U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–256 PDF 2012

COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC DURING 

EMERGENCIES: AN UPDATE ON FEDERAL ALERT 

AND WARNING EFFORTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, 

AND COMMUNICATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 8, 2011 

Serial No. 112–36 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

VACANCY

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Staff Director 

NATALIE NIXON, Deputy Chief Clerk 

CURTIS BROWN, Minority Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications ................................................................ 1 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 

Preparedness, Response, and Communications ................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Mr. Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity Programs, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

RADM James Arden Barnett, Jr., Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, Federal Communications Commission: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

PANEL II 

Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, 

CTIA—The Wireless Association: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Ms. Suzanne D. Goucher, President and CEO, Maine Association of Broadcasters, Testifying on Behalf of The National Alliance of State Broadcasting 

Associations: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

Mr. Allen W. Kniphfer, Emergency Coordinator, Jefferson County, Alabama: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Statement of Jeff Littlejohn, Executive Vice President, Distribution Development, Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. ..................................................... 4 

(1) 

COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC DURING 

EMERGENCIES: AN UPDATE ON FEDERAL 

ALERT AND WARNING EFFORTS 

Friday, July 8, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bilirakis, Richardson, Clarke, and 

Hochul. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Emergency 

Preparedness, Response, and Communications will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to receive an update on the 

efforts of Federal agencies to work with each other and emergency 

management, emergency response providers, and with industry to 

create and implement a Nation-wide alert and warning system that 

will provide timely and accurate alerts to the public during an 

emergency. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

The various disasters we have had in this country thus far this 

year have served to illustrate that timely communication is vital in 

an emergency and the availability of critical information can help 

individuals protect themselves from harm. Be it through television, 

radio, mobile devices, the internet, social media, reverse 9–1–1, or 

warning signs, emergency managers, and emergency response providers must have prompt and reliable means to provide information 

to their citizens. 

At a joint subcommittee hearing last month, Sheriff Richard 

Berdnik of Passaic County, New Jersey, when I asked him a question, he noted the challenges his jurisdiction faces in alerting the 

public to an impending hazard. He told us that it would take 7 

days to reach all of the residents of his county using their reverse 

9–1–1 system. In my opinion, that is unacceptable. This is why I 

am pleased to hear from our witnesses today about advancements 

in alert and warning capabilities. 

This November, FEMA and the FCC will hold the first-ever National test of the Emergency Alert System. Following on successful 

tests in Alaska in 2010 and earlier this year, this National test will 
2 

demonstrate the ability to quickly disseminate messages Nationally 

across broadcast media. 

FEMA and the FCC are also working to deploy a system to send 

geographically-based alerts to cell phones, very exciting. It is required by the WARN Act. This system known as CMAS or PLAN 

now is required to be deployed Nation-wide by April, 2012. Early 

deployment in New York City and Washington, DC, will occur this 

November. 

At a field hearing in my district last month, we received testimony from State and local emergency managers. They are very optimistic about the implementation of CMAS or PLAN, especially because of its ability to reach commuter and tourist populations. 

I will note that there have been some privacy concerns raised 

about PLAN, and I will ask the panel to elaborate on that. I am 

interested to hear from our Federal witnesses about the privacy 

safeguards for the system. 

I would also like to hear about the training that will be provided 

to message originators to ensure proper use of the system. It is 

very important the system be used in a targeted way to ensure that 

when an eminent threat alert is sent people take notice. 

As we work to ensure that we reach as many individuals as possible through our alert and warning systems, I am interested in 

hearing how the needs of individuals with functional needs, such 

as hearing and visual impairments, are incorporated into those efforts. I think we can all agree that the more notice and information 

we can give to citizens to help them get out of harm’s way of course 

the better. 

I thank our witnesses for appearing here today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member, Ms. Richardson 

from California, for any statements she would like to make. You 

are recognized. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning to all of you, and I want to thank you in particular, our witnesses, for the service for our country that you have 

done for participating in today’s hearing. 

For the record, I want to advise you that at this exact same time 

I am supposed to be in Transportation and Infrastructure where we 

are going to have a markup on votes which may require me to depart. So I wanted to make sure that you knew that that would be 

the only reason why I would not be here present today. 

Getting back to the point of our hearing, a key component of 

emergency preparedness is the ability to alert and warn the public 

of an impending disaster. The Integrated Public Alerts and Warning System, IPAWS, has been designed to do just that by enabling 

alerts to be sent via audio, video, text, and data alert messages. 

These alerts will have the ability to be sent to our residential telephones, websites, pagers, email accounts, and cell phones, in addition to the traditional broadcast media. I don’t want to steal too 

much of Mr. Penn’s thunder. 

We all know the important role that emergency alerts play in 

saving lives. Most recently, it played a key function in alerting 

local citizens about the devastating tornados in Missouri and Alabama. 
3 

As a representative of the 37th Congressional District, I represent a large number of constituents whose families were directly 

affected by the Tsunamis that occurred in 2009 in American 

Samoa. I have heard numerous stories about families having little 

time to respond to the massive waves that headed to the island. 

Sadly, failures in providing sufficient warning systems have led 

to less people having the ability to seek shelter prior to a storm 

surge. Examples here at home and abroad echo the need for enhanced alert and warning capabilities that can leverage the numerous ways citizens receive information, including through text, 

email, TV, and social media. 

Through a fully functioning IPAWS system and the coordination 

between our Federal, State, and local governments, commercial 

carriers, broadcasters, and other preparedness stakeholders, we 

will be in a better position to utilize this innovative technology and 

ultimately save lives, which is all of our goals. 

I am aware of the good work FEMA has done with IPAWS 

through our oversight efforts last year in Congress. Last fall, I was 

proud to host an IPAWS demonstration event for my colleagues; 

and that was the second opportunity I had to work in partnership 

with Mr. Penn. The demonstration provided a clear example of the 

capability of IPAWS, and I look forward to hearing more of how we 

have progressed. 

I continue to encourage the efforts of FEMA’s Office of Disability 

and Integration Coordination and other disability stakeholders to 

ensure that new alert and warning technologies meet the needs of 

all of our Americans. Individuals with disabilities are often the 

most at risk at times of crisis. That is why I plan on sharing with 

our Chairman a legislation called the Disability Integration and 

Coordination Improvement Act, which will ensure that the Federal 

Government has the resources it needs to protect all Americans 

from impending disasters, including our Nation’s most vulnerable. 

The importance of protecting these communities is critical to our 

emergency preparedness goals. 

Unfortunately, the great progress of IPAWS over the past 2 years 

can be derailed due to budget cuts on the Federal, State, and local 

levels. The IPAWS reduction proposed in FEMA’s full year 2012 

budget request will delay retrofitting Primary Entry Points, PEP, 

stations, including one in Los Angeles that will directly affect my 

district and over 20 million citizens. PEP stations serve as the primary source of initial broadcast for a Presidential or National EAS 

message. 

I am interested in hearing from those who are testifying today 

how we might move forward and how you view some of the budget 

cuts that will impact the work that we need to do. 

Additionally, this Congress has proposed a number of devastating cuts to grant programs, and your thoughts on those areas 

would be welcomed as well. 

The increased intensity of National disasters, combined with our 

need for continued readiness for potential terrorist attacks, requires investments and not cuts to our State and local partners. I 

am interested in learning how these capabilities will be affected 

and what suggestions you might give us on how we can help. 
4 

I thank you for your testimony and for you being here today, and 

I look forward to everyone’s participation. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to first welcome Representative Hochul from the 

great State of New York to the subcommittee. I look forward to 

working with you. If you would like to say a few words, you are 

welcome. You are recognized. 

Ms. HOCHUL. I am a representative from upstate New York. We 

have Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and four border crossings with 

Canada. So anything related to Homeland Security is critically important. 

I come from local government as well. I was a Town Board member and oversaw our police department, our emergency operations 

at the local level, and also was a county official. So I come with 

a various diversity of perspectives to this so I am anxious to learn 

more from this hearing, and I am very delighted to be a Member 

of this committee. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

Before I introduce our first panel, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a statement from Mr. Jeff Littlejohn of Clear 

Channel Broadcasting, Inc. 

Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Littlejohn follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JEFF LITTLEJOHN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DISTRIBUTION

DEVELOPMENT, CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC. 

JULY 8, 2011 

My name is Jeff Littlejohn. I am executive vice president for distribution development for Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. Clear Channel Broadcasting is a subsidiary of CC Media Holdings, Inc., and is licensed to operate 892 radio stations in 

the United States. We operate stations in 47 of the top 50 radio markets and 89 

of the top 100 radio markets. According to Arbitron our weekly listening base is 

nearly 120 million Americans. 

Congress has long recognized the importance of radio during times of crisis. It 

passed the ‘‘Radio Act of 1912’’ in the aftermath of the sinking of the Titanic to require U.S. ships to be equipped with ship-to-shore radios and have trained operators 

on board around the clock. While much has changed in the last 100 years, radio 

remains an important link to the American public when disaster strikes. Radio provides the public with advance warning of a pending natural disaster; it informs the 

public while a disaster is occurring, and afterwards it helps listeners recover from 

a disaster. 

Radio is uniquely effective for emergency communications. Radios can operate on 

battery power, so they work even if the electricity fails. Virtually every home and 

automobile in the country has a radio. They are portable. And they are inexpensive. 

The Federal Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’) has required radio stations to 

comply with emergency broadcast regulations for years. Many of us remember the 

weekly tests that interrupted the programming we were listening to while local 

radio stations fulfilled their obligations to the FCC. In 1997 the Commission updated the old Emergency Broadcast System with a new Emergency Alert System 

(‘‘EAS’’). The new EAS enables the President, State and local governments, and the 

National Weather Service to override local broadcasts to send emergency information to the public. Its digital architecture improves crisis communications by enabling radio stations to send and receive emergency information quickly and automatically. 
5 

Every one of Clear Channel Broadcasting’s 892 stations complies with the FCC’s 

EAS regulations. We look forward to working with the Federal Government as it 

conducts the Nation’s first-ever Nation-wide EAS test on November 9th of this year. 

