.
    We are investigating it. We are looking at how you would, you
    know, operationalize that.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Carson if he has
    further questions.
        Mr. Carson. No.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I would like to thank all of you
    for your testimony here today. Your comments have been helpful
    to today's discussion.
        If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
    consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
    such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
    questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
    unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
    any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
    witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I would like to thank our witnesses again for their
    testimony today. If no other Members have anything to add, this
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]