[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, [email protected].
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.]