We take our responsibility seriously and look at this testing as a great opportunity 

to assess the effectiveness of the EAS system and seek ways to further improve 

upon it. 

We at Clear Channel regard the FCC’s EAS requirements as a floor, and not a 

ceiling. We take extreme pride and honor in our ability to help our neighbors in an 

emergency. Following Hurricane Katrina and other local crises that affected other 

parts of the country, Clear Channel determined that we should always strive to do 

an even better job serving the public during an emergency. We have thus established our Emergency Operations Center (‘‘EOC’’ or ‘‘Center’’) and have customized 

emergency plans for every market in which we operate. 

The Center is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is staffed around the clock by 

trained personnel. It serves several functions that improve our ability to respond to 

a crisis and get important emergency information out to the public in a timely manner. 

It serves as a ‘‘backstop’’ to our personnel in local markets during a local emergency. It provides enhanced access by community leaders and first responders during a crisis. It is in a position to assist local markets to deliver critical information 

to the public on as ‘‘as needed’’ basis. In fact, it has the capability to create and 

air local emergency announcements and originate EAS messages during an emergency, if the local markets need that assistance. To effectively do this, the EOC staff 

monitors EAS, EMnet, NOAA Weather and news events, as well as critical internal 

broadcast systems to improve the overall availability of emergency information in 

each market. In the event that an alert is issued, EOC staff can listen to the program content of any of our local stations and monitor the transmission of EAS 

Alerts in response. 

While our local stations are primarily responsible for EAS, our EOC is an ideal 

location to centrally monitor the effectiveness of our stations’ EAS activity and we 

hope that during this November’s Nation-wide EAS test we will have public officials 

visit the Center to witness Clear Channel’s performance. 

Let me give you an example of the EOC in action. In an emergency, station personnel may not always be available. The telephone lines may be down, or they may 

be on the phone with police, fire, or other public officials, or perhaps moving from 

the station to a safer location. We have established a local ‘‘hot line’’ phone number 

which is given to our local community leaders as a single place for them to call to 

reach station management. If the mayor of a city calls the hot line and the Manager 

is unavailable for any reason, the mayor’s call is automatically routed to our 24/7 

EOC where a trained staffer will handle the call and make sure that whatever 

emergency information the mayor has is relayed to the local management team and 

if appropriate is broadcast out over the air. EOC personnel have the home and cell 

phone numbers of our key local market personnel and can quickly connect with 

them at any time of the day or night. 

This past winter our investment in the Center paid off for the people of Somerset, 

Kentucky. Local law enforcement wanted to close a particular street late one night, 

and need to get the word out to the public. They called the GM, who wasn’t available, so after about 5 rings the call was automatically rolled over to the EOC, thus 

avoiding what could have been a never-ending game of phone tag. After speaking 

to the local officials and connecting with local management, the EOC staff created 

a short announcement about the street closing, and shipped it back to our local Kentucky station where it went out over the air—all within 10 minutes of the initial 

call to the station. EOC assisted our local stations carry out this important task 

while it was also focusing on other local efforts; local law enforcement was assisted 

in its efforts to protect the public, and the local community was informed and assisted in a time of emergency. 

If any Member of the subcommittee or its staff has an interest in coming out to 

Cincinnati and seeing the Center first-hand, we would be glad to show you around— 

we’re very proud of this facility and the trained personnel dedicated to running it. 

In addition to our EOC, Clear Channel has created and maintains its ‘‘Disaster 

Assistance and Response Plan’’—we call it ‘‘DARP’’—that has amassed and deployed 

reserve radio transmitters, emergency power generators and news-gathering equipment, satellite phones, fuel supplies, mobile housing and even a portable tower, all 

ready to move on short notice to help restore operations in one of the cities where 

we operate. When disaster strikes we have the ability to quickly and efficiently supplement or replace equipment so we can stay on the air and get information out 

to the public. 
6 

The transmitter site of an AM station in Minot, North Dakota (KRRZ) has been 

under the floodwaters that struck Minot in late June. We were able to send the necessary equipment to Minot and keep KRRZ on the air broadcasting from a different—and drier—location, providing the residents of Minot with needed information on the levels of the Souris River; as well as information regarding the availability of emergency assistance. 

Because our DARP program has warehoused reserve equipment in several cities 

across the country, when there is an emergency we are able to get it to a locality 

that is in need in a relatively short period of time and keep the emergency information flowing to the public. We have built and selected the storage facilities so that 

at least one is within no more than a day’s drive from each of the local markets 

that Clear Channel serves. 

I am proud to say that Clear Channel has shared our DARP resources with our 

radio industry brethren in times of need. Most recently, Clear Channel donated use 

of our DARP RV to several Zimmer Radio employees in Joplin, Missouri who had 

lost their homes. 

One of the company’s primary focuses in the area of emergency preparedness has 

been on the facilities and equipment that Clear Channel has deployed to enhance 

our ability to respond in the event of a crisis. In my view these are making a very 

real contribution to improving the ability of civil authorities to communicate with 

the public before, during, and after a disaster strikes. But I would be remiss if I 

didn’t take a moment to comment on the commitment of all of our employees to the 

communities that they serve. 

This past April, a tornado ripped through Tuscaloosa, Alabama, killing 43 and 

leveling substantial parts of the city. Clear Channel operates four stations in Tuscaloosa. Immediately after the extent of the damage became evident, our market manager for Tuscaloosa made the decision to pre-empt the normal broadcasts of these 

stations and instead set up a relief clearinghouse through simulcasts. People would 

drop off home-cooked meals at the stations’ doors, and our disc jockeys delivered 

them to people who had nothing to eat. The Wall Street Journal ran a story on the 

Clear Channel clearinghouse. The article appears at the end of my statement. To 

quote the story: 

‘‘In a typical pattern, someone calls in to express a need for a particular area or 

group. Fifteen minutes later, the same listener relates that 10 people showed up 

and offered their services. Churches and other groups often call in to specify a shortage of particular goods, such as bug spray and suntan lotion for volunteers, and an 

excess of others, such as diapers. This allows givers to tailor their donations. WalMart and other businesses call in to offer free prescriptions, charging stations for 

cell phones, and trucks to remove debris upon request.’’ 

I am extremely proud of all that Clear Channel is doing to enhance communications with the public during emergencies. Our Emergency Operations Center has 

added substantially to our ability to support our local stations in their communities. 

And our DARP program helps to ensure that Clear Channel stations can remain on 

the air during and after disaster strikes, getting important information out to their 

communities to assist in relief efforts. Most of all, I am proud of the people of Clear 

Channel. They care deeply about the communities where they live and work, and 

when disaster strikes, they respond appropriately. 

I will be happy to answer any questions that the subcommittee may have, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to you and assist the 

subcommitte in compiling a record. 

ATTACHMENT

TALK RADIO RIDES TO THE RESCUE

How Clear Channel Stations promoted a remarkable network of volunteers for tornado relief 

May 7, 2011, David T. Beito, The Wall Street Journal 

The tornado that tore through here late last month left 41 dead and 12 still missing. Whole neighborhoods now resemble bombed-out postwar Tokyo or Berlin. But 

this devastation is only part of the story. Tuscaloosa is now the scene of an inspiring 

volunteer relief effort taking place without the guidance of any central planner. 

Instead of going home for break, for example, students in the Greek system at 

the University of Alabama and historically black Stillman College stayed to cook 

more than 7,000 meals per day. Local churches have assembled armies of volunteers 

and vast stores of goods, ranging from dog food to child car seats, and are dispersing 
7 

them with no questions asked at ‘‘free department stores.’’ It is doubtful that a more 

secular city could have fared as well. 

Other than churches, much of the strength of Tuscaloosa’s extensive mutual aid 

comes from an unlikely source: Right wing talk radio. The four Tuscaloosa Clear 

Channel stations have pre-empted their normal fare of Rush, Hannity and top 40 

songs to serve as a relief clearinghouse through simulcasts. Gigi South, the local 

market manager for Tuscaloosa Clear Channel, says that it was her decision to 

begin the simulcasts. 

It was hard to do otherwise. Employees saw demolished neighborhoods outside 

their windows and the desperate calls for help came in almost immediately. Because 

many residents lost power and were unable charge cell phones, battery-operated and 

car radios often became their only form of communication. 

These stations have only 12 full-time employees among them, but they’ve had a 

vast impact. The on-air jocks have taken on grueling shifts, sometimes working 10 

hours straight. 

The goal of the simulcasts is simple: Connect givers and victims and allow them 

to exchange information. According to Ms. South, ‘‘this whole thing has been about 

connecting listener to listener. They are the ones doing this. We’re just the conduit.’’ 

Ms. South is being modest. In many cases, people have dropped off goods—sometimes dozens of cooked meals—at the station’s door. The on-air jocks have rushed 

them to those in need. The higher-ups at Clear Channel have fully supported the 

local initiative to pre-empt normal programming and have provided generators and 

engineers to keep the stations on the air ’round the clock. 

In a typical pattern, someone calls in to express a need for a particular area or 

group. Fifteen minutes later, the same listener relates that 10 people showed up 

and offered their services. Churches and other groups often call in to specify a shortage of particular goods, such as bug spray and suntan lotion for volunteers, and an 

excess of others, such as diapers. This allows givers to tailor their donations. WalMart and other businesses call in to offer free prescriptions, charging stations for 

cell phones, and trucks to remove debris upon request. 

In one particularly moving case, a worn-out relief coordinator for an outlying trailer park broadcast a desperate appeal. She had been cooking meals for several undocumented Hispanics living in tents who were afraid to go to the authorities. She 

was heartbroken because she wanted to visit her mother in Mississippi who had suffered a stroke, but she feared leaving her neighbors unaided. 

Within minutes, two nurses, translators, and other volunteers were on the scene. 

The simulcast now includes brief Spanish language announcements. And listeners, 

even if they are normally angered about illegal immigration, show no hesitation in 

lending a hand in such cases. 

Callers unable to get through because of tied-up phone lines can make use of associated Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. Tuscaloosa Clear Channel’s tweets now 

reappear, along with announcements from the local government, on outdoor electronic message boards throughout the city and the University television station carries live feeds of the simulcast. 

Although Tuscaloosa Clear Channel normally caters to a white, conservative audience, grateful listeners often make tearful calls from predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods like Alberta that bore the brunt of the tornado. No other radio 

or television stations in the community, public or private, have come close to matching this effort. 

More than a week after the tornado, the calls continue to flow into the stations. 

But Ms. South worries that many Americans are forgetting Tuscaloosa as other stories, such as the raid on Osama bin Laden, increasingly dominate the news. ‘‘This 

is like nothing I’ve seen before. This is awful. We’re going to need help outside of 

our town. The bottom line is that here the people that we are talking to on air are 

the people that have no homes. They have no home, they have no phone service. 

They have no television. Nothing except the radio.’’ 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I would like to welcome our first panel here today. 

Our first witness is Mr. Damon Penn. Mr. Penn is the Assistant 

Administrator of the National Continuity Programs Directorate 

within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. He is 

currently overseeing the development of FEMA’s Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System, IPAWS. Mr. Penn joined FEMA in 

2004 as a defense coordinating officer in Florida, my home State. 

He also served as the DCO the following year in support of Mississippi’s efforts during Hurricane Katrina. 
8 

Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Penn served 30-plus years with the 

U.S. Army, holding numerous leadership positions. We thank you 

for your service. 

Mr. Penn studied at the U.S. Navy War College, earning a master’s degree in national security and strategic studies. He also 

earned a master’s of science administration from Central Michigan 

University in 1993 and a bachelors of science degree in criminal 

justice from UNC Charlotte. 

Our next witness is Rear Admiral James Barnett. 

Welcome, Admiral. 

Admiral Barnett is the Chief of the Federal Communications 

Commission, FCC, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. 

In this capacity, he is responsible for overseeing the FCC activities 

pertaining to public safety, homeland security, emergency management, and disaster preparedness and represents the Commission 

on these issues before Federal, State, and industry organizations. 

Chief Barnett served over 30 years in the U.S. Navy and Naval 

Reserves retiring in 2008. Before joining the FCC, Chief Barnett 

was a Senior Research Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy 

Studies, a policy think tank that focuses on science and technology 

issues, primarily cyber conflict and cybersecurity. Chief Barnett 

was also a senior partner in Mitchell, McNutt, & Sams, P.A. in 

Tupelo, Mississippi. 

Welcome. Your entire written statements will appear in the 

record. I ask that you each summarize your statements for 5 minutes. 

We will begin with Administrator Penn. You are now recognized, 

sir. 

I also want to tell the panel that we probably will break around 

10:45 or so for votes; and, of course, we will come right back after 

votes. 

You are recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAMON PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. PENN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Richardson and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Integrated 

Public Alert and Warning System, or IPAWS, and to update you 

on the significant progress we have made with our partners in the 

Federal Communications Commission, the National Weather Service, and private industry over the past 2 years. 

Our vision of IPAWS has not wavered since the program’s inception. It must have the capability to notify the American public, 

under all conditions, with a reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system. We must be able to do this by redundant means 

assure everyone is contacted. 

What has changed is our population and how they receive and 

process information. No longer do people solely rely on a single 

source of information. Our reliance on wireless devices, internet, 

social media, and others increase daily. 

Alerting techniques and procedures have changed with matched 

rapidity. Our emergency managers rely on a host of alerting meth-
9 

ods, including sirens, digital signage, weather radios, and others, 

to communicate critical information to their populations. 

These two factors expanded our vision to not only alert by multiple means but to be able to incorporate existing equipment emergency managers are using while ensuring compatibility with 

emerging technologies. This led us to a basic change in our methodology. We found we could no longer rely on the requirements-based 

approach, but IPAWS needed to turn to an applications-based approach. This approach sets common standards and compliance parameters and allows developers to use their imaginations to develop solutions to problems that we didn’t even know that we had. 

In the alerts and warnings field, this allows us to use existing technologies in use by the State and local officials and opens doors for 

continued development of applications. 

If I could ask for your attention to the chart that we provided. 

This depicts the alerting process. You will note that the alerting 

authorities are on the left and the American public is on the right 

with the message dissemination platforms in the middle. 

The keystone is the box at the bottom left of the page. This is 

the Common Alert Protocol, or CAP. This is a messaging standard 

that ensures all equipment involved with alerts and warnings is 

interoperable. This is what makes it possible to use existing technical solutions on the far right of the chart with IPAWS. Emergency managers can upgrade the tools they use to become complaint with CAP or purchase new devices with confidence that they 

will work with the Federal backbone. The approval of this standard 

in 2010 was a major breakthrough for IPAWS and alerts and warnings. 

Another critical path for FEMA was development of the IPAWS 

open aggregator that you see near the center of the slide. This is 

a platform that takes the CAP-compliant messages and distributes 

them to the alert disseminators that you see. This allows emergency managers at all levels to send a single message via IPAWS 

through all the disseminators to the public simultaneously. What 

you see depicted on the slide is not a test, it is not a pilot, and it 

is not a concept. It is a fielded capability that we continue to refine. 

Over the past 2 years, FEMA has established interoperable 

standards and interfaces as I just described. We created a dissemination network with redundancy, and we integrated disparate message distribution paths. 

I would like to take just a few moments to tell you what we have 

done and where we are going with each disseminator you see. 

First, the Emergency Alert System. EAS has its roots back in the 

1950s, and this is the part of IPAWS that communicates over radio 

and television through primary entry points, as the Ranking Member mentioned earlier. We have expanded our original 36 stations 

to 49 and will reach our goal of 77 by the end of calendar 2012. 

With the overwhelming support that we received from our partners 

in the broadcast industry, this will improve our direct coverage to 

the American people by radio and television from 67 percent to 

over 90 percent. 

We are also updating existing stations to improve reliability. Our 

EAS upgrades extend past the continental United States and include the territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Amer-
10 

ican Samoa, Guam, Saipan, and the Marianas. I would be happy 

to expand on those later if you would like. 

The Commercial Mobile Alert System, or CMAS, is the wireless 

component of IPAWS. The public-friendly acronym that we have 

adopted with the FCC is PLAN. As mentioned before, this system 

provides Federal, State, territorial, Tribal, and local governments 

the ability to send 90-character text message transmissions to mobile devices. The capability is geo-targetable and is disseminated 

directly from the wireless tower, eliminating concerns for call congestion. 

Currently, 142 providers have agreed to participate in the program, and several have already completed testing with us to ensure people with disabilities who subscribe to a wireless service, receive emergency alerts. Wireless carriers are required to transmit 

messages with both vibration cadence and audio attention signals. 

Our coordination with the FCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continues to produce geo-targeting capabilities and will allow specific targeting methods to be used. 

We are currently working on the ability to geo-target messages 

based on plume and weather modeling. Coordination with interservice providers continues, and several of the major internet service providers have developed applications and tested software with 

us. 

Two major milestones that we have in the upcoming year have 

already been mentioned. That is the CMAS rollout in New York 

City. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your support and leadership 

and for that of the Mayor and the Commissioner of Emergency 

Management in New York to make that a reality, as well as the 

support of wireless community. Then the other pivotal accomplishment, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was the Nation-wide test 

that will be held 9 November. 

I am proud to serve with a dedicated team of professionals at all 

levels of government throughout the private sector and all have 

worked diligently to ensure that we live up to our responsibilities 

to the American public. I would like to thank them and thank the 

committee for unwavering support. 

I also would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today, and I look forward to any questions that you may have. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Penn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAMON PENN

JULY 8, 2011 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 

committee. My name is Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Continuity Programs (NCP) Directorate. As a U.S. Army Colonel prior to joining FEMA in August 2009, I served as 

the Director of Operations for the Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) at the National 

Capitol Region of the United States. While leading the JFHQ, I oversaw intelligence, operations, force protection/anti-terrorism, planning, the operations center, 

training, ceremonies, and security. I have also served as the Defense Coordinating 

Officer for Florida and was responsible for all Department of Defense assets mobilized to assist Florida and Mississippi’s emergency management efforts during Hurricane Katrina. Now as the Assistant Administrator of NCP, I am charged with 
11 

1 Executive Order 13407, Section 1. 

managing the Federal Executive Branch Lead Agent for continuity of National essential functions and the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our accomplishments, challenges, and vision. 

It is my privilege to lead the dedicated professionals with whom I work at FEMA. 

FEMA serves as the Nation’s focal point for Government continuity planning, guidance, and operations support, and is also responsible for ensuring the President is 

able to address the Nation under the most extreme circumstances. The technology 

used to fulfill this central mission has undergone many changes, beginning in 1951, 

when the Control of Electromagnetic Radiation system, or CONELRAD, was the 

chief method of Federal communication during a disaster. CONELRAD was replaced 

by the Emergency Broadcast System in 1963, followed by the Emergency Alert System (EAS) in 1994. IPAWS is a modernization and integration of the Nation’s alert 

and warning infrastructure. 

Under 47 U.S.C. § 606 and regulations implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (47 CFR Part 11, et seq.), broadcast radio and television 

stations, cable television stations, direct broadcast satellite services, and satellite 

radio operators are all required to carry National (Presidential) EAS alerts and support State and local EAS alerts and tests. In support of these requirements, Executive Order 13407 states, ‘‘It is the policy of the United States to have an effective, 

reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people.’’1 FEMA created IPAWS to be a system of systems to: (1) Modernize 

the EAS and expand the Primary Entry Point (PEP) station system; (2) create an 

Open Platform for Emergency Networks, or IPAWS–OPEN, which can be used at 

no cost by State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety partners; (3) promote collaboration with industry to leverage existing or develop new standards and to integrate current and future technologies seamlessly into IPAWS; (4) expand traditional 

alerting and warning communication pathways; and (5) working with the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) to deliver alerts through NOAA Weather Radio All-Hazards. 

IPAWS’ SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN THE LAST 2 YEARS

The IPAWS program has made significant progress over the past 2 years, and 

FEMA is on schedule to achieve our IPAWS vision in fiscal year 2012 by having 

established the following: 

1. Interoperable standards and interfaces; 

2. Redundancy in the dissemination network; 

3. Integrated disparate message distribution paths, meaning that one message 

can travel many paths to reach the American public; and 

4. Direct coverage for 90 percent of U.S. residents by at least one means of communication. 

We have cleared several significant hurdles in order to ensure success moving forward, yet challenges remain. By the end of this calendar year, we will roll out the 

Commercial Mobile Alerting System (CMAS) in New York City and Washington, DC 

in conjunction with the major cellular providers. CMAS will enable wireless carriers 

to provide customers with geo-targeted, timely, and accurate emergency alerts and 

warnings to their cell phones and other mobile devices. We are also scheduled to 

conduct the first ever National Test of the Emergency Alert System on November 

9, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. EST. In parallel with the technical challenges and accomplishments, the IPAWS Program Management Office (PMO) works closely with industry, 

State, local, and territorial emergency managers, and our Federal interagency partners at the FCC and NOAA to help further our mission. 

The IPAWS PMO continues to: (1) Train the alerting community, including public 

safety officials, industry partners, and the American public; (2) implement and expand new communications paths; (3) provide—at no cost to State, local, territorial, 

and Tribal public safety officials—the capability to use IPAWS–OPEN to send alerts 

and warnings through multiple communication pathways to individuals within their 

jurisdictions; and (4) ensure an environment suitable for innovation of new alerting 

capabilities. 

THE IPAWS VISION

We remain steadfastly committed to our vision for IPAWS as a timely and accurate alert and warning to the American people in the preservation of life and property. In the coming months IPAWS will create an integrated capability accessible 

to all levels of public safety officials, allowing State, territorial, Tribal, and local offi-
12 

2The FEMA Responder Knowledge base website at https://www.rkb.us/ provides emergency 

responders, purchasers, and planners with a trusted, integrated, on-line source of information 

on products, standards, certifications, grants, and other equipment-related information. 

cials to issue public alerts and warnings for all hazards. Next, IPAWS will expand 

beyond radio and television, alerting over multiple communications channels while 

maintaining the EAS as an all-hazards alerting component. Finally, IPAWS will retain a capability to foster growth and development of future alerting capabilities 

through the adoption and promotion of common technical standards and protocols. 

INNOVATIVE AND ADAPTABLE TECHNOLOGIES

IPAWS has moved from a requirements-based, single technology network approach to an applications-based, open standards platform approach. This ensures 

that IPAWS is accessible to a broad range of information processing technologies, 

networks and equipment so that existing private sector alerting and communication 

systems can easily integrate with IPAWS–OPEN. While even basic phones with 

texting capability can receive an alert from IPAWS–OPEN, the open standards platform will also allow for future technologies to integrate with IPAWS. 

IPAWS–OPEN supports an environment which leverages the industry-adopted 

Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) Emergency Data Exchange Language standard to 

improve interoperability across a wide variety of technologies and other solutions. 

As a result, there are 46 private sector vendors and 12 public sector organizations 

currently developing and testing products to leverage the IPAWS–OPEN application 

capabilities. The National Public Radio (NPR) also uses CAP messages from IPAWS 

to deliver alerts to people with visual or hearing impairments by providing alerts 

directly to prototype devices that activate a bed shaker, display an audio alert in 

text, or output the text to a Braille printer. 

IPAWS’ OPEN provides our industry partners with flexibility in the development 

of new types of technologies and fosters greater competition and innovation in the 

development of public alert and warning tools. 

IPAWS’ MILESTONES

IPAWS has achieved notable accomplishments since the beginning of fiscal year 

2010, including adopting CAP, expanding the PEP station system, conducting two 

successful live code EAS tests in Alaska, developing the Commercial Mobile Alert 

System (CMAS) in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security’s Science 

and Technology Directorate (S&T), and supporting individuals with access and functional needs. These accomplishments are a result of the consistent vision of IPAWS, 

support from authorizing authorities such as this committee, and the strong relationships IPAWS PMO has established with our public and private partners. 

COMMON ALERTING PROTOCOL

FEMA IPAWS officially adopted the CAP Standard on September 30, 2010, after 

it was developed by a partnership between S&T and the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, an international standards body. 

Similarly, FEMA IPAWS adopted the CAP to EAS Implementation Guide in May 

2010 after it was developed by the EAS to CAP Industry Group. The FCC regulates 

CAP compliance actions by EAS participants (such as radio, cable, and television 

providers, etc.). FEMA contracted with Eastern Kentucky University to test vendor 

products for CAP compliance. Vendors’ test results are posted on the FEMA Responder Knowledge Base website.2 The FEMA Responder Knowledge Base benefits 

State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety officials, as well as EAS participants, because it confirms whether equipment they are considering purchasing will 

work with the modernized EAS. 

PRIMARY ENTRY POINT

The PEP system is a Nation-wide network of broadcast stations and other entities 

that is used to distribute a message from the President or designated National authorities in the event of a National emergency. The IPAWS Program Management 

Office continues to expand the number of PEP Stations across the United States. 

In August 2009, the system originally had 36 PEP stations providing direct coverage 

to 67% of the American people. Currently, there are 49 operational PEP Stations 

and five PEP Stations under construction, resulting in direct coverage of 75% of the 

American people. By the end of 2012, the number of PEP Stations will increase to 

77 and will directly cover over 90% of the American people. 
13 

New PEP Stations use a standard configuration, saving maintenance costs and 

ensuring an ease of movement between stations. The stations have double-walled 

fuel containers with spill containment and a modern fuel management system and 

Electromagnetic Pulse-protected backup power and transmitters. Legacy stations 

are being retrofitted to meet current PEP Station resiliency standards. 

While EAS is currently being used in Puerto Rico, FEMA is working with the 

Puerto Rican government so they can locally generate island-wide alerts. In the U.S. 

Virgin Islands (USVI), FEMA has already begun the process of helping the USVI 

Government locally generate territory-wide alerts, as well as assisting them with 

EAS testing. The IPAWS PMO is installing PEP Stations in other territories, including American Samoa, in fiscal year 2011 while Guam and Saipan are still in the 

planning phases. 

LIVE-CODE EAS TESTS IN ALASKA

The IPAWS Program Management Office worked closely with the Alaska Association of Broadcasters, the State of Alaska, the FCC, and other key public and private 

sector partners to conduct two successful live-code tests in Alaska in January 2010 

and January 2011. The purpose of these tests was to establish an EAS capabilities 

baseline and set the stage for the first ever National Test of the EAS. The live-code 

tests in Alaska helped FEMA and EAS participating stations refine equipment installation/maintenance and standard operating procedures, and clarify certain alerting procedures. 

COMMERCIAL MOBILE ALERT SYSTEM

Using IPAWS–OPEN, CMAS sends non-subscription based 90-character text messages directly from wireless towers and targets phones in the geo-targeted area. 

State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety officials can, at no cost, alert or 

warn individuals affected by an imminent threat or Presidential Message. CMAS 

mitigates wireless call congestion and individuals can receive the alert even if wireless towers in their location can no longer support subscriber-to-subscriber messaging. 

The IPAWS PMO works closely with S&T, commercial mobile service providers, 

and the FCC to realize our mutual goal of expanding the number of communication 

pathways for alerts and warnings. For example, the commercial mobile industry is 

developing cellular broadcasting technology to support Nation-wide alert delivery. 

As authorized by the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, S&T is providing 

the research, development, testing, and evaluation support necessary to fully implement CMAS. 

The IPAWS PMO adopted industry-developed CMAS interface specifications in 

December 2009, and made the IPAWS CMAS Gateway available to carriers for testing in February 2011. Since May 2011, most major carriers have or are in the process of completing development and testing on the IPAWS CMAS Gateway. The 

IPAWS Program Management Office began C-Interface testing with tier 1 carriers 

in March 2011, over a year ahead of schedule. Since then, Sprint has completed 

testing, and US Cellular, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless are currently undergoing testing, with other providers planning to test in the near future. 

CMAS alerts will be transmitted to cell phones within the area of a disaster and 

are by design sent only to phones within the affected area. FEMA IPAWS is working with NOAA to develop software for State, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency managers that will allow alerts and warnings to be geo-targeted. The GeoTargeted Alert System software models the forward progress of a chemical cloud or 

toxic spill, for example, so emergency managers can specifically warn those in its 

anticipated path. 

Our industry partners have reported that some mobile user devices currently on 

the market are already CMAS capable, with all other commercially available devices 

capable by 2014. 

SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE WITH ACCESS AND FUNCTIONAL NEEDS

The IPAWS Program Management Office has remained engaged with agencies, organizations, conferences, and private industry to promote IPAWS capabilities and 

opportunities for the integration of alert and warning technologies for people with 

access and functional needs. We have partnered with private organizations such as 

Signtel, Deaf-Link, Alertus, NPR, Readspeaker, Roam Secure, VPN Voice Corp, and 

public organizations such as NOAA, to demonstrate products that incorporate CAPenabled technologies for alerting persons with access and functional needs. These 

technologies and products are routinely incorporated into IPAWS demonstrations 

and have been displayed at such events as the International Association of Emer-
14 

gency Managers (IAEM) Annual Conference, National Association of Broadcasters 

Show, National Council on Independent Living Annual Conference, the IPAWS Congressional Demonstration, and the National Disabilities Rights Network Annual 

Conference. The IPAWS PMO has also participated in such events as the Interagency Disability Educational Awareness Showcase, FEMA Getting Real Conference, and IAEM’s Special Needs Committee meeting. 

The IPAWS Program Management Office also partnered with FEMA’s Office of 

Disability Integration and Coordination and initiated a semiannual outreach roundtable for Federal partners and industry experts on disability-related issues. The 

roundtable includes representatives from over a dozen leading organizations representing Americans with access and functional needs; it is intended to provide periodic updates to our industry Federal partners, as well as elicit information on 

emerging technologies and systems that can integrate CAP. 

THE FUTURE OF IPAWS

Two major milestones remaining for this calendar year include the: (1) CMAS rollout in New York City and (2) the first ever National EAS Test. The IPAWS Program 

Management Office is actively implementing strategic technical and outreach plans 

to communicate with and engage stakeholders and partners to ensure successful implementation and testing of both CMAS and the EAS. 

We have already had exceptional cooperation from the wireless industry in adapting CMAS. While participation by commercial mobile carriers is voluntary, 142 mobile service providers have already filed their intent to participate, with the major 

wireless carriers providing CMAS capability 4 months ahead of schedule. 

In addition to the strong working relationship between the wireless community 

and the IPAWS Program Management Office, there has been great cooperation from 

S&T, the New York City Mayor, city leadership, and NYC Office of Emergency Management in advance of the first large-scale integration test of CMAS between local 

authorities and IPAWS. We plan to make CMAS available in New York City and 

Washington, DC by the end of this calendar year, with the expectation that CMAS 

will be operational throughout the United States in April 2012. 

The National EAS Test is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 9, 

2011, at 2 p.m. EST. The date and time for the test was coordinated with the cooperation of numerous public and private partners—most notably the broadcast industry and the FCC—to take place after peak hurricane season and outside of rush 

hour on both coasts. 

The National EAS Test will help determine where adjustments need to be made. 

We anticipate the test will help us establish an effective baseline for future tests, 

devise mitigation strategies for common issues, and assess and adjust training and 

standard operating procedures. 

The 2011 National EAS Test will not incorporate IPAWS system technologies. It 

is an end-to-end test of our Nation’s alerting capability to demonstrate the readiness 

and effectiveness of the National EAS. The National EAS Test on November 9 will 

use the legacy EAS infrastructure to deliver television and radio alerts across the 

Nation. 

CONCLUSION

The IPAWS vision of providing timely alert and warning information to the American people in the preservation of life and property remains clear and consistent. 

FEMA is fully committed to IPAWS and recognizes its importance to the American 

public. 

Between now and the end of calendar year 2012, the IPAWS PMO will continue 

to work with State and local alerting authorities to help them leverage the IPAWS 

system and capabilities, including providing the certification tools State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety officials will need to have authenticated for access 

to IPAWS–OPEN. The IPAWS PMO will also continue to conduct extensive outreach 

and training to State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety officials. 

We will continue to work with industry and academia for the development of capabilities to alert people with access and functional needs and those whose primary 

language is not English. We will also continue our work with the FCC to evolve 

alert and warning regulations to encompass whole of community alerting capabilities, and will work with NOAA to fully integrate their alert and warning systems 

with IPAWS. 

The IPAWS PMO will complete the EAS Modernization and PEP Expansion program through 77 PEP stations directly covering 90% of the American people, retrofitting legacy PEP stations to current specifications for all-hazards, resilient capa-
15 

bility and modern environmental protection configuration. IPAWS will also incorporate back-up EAS through satellite messaging capability within the PEP system. 

We will continue to increase the IPAWS–OPEN Alert Aggregator’s resilience 

through greater accessibility, reliability, and redundancy. We will continue to work 

with S&T, industry, and other partners to explore means of providing alerts through 

internet services and ‘‘new media’’ in a secure and integrated fashion. We will continue to promote IPAWS standards and CAP, and will encourage the developers of 

future technologies to provide IPAWS capable alerting tools to America’s public safety officials. 

I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify and I am pleased to take any 

questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 

Chief Barnett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RADM JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR., CHIEF, 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Admiral BARNETT. Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking Member Richardson and Members of the subcommittee. I really 

appreciate the opportunity to come talk to you about the Federal 

Communication Commission’s recent work in alerting and warning 

the public. 

With over 1,400 tornados and widespread flooding, we have already seen too much loss of life from natural disasters this year. 

A bright spot from these terrible reports occurs sometimes when we 

hear survivors say, I got the warning and I got to safety. 

This is the crucial premise of all alerts and warnings. We may 

not be able to protect every single person from every disaster, but 

if we can get timely, accurate information about imminent danger 

to people in harm’s way, they can take action to save themselves 

and their loved ones. Alerts provide the information that turns precious seconds into survival. 

One of SEC’s primary statutory obligations is to promote safety 

of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and we are committed to this responsibility. 

We recognize that this would be a team effort, and that is why 

I am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague, Damon Penn 

of FEMA. The FCC works closely with FEMA to bring the future 

of emergency alerting to citizens now. 

Pursuant to the WARN Act, the FCC in 2008 adopted rules allowing wireless carriers to voluntarily transmit emergency text like 

alerts to subscribers’ cell phones. Since then, the FCC, FEMA, the 

wireless industry, State, and local governments have all worked together to make Personal Localized Alerting Network, or PLAN, a 

reality. Four carriers—Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon—have 

committed to making PLAN available in New York City by the end 

of year, and these carriers and others will begin to deploy PLAN 

in other parts of the country by April 7, 2012, which is the deadline 

set by the FCC. 

PLAN will serve as an important complement to other alert systems like the Emergency Alert System, or EAS, by using new cellular broadcast technology that will allow Government officials to 

send this text-like emergency alert to everyone in a targeted geographic area who has an enabled mobile device. This will ensure 

that alerts reach only the people in danger, and there is no charge 

to the consumer for receiving these alerts. 
16 

PLAN creates a fast lane for emergency alerts so critical information is guaranteed to get through, even when there is congestion 

on a carrier’s network. Moreover, with PLAN, neither the alert 

initiator nor anyone administering the system will know who receives the alert. PLAN cannot be used to monitor wireless devices 

or a consumer’s location. 

The FCC has also adopted rules to enhance the reliability of 

EAS. EAS requires radio and television broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers to have equipment that can deliver 

emergency alerts to the public. Although the State and local components of EAS are tested regularly, to date EAS has never been tested on a Nation-wide basis. To remedy this, FEMA and the FCC 

have announced the first top-down Nation-wide test of all the components of the EAS for November 9 of this year. The agencies will 

also work together to be sure that the public is aware of the Nation-wide test before it occurs. 

Another key element of public safety communications is the ability for someone to call first responders for help. Today, the average 

American sends about 20 texts per day. If you are a teenager, that 

is over 100 texts a day. Almost all mobile phones now have cameras, and most of these can shoot video, too. But when I tell people 

that you can’t text or send pictures to 9–1–1, they are incredulous. 

The sad truth today is that if your child winds up in an emergency situation and texts 9–1–1 for help, that call for help will go 

unanswered. This is why the FCC is doing all that it can to promote the evolution of a broadband-based, next-generation 9–1–1 

system. As recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC 

has initiated proceedings to have all of the 9–1–1 centers, the 

PSAPs, have access to broadband technologies to communicate with 

9–1–1 dispatchers and to accelerate the deployment of next-generation 9–1–1 which would allow the public to send those text messages, video, and photos to 9–1–1. 

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today. This concludes my testimony. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Admiral Barnett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR. 

JULY 8, 2011 

Good Morning Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson and other Members of the House Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss the FCC’s recent work in 

alerting and warning the American public and our partnership with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal partners in this vitally 

important area. 

INTRODUCTION

National Weather Service preliminary reports show that over 1,400 tornados have 

occurred in the United States already this year. We have seen many disasters in 

2011, and too much loss of life and property. In some of the news reports, though, 

there is a hopeful note. We occasionally hear a disaster victim report, ‘‘I got the 

warning, and I got to safety.’’ This is the crucial premise of all alerts and warnings. 

We may not be able to protect every single person from every disaster, but if we 

can get timely, accurate information about imminent danger to people in harm’s 

way, they can take cover, they can move to safety, they can save themselves, they 
17 

can save their families. This is truly a situation in which seconds count and can 

make the difference between life and death. 

One of the FCC’s primary statutory obligations is to promote the safety of life and 

property through the use of wire and radio communications, and the FCC has a singular commitment to the protection of the American public through constantly 

evolving alert and warning systems. We recognize that this should be a team effort, 

and I am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague Damon Penn of FEMA. 

The FCC works closely with FEMA, the National Weather Service and other Federal partners to bring the future of alert and warning systems to consumers now. 

An essential element of that FCC obligation is the ability to alert the American 

public in times of emergency. Through various initiatives, the FCC continues to take 

significant steps toward implementing one of its highest priorities—ensuring that 

all Americans can receive timely and accurate emergency alerts and warnings over 

each communications platform they use. 

Today, I will discuss the FCC’s efforts to date regarding the Personal Localized 

Alerting Network, or PLAN, (also known as the Commercial Mobile Alerting System, or CMAS) and the Emergency Alert System (EAS). I will also discuss briefly 

our next steps in ensuring that the public can receive alerts over multiple communications technologies. Finally, I will update you on our efforts to ensure that the 

public has access to more advanced 9–1–1 systems. Like emergency alerting, these 

initiatives are all part of our comprehensive commitment to promoting public safety 

through communications. 

THE PERSONAL LOCALIZED ALERTING NETWORK (PLAN)

Wireless devices have become ubiquitous across our Nation and, as such, provide 

a particularly effective means to reach the American public quickly and efficiently 

in an emergency. Accordingly, in 2006 Congress passed the Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act. The WARN Act sets forth a process for the creation 

of a warning system whereby commercial wireless carriers may elect to transmit 

emergency alerts to their subscribers. This legislation required the FCC to undertake a series of actions to accomplish that goal. I am happy to report that the FCC 

has met all of its WARN Act deadlines, and in conjunction with FEMA and the 

wireless industry, has taken significant steps to develop PLAN. 

On December 12, 2006, the FCC established and convened an advisory committee 

to recommend technical requirements by which commercial wireless carriers could 

voluntarily transmit emergency alerts—the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC). The CMSAAC consisted of 44 members representing 

State, local, and Tribal governments; wireless providers; manufacturers; commercial 

and noncommercial broadcasters; the disabilities community; FEMA; and other organizations. By the time it had concluded its work, this unique Government/industry partnership had overwhelmingly approved a set of recommendations for technical requirements for what would become the PLAN. On October 12, 2007, the FCC 

received these recommendations. On April 9, 2008, the FCC adopted requirements 

that would govern the voluntary transmission of emergency alerts by commercial 

wireless carriers. 

Under these rules, participating wireless carriers must begin PLAN deployment 

by April 7, 2012. In May of this year, Chairman Genachowski, FEMA Administrator 

Craig Fugate, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and top executives of the 

four major Nation-wide carriers—AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless announced that PLAN would be available in New York City by the end of this year, 

months ahead of schedule. 

PLAN is a new technology and service that will turn mobile devices into emergency alert devices with transmission of potentially life-saving messages when there 

are threats to public safety. It will serve as an important complement to other alert 

and warning systems like the EAS. PLAN will allow Government officials to send 

text-like emergency alerts to everyone in a targeted geographic area who has an enabled mobile device. Since the alerts will be geographically targeted, they will reach 

the right people, at the right time, with the right messages. A PLAN alert will be 

accompanied by a unique attention signal and vibration, which is particularly helpful to people with hearing or vision-related disabilities, and there is no charge to 

the consumer for receiving alerts. 

Unlike other wireless-based alerting systems that require subscribers to sign up 

for the service, subscribers will automatically receive PLAN alerts as long as they 

have a PLAN-capable mobile device and their carrier participates in PLAN. Alert 

originators can send three types of alerts using PLAN—alerts from the President 

regarding National emergencies, alerts about other emergencies involving imminent 
18 

threats to life or safety, and Amber alerts. Pursuant to the WARN Act, subscribers 

may opt out of receiving all but the National emergency alerts. 

PLAN creates a fast lane for emergency alerts, so vital information is guaranteed 

to get through even if there’s congestion in the network. As we have learned from 

past large-scale emergencies, a spike in customer calls and text messages during 

emergencies can overload communications networks. PLAN effectively addresses 

this problem by using a technology that is separate and different from that used 

for voice calls and traditional text messages, allowing PLAN alerts to get through 

as long as the network is operating. 

It is also important to note that with PLAN, neither the alert initiator nor anyone 

administering the system will know who receives a particular alert. Accordingly, 

PLAN cannot be used to monitor wireless devices or a consumer’s location or track 

where someone is. The technology is similar to a portable radio—someone receives 

the radio station’s broadcast, but the radio station doesn’t know where that person 

is or even if she is listening. 

The FCC’s partnership with FEMA has been essential to the rollout of PLAN and 

will help ensure a successful Nation-wide launch of PLAN. As reflected in the diagram attached as Appendix A, the PLAN architecture consists of two major components—the Alert Aggregator/Gateway and the Carrier Gateway and Infrastructure. 

The Alert Aggregator/Gateway is administered by FEMA as part of its Integrated 

Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). This component will receive and authenticate alerts from Federal, State, Tribal and local governments; verify the originator of the alert; and send the alert over a secure pathway to gateways and infrastructure administered by participating wireless carriers. These gateways and infrastructure will receive alerts and push them out to any PLAN-capable handsets and 

other mobile devices within the alerts’ targeted geographic area. 

Over 100 commercial wireless carriers have elected to participate in PLAN, so by 

next April, PLAN will be deployed in cities across the country not only by the four 

major Nation-wide carriers, but also by many small and regional carriers. I want 

to note that, pursuant to the WARN Act, participation in PLAN by wireless carriers 

is completely voluntary. Thus, some carriers will offer PLAN over all of their service 

areas, others over parts of their services areas, and others over all or only some of 

their wireless devices. Ultimately, we expect that market forces will encourage carriers to make PLAN available in most of the country. In the mean time, and starting right now, the FCC recommends that consumers ask their carriers whether and 

where they will offer PLAN alerts to PLAN-capable handsets. For more information, 

we encourage the public to visit our website at www.fcc.gov/pshs. 

THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

I also want to report about steps the FCC is taking to better evaluate and enhance the reliability of the Emergency Alert System (EAS). For over 50 years, what 

we now call the EAS has provided emergency alerts to the American people, including the ability for the President of the United States to deliver a message to the 

public in the event of a National emergency. The EAS requires broadcast and satellite radio and television service providers, cable systems, and wireline video systems (‘‘EAS Participants’’) to install and operate equipment capable of delivering 

emergency alerts to their viewers and listeners. The current EAS has been in existence for over 15 years and is used successfully and extensively by State and local 

authorities for weather-related and other emergency warnings. The FCC, FEMA, 

and the National Weather Service are charged with maintaining the EAS. 

State and local components of the EAS are tested, respectively, on a monthly and 

weekly basis. However, to date, the EAS has never been tested on a Nation-wide 

basis. EAS is a significant National asset, yet we do not know how well the system 

will work on a National scale. Only a top-down, simultaneous test of all components 

of the EAS can provide an appropriate assessment of system performance. 

To remedy this situation, FEMA and the FCC, in conjunction with other stakeholders, are now planning to conduct a truly Nation-wide test of the EAS. This past 

February, the FCC issued a rule mandating Nation-wide testing, and on June 9, 

2011, FEMA and the FCC announced that this first test will take place on November 9 of this year. 

In addition to ensuring that the EAS works as intended, the FCC continues to 

make improvements to the EAS. These include expanding the traditional analog 

EAS to digital technologies, including digital radio and television, digital cable, satellite radio and television, and wireline video systems. The FCC has also required 

all EAS Participants to be able to receive EAS alerts in the Common Alerting Protocol (‘‘CAP’’) standard adopted by FEMA. CAP is a standard alert messaging protocol that allows alert originators to, among other things, send a single emergency 
19 

alert over multiple communications technologies, thereby increasing the efficiency of 

sending alerts and expanding the ways in which consumers can receive them. 

NEXT STEPS FOR EMERGENCY ALERTING

Looking to the future, the FCC will continue to explore whether other communications technologies can provide ways for Americans to receive alerts and warnings 

about imminent threats to safety of life. For example, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC will examine the role that broadband technologies, 

social networks, and other internet-based tools can play in emergency alerting. We 

will continue to learn from experiences at home and abroad. For example, earlier 

this year, Japan experienced a devastating earthquake and tsunami that resulted 

in significant loss of life and damage to property. Although these losses were severe, 

they may have been greater if not for Japan’s earthquake detection and warning 

system, which relied on elements of broadband technologies to alert the public. 

These experiences can inform our own thinking about how to leverage communications technologies to warn the public about impending disasters. 

The FCC will continue to take steps to ensure that the public has access to emergency alerts and warnings over multiple communications technologies. We will continue to work closely with FEMA, the National Weather Service, industry, and State 

and local governments to ensure that the benefits of PLAN are available to consumers in all parts of the country and to ensure that the EAS continues to provide 

a reliable and effective method to transmit timely and accurate emergency alerts to 

the public. We will aggressively pursue technologies that convey information about 

imminent danger to Americans in harm’s way so they can take action to save themselves and their families. 

9–1–1 DEVELOPMENTS

Another key element of public safety communications is the ability of someone to 

alert first responders of a need for assistance. It is critical that we take steps to 

ensure that today’s 9–1–1 system supports the communications tools of tomorrow. 

The communications world has changed in so many dramatic ways in recent years, 

with the dramatic growth in the use of mobile phones and broadband. In 2005, not 

that many Americans sent text messages, and the average cell phone subscriber 

typically sent less than two texts a day. Today, it’s about 20 texts a day, and the 

average teenager sends over 100 a day, which tells you something about the direction that this is going. 

In 2005, only 18 percent of U.S. cell phones had cameras. Now almost all of them 

do, and a growing number can also shoot video. Five years ago, if I had told people 

you can’t text 9–1–1 or send pictures to 9–1–1, they would have said, so what? 

Today, they think I can’t be serious. But that’s the sad truth. There is a gap between what ordinary people do every day with communications technology and the 

capabilities of our emergency response network. That gap is unacceptable and cost 

lives. Right now, if your child winds up in an emergency situation and texts 

9–1–1 for help, that call for help will go unanswered, even though it may never 

occur to your child that emergency responders cannot receive text messages. When 

texting is the primary way that many people use their mobile devices that doesn’t 

make any sense. Fixing this will require a sustained team effort, and we’re actively 

working with our Federal, State, and local partners to make this a reality. 

The FCC is doing everything it can to promote next generation 9–1–1. As recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC has initiated a proceeding to 

ensure that the public has access to broadband technologies to communicate with 

9–1–1 dispatchers and to accelerate the deployment of next generation 9–1–1, which 

could allow the public to send text messages, video, and photos to 9–1–1. The FCC 

has also taken actions to improve 9–1–1 by enhancing location accuracy requirements for wireless service providers, to be sure first responders can find those who 

call 9–1–1 from their mobile phones. 

These efforts, like our emergency alerting initiatives, serve to ensure that the 

public has access to an effective and reliable public safety communications system 

and, ultimately, to provide for a safer America. 

CONCLUSION

Public safety and homeland security depend on reliable public safety communications, which in turn depend on three key elements. First, is the ability of public 

safety officials and first responders to communicate with each other. Second, is the 

ability to provide timely, accurate warnings to the public of imminent danger. Third 

is the ability for the public to call for assistance when it is needed. The FCC is committed to ensuring the availability of all three elements. Thank you for the oppor-
20 

tunity to appear before you today. This concludes my testimony, and I am pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

APPENDIX A 

To send a PLAN alert, an authorized local alert initiator enters descriptive data 

about an emergency into the PLAN-compliant alerting system (‘‘A’’). The information is sent to a FEMA Alert Aggregator, where it is authenticated and directed to 

a FEMA-operated Gateway (‘‘B’’), which reformats the data so it is useable by each 

wireless carrier, and sends it over a secure pathway (‘‘C’’) to a wireless carrier’s 

Gateway (‘‘D’’). The carrier then distributes the alert to all customers in the area 

affected by the emergency by sending it to the towers in that area (‘‘E’’). PLAN-compatible handsets in the area will receive the transmission, deliver the unique PLAN 

attention signal and vibration, and begin to scroll the 90 characters of text across 

the screen. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

I will recognize myself for questions, and I will stay within the 

5-minute period. 

Looks like we are going to have votes earlier than I thought. So 

we will try to get through—we will definitely get through the first 

panel. Thank you. 

Administrator Penn, as I noted in my opening statement, I am 

interested in hearing more about CMAS training that will be provided to message originators. I am concerned that some alert systems currently in use by State and local emergency management 

officials, such as Alert DC, are used for more than just emergency 

alerts. 

My concern is that if proper training is not provided, CMAS may 

be used to send messages that do not rise to the level of imminent 

threat alerts. This may result in message saturation, and individuals may ignore, unfortunately, important messages. 

What outreach has FEMA conducted with State and local emergency managers to educate them on the upcoming deployment of 

CMAS? What training will FEMA provide to message originators 

to ensure appropriate use of CMAS? What steps will FEMA take 

as the message validator to ensure that the information arises to 

the level of CMAS alert? 
21 

Mr. PENN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very good questions. 

The next major step for us is training and certification of message originators, and the points that you mention are all valid. The 

challenge is to be able to provide them access to the system but be 

able to monitor their progress and be able to police the system if 

we get to a position where they are abusing the alerts of imminent 

threats. We have a program developed or are developing a program 

that is internet-based that will give them the basic knowledge that 

they need to be able to input the message and do the buttonology 

it takes to input into IPAWS. 

Part of that certification also includes best practices that we 

have seen throughout the country and a clear definition of what 

imminent threat and what the intent of IPAWS is. So we think 

that is a start. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Can you give us that definition now of imminent 

threat? 

Mr. PENN. I don’t have the exact verbiage here before me here, 

Mr. Chairman, but I will be more than happy to provide that. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yeah, could you provide that to the committee? 

Mr. PENN. We have spent quite a bit of time drafting that to 

make sure the language is exactly what we want it to be. I will 

provide that. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please do, thanks. 

Mr. PENN. The part that we can help to police ourselves as the 

system matures and it comes into use is we will be able to monitor 

each alert that has been sent by the originators, be they State and 

local or whatever level the alert has originated. We will be able to, 

by controlling access to the system, take anyone off the system that 

we find is abusing the intent and not using the imminent threat 

guidelines that we have laid down. So I think that we have the capability to do that, and I think we have a capability to monitor and 

protect the system. 

The real challenge is that each jurisdiction is a little different 

and some of their requirements are a little different. We have to 

be very sensitive to the conditions of the State and locals and discuss these in some detail with the providers. We have met at several State and local emergency manager conferences. We continue 

to have daily contact with the emergency managers on this. 

Again, we have shared some best practices, and we are assembling those, and those will be part of the training process, and 

through our outreach I think we can solve a good portion of the 

problem. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Are we on time as far as I believe it is going to be implemented 

in the District of Columbia and New York by November and then 

in the spring of 2012 around the Nation? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir. Actually, we are a little ahead of that. We 

will be able to start to certify initiators within the next 2 months 

or so and get that program started. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Chief Barnett, some people have expressed privacy concerns 

about CMAS or PLAN technology including the ability to track cell 

phone users. You mentioned this in your opening statement, and 

I have concerns. Would you please elaborate on the privacy safety 
22 

guards in place for this technology? We obviously need to get the 

word out. 

Admiral BARNETT. Yes, sir. 

Sir, one of the great things about PLAN is the technology it uses 

really does not allow tracking or monitoring, neither by the system 

administrators—and the way that I would analogize it is it is more 

like your portable radio. In essence, the alert comes through the 

Federal aggregator, it hits the cell tower, and it goes out. You don’t 

know who is there. The only thing we know is that that particular 

cell phone, enabled cell phone, is in that particular danger area. 

But they receive it. There is no way to tell it has been received 

by the person. There is no way to tell where their location is. So 

think of it like a radio broadcast, and that way they can be assured 

that no one is tracking, no one knows the location for them. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you. 

Well, I think I better yield to our Ranking Member, because we 

are running out of time. So I yield. 

I recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Penn, my first question is, in light of some of the budget cuts 

as I mentioned in my opening statement, do you anticipate any further delays for retrofitting the primary entry point stations due to 

these cuts? 

Additionally, how do you see, if there are delays expected, that 

that would affect the overall progress of IPAWS? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. We currently have adequate funds to 

complete the program that we have scheduled for 2012. We did 

make a concession, as you mentioned, by moving the building of 

four primary entry point stations to the right into 2013. That, right 

now, is the only concession that I see that we are going to have 

to make in the program. The administrator of FEMA fully supports 

what it is we are doing, as does the director of Homeland Security, 

or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and they have been very judicious in protecting our program. 

A critical path for IPAWS in general is 2012 as we continue to 

develop the aggregator, as we bring other capabilities on-line, and 

I think we have adequate funding to do what we need to do. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My next question is, how are the territories in the Tribal areas doing in terms of working with you to utilize all the available systems that we are developing? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. 

We have done a lot of work with the territories in recent months. 

In fact, we have PEP stations now in Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands. American Samoa, we have started PEP construction and 

will complete that in August of this year. We have surveyed sites 

for PEP stations in Guam, Saipan, and the Marianas. Those are 

part of our spring 2012 projects. 

We have also worked with the territories to talk to them about 

emergency management and message distribution throughout the 

territory and how they can use best practices that we have seen 

here on the mainland to help communicate their messages better. 

They have all been very proactive and very excited about what we 

are doing and accepted everything that we have offered in the way 

of advice and in the way of best practices. 
23 

The last contact that we had was with the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board back in May when we discussed 

CMAS and talked to them about how to integrate CMAS into what 

they are doing. 

So I am very confident that we made the progress that we need 

to make in the territories and we are moving forward. As you 

know, each are somewhat unique in their requirements, but everything that we can provide provides another level of alert and warning that they didn’t have before we started the process. So I think 

it is going very well. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So could you please provide to the committee 

in writing what you just said? All of the territories, whether they 

have PEP stations or whether they don’t, when they should be fully 

on-line and are there any other requirements or participation that 

we need of them to be fully up and running. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am, would be my pleasure. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

My next question is for our Rear Admiral, Mr. Barnett. When we 

talk about the WARN Act, how willing have you found that the 

wireless carriers have been in providing this service to their customers, given the fact that it is voluntary? 

Admiral BARNETT. The wireless industry has really stepped up to 

the plate on this. It is voluntary, but currently we have carriers 

who indicate they will provide coverage, plan coverage for part or 

all of their carriers that we cover, some 95 percent of subscribers. 

I have a feeling that once that gets fully into place that that percentage is going to go up, and so we work very closely. This has 

been very much a collaborative effort between FEMA, the FCC, the 

wireless industries, and State and local government. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. What is your plan—in your testimony, though, 

you referenced, as you just said now, that you think the market 

forces and as it has rolled out more will participate. What happens 

if they don’t? What is the plan? 

Admiral BARNETT. We will have to take that under advisement. 

I think the first thing is to get it up and running. I think the market pressures will do that. If they do not for some reason, if it does 

not roll out that way, we will certainly want to look at that. I really 

see PLAN as the next major step in alerting the public because of 

the near ubiquity, it seems, of mobile devices. So this is something 

that we will remain focused on. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If there is no objection from the Chairman, 

what I would like to request is that you come up with a plan if, 

in the event there was not the participation. Because what we don’t 

want to do is wait 6 months or a year and then we find out various 

areas might be particularly vulnerable. Sometimes that happens in 

rural communities, in areas where traditionally rollout is a little 

slower. So if we could look at what is that plan now so we are 

ready so once you do the assessment and you know who is or is 

not participating we would be ready with next recommendations. 

Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Now Ms. Hochul from the great State of New York, the 

gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HOCHUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
24 

Again, I am in a learning curve here, but I did want to follow 

up on the Ranking Member’s question. Would you consider a proposal to make PLAN mandatory? I am sure there was a lot of give 

and take when this was passed. I wasn’t here at the time. But is 

there an argument against making it mandatory so we ensure 100 

percent coverage? 

Admiral BARNETT. I am sure that was discussed when the 

WARN Act was passed. I think, after full deliberation, they decided 

to make it voluntary. Once the carrier signs up, they do have to 

comply with the FCC’s rules. Certainly Congress can decide if they 

wanted to make it mandatory. However, I am very encouraged by 

the fact that under a voluntary basis that so many have signed up. 

You are already seeing devices that are PLAN capable that are on 

the market now. Others can be made capable through minor software changes. So I think with 95 percent of the subscribers it looks 

like it will be covered to some degree. That is a first big step. 

Ms. HOCHUL. Thank you. 

I am also concerned about the statements about not being able 

to send pictures or texts to 9–1–1. What steps do you think need 

to be taken? What do you need from the Federal Government? How 

do we make that happen? 

Because, as you stated so accurately, that is the primary means 

for communication for young people. My kids go out in the car. 

They are not even going to know how to dial a phone number. All 

they know how to do is text. I think people would be surprised to 

find out they could not send a picture of an accident or a quick text 

that says, going off the road—— 

So I think, to me, there should be some sense of urgency with 

that. I am just wondering what your thoughts were on how we 

ratchet up the interest in that and make that happen a lot sooner. 

Because that is how young people communicate all the way up to— 

I think that is just the reality. We need to accept that. So—— 

Admiral BARNETT. I think you are exactly right. It was brought 

home to me during the Virginia Tech massacre, where you had people hiding, they had to be quiet, they were texting 9–1–1, and those 

texts never got through, because the system is simply not set up. 

Because really what happened is that 9–1–1 was based on an old 

circuit-switched basis, and then when cell phones came along we 

just kind of modified it slightly. Next-generation 9–1–1 is the way 

we need to go. The Commission is very focused on this. We have 

already had a notice of inquiry that gathers a great deal of information. We intend—we are in preparation now for a notice of proposed rulemaking on that. 

There is some very interesting technologies out there, and I am 

very excited about the aspect of being able to get texts, video, and 

pictures to 9–1–1. There is a lot of preparation—because the 

PSAPs, the 9–1–1 centers have to be ready to accept those and 

process. 

But you are exactly right. The potential there for dealing with 

terrorists, for dealing with crime, for dealing with medical emergencies is vast. So that is why I think the chairman and the commissioners have been so focused on next-generation 9–1–1. 

Ms. HOCHUL. Is there anything you need from the legislature, 

from Congress? Is there any assistance you need from us? 
25 

Admiral BARNETT. Well, the fact of the matter is some of the 

9–1–1 centers—I guess most of them are not set up for this right 

now. There are going to need to be some funding questions that are 

addressed on this. The FCC right now is trying to get a picture on 

that. 

During the National Broadband Plan we actually tried to look at 

how many PSAPs actually have broadband connection right now. 

We determined over half. It is certainly not much more than half 

at this point. So they need to be able to upgrade. That will take 

some money. There will need to be some training involved in that. 

We are trying to develop now kind of a cost model so that Congress 

will and other leaders will have something to go on to figure out 

what it will take to bring the entire country into the broadband 

world with regard to 9–1–1. 

Ms. HOCHUL. That is encouraging that you are on it; and, hopefully, we can remedy that very shortly. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

Well, I think we can start a second round, if that is all right. 

Maybe a couple questions each before we dismiss the first panel. 

I wanted to follow up on Ms. Hochul’s question. When do you anticipate—on the 9–1–1 generation, very exciting and we want to be 

very helpful, when do you anticipate that being implemented? 

Admiral BARNETT. We completed the notice of inquiry and got 

the information back—I think it was back in March. We are still 

moving through that, preparing the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

While I don’t like to speak for the commissioners as to when they 

take something up, I know that it is very high on the chairman’s 

list, on the commissioner’s list. I would hope before the end of this 

calendar year and maybe significantly before that we would be able 

to take that up. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

A question for the entire panel. FEMA and the FCC have announced the first National test for the Emergency Alert System 

will be conducted, as you mentioned in your testimony, on November 9, 2011. Would you please discuss what each of your offices will 

be doing to ensure the success of this test? 

Mr. PENN. Mr. Chairman, the requirement for the organization 

and the actual conduct of the test rests with our office. We are the 

ones that will initiate the message, and we are the ones that then 

will maintain contact with the industry and others to make sure 

that the message has properly been sent. We will gather information afterwards and determine what worked and what didn’t work 

as part of the system. 

So everything from the initial construct of the message, the initial broadcast, through the after-action review and the recommendations and findings all belong to FEMA as a responsibility 

for the test. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

Chief. 

Admiral BARNETT. The FCC adopted some rules that set up the 

National test and even required the EAS participants to report 

their information back in. Under the previous set of rules, when 

they did local tests, monthly tests, they just recorded it. It is some-
26 

thing that our field agents would go around and check the logs 

every now and then. 

We actually need to have all that information brought back so 

the FCC and FEMA can use it to improve the system. That is one 

thing already done. 

We will work with FEMA to make sure that we get out information. Our side of it is primarily working with our licensees and 

regulatees—the broadcasters, the cable providers, satellite folks. 

You will be talking to Suzanne Goucher in the second panel. She 

can tell you that the broadcasters are very excited about this. 

The participants have stepped forward to do this. First with the 

tests that were conducted in Alaska January of this year, January 

the year before that, we learned a lot from that. We will be reaching out to groups that represent various disabilities, State and local 

government, any number of the 9–1–1 centers. We will be talking 

to State broadcast associations, everybody, so that they know what 

is coming and can understand it. 

Now, for most Americans, they are going to just see this as another test of the Emergency Broadcast or Emergency Alert System—every now and then I say Emergency Broadcast because I 

grew up with Emergency Broadcast—Emergency Alert System. I 

think the only slight difference that they might notice in that and 

the previous one, this one will be a little bit longer. But we are 

working very closely with FEMA to get the word out. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

One more quick question and I will yield to Ms. Richardson. 

Why the name change from CMAS to PLAN with regard to the 

cell phone alerting system? 

Admiral BARNETT. I think the thought on that—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It creates a little confusion, in my opinion. 

Admiral BARNETT. Right. Interestingly, I think the thought was 

cellular mobile alerting system or commercial and mobile alerting 

system was not seen as intuitive to the public. I think the Personal 

Localized Alerting Network and an easy acronym like PLAN was 

that. I will say this. In talking with the cellular industry and wireless industry, I think they are going to use wireless emergency 

alerts. So whether or not PLAN continues to be used—and you may 

ask Mr. Guttman-McCabe about that, about what their plans for 

that are. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Now I would like to yield to the Ranking Member for a couple 

of questions. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Penn, two witnesses on the next panel mention in their testimony the need for increased training for emergency managers as 

critical areas will be addressed. What steps are being taken to 

train these emergency managers on IPAWS? 

Mr. PENN. As I mentioned before, one of the critical parts that 

we are doing is training the emergency managers on how to initiate 

messages; and part of that will also be them coming back to us and 

telling us who within their jurisdiction is authorized to be a message originator. 

The training program I mentioned is mostly web-based, and we 

will certify them as being able to do the buttonology that it takes 
27 

to format the message. There is a pre-directed form where they just 

fill in the blanks to send out the message. Then it also tells them 

again what kinds of messages are to be sent and what imminent 

threat is and how that whole piece works together. So a lot of what 

we do will be centered around that and the training program associated with that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, sir, if I can interrupt you for one second, 

because I only have 3 minutes and 49 seconds. 

One of the problems with the way that we work is you testify. 

Oftentimes, the first panel leaves, and then the second panel comes 

in. What I am saying to you, though, is that the next panel of witnesses say that they need more training or that enough, sufficient 

training hasn’t occurred. So can we have a commitment from you 

that you will go back and test and validate if in fact the appropriate folks who should be trained are getting the appropriate 

training or they know how to communicate with you guys to get 

that? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. I concur with their thoughts. We do not 

have enough training. We are trying the best that we can. We will 

expand it and will continue to do more. But I will work very closely 

with them to understand their concerns and that our program is 

headed in the right direction. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Possibly a schedule that they might be able to 

anticipate so if they are not in the first wave then they can catch 

into the second one. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. Just as an example, we have attended 

125 events since January to try to do that very thing. So we will 

continue to work. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My next question is, what efforts are 

being made in regards to alerting individuals with disabilities, including those with hearing, vision, and other functional disabilities? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am, that is a very good question as well. 

We have done quite a bit of work with the access and functional 

needs communities. Our most recent engagement was at the semiannual Conference For Federal Partners and Industry Leaders on 

Disabilities. We meet routinely with the National Center for Accessible Media, we meet with Gallaudet University as they are 

leveraging university work on emerging technologies, the National 

Organization on Disabilities, and several others. What I have 

learned from them is much different from what I thought I would 

learn. 

The disabilities community isn’t really faced with a lack of technology. The technology exists and a lot of things exist that can help 

them function from day to day. The problem that they really have 

is making the technology affordable. 

To give you an example, when we went to the Association of 

Broadcasters convention we met with an engineer from National 

Public Radio, told him what we were doing, and he brought a system over that had he been working on that he connected to one of 

our radios. It took a test alert message that we sent, turned it from 

voice and turned it into text, and then turned it from text into 

Braille. The whole system worked with plug-and-play technology 

with no additional software needed. A great capability that we 
28 

didn’t know existed that our applications-based approach helped us 

achieve that we found out just in a sidebar conversation. 

The problem is that device, as an example, retails for over $5,000. So we continue to work with the disabilities community 

and help to determine their needs. I was really surprised to find 

that their need is not in the technology but what the technology 

costs for the individual to be able to bring it into their home. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So if you could supply to this committee any 

cost of various things of technology that might be impeding folks 

within the disability community so that we might then look at 

other funding options that might assist as you roll out your program. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am, I will. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Finally, the current state of local broadcasters 

of emergency management are private-owned systems, and they 

pay for EAS through their own budget. This is a question now for 

our other witness. How do you view that people are really going to 

be able to switch over to this new program? I mean, are you getting 

any pushback in terms of economic impacts? 

Admiral BARNETT. We are certainly hearing it from some smaller 

broadcasters, for instance. But a good number have already made 

the switch. One of the things that I have been amazed, the broadcasters and the EAS participants really see this as a civic duty. It 

is a civic duty that costs money. These new units can cost from $2- 

to $4,000. FCC is not a grant agency and does not provide grants 

on this, but primarily I think they do see this as an advantage and 

something that the transition is already occurring. So while we recognize that it does cost money, I think that the transition will go 

smoothly. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members, of 

course, for their questions. 

With that, I will dismiss the panel. Thank you so much for being 

here. Appreciate it. 

What we will do, we are expecting a lengthy series of votes. They 

called the votes already. I understand it is eight votes. The subcommittee will stand in recess until the conclusion of the votes. We 

will convene immediately following the last vote. Thank you very 

much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I welcome our second panel. I understand other Members are on 

their way, but we will get started. Thank you for your patience. I 

appreciate it very much. 

Our first witness is Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe. Mr. 

Guttman-McCabe is the Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, at 

CTIA—The Wireless Association. Since joining CTIA in 2001, he 

has worked on a wide range of issues, including spectrum and 

homeland security. In his current capacity as vice president, he 

oversees and coordinates the Association’s regulatory policy advocacy. 

Prior to joining CTIA, Mr. Guttman-McCabe worked as an attorney at a D.C.-based law firm and served as an associate in the 
29 

Communication Practice Group advising clients on wireless and 

common carrier issues. Mr. Guttman-McCabe received his B.A. in 

economics from Swathmore College and his J.D. magna cum laude 

from Catholic University with a certificate from the Institute for 

Communications Law Studies. 

Our next witness is Ms. Suzanne Goucher. Welcome. 

Ms. Goucher is the President and CEO of the Maine Association 

of Broadcasters. She is testifying on behalf of the National Alliance 

of State Broadcasting Associations. Ms. Goucher joined the Maine 

Association of Broadcasters in 1994. She also served on the Maine 

Right to Know Advisory Committee and is co-chair of the Maine 

Business Association Roundtable. 

Prior to joining the Maine Broadcasters, she was the news director of WFAU–AM and WKGC–FM radio stations. Ms. Goucher has 

a Bachelor’s Degree in business administration from Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, and a certificate from the Publishing Laboratory at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New 

York. 

Finally, we will receive testimony from Mr. Allen Kniphfer. Mr. 

Kniphfer is the Emergency Coordinator for Jefferson County in 

Alabama. Prior to joining the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency, he has worked in fire prevention and security at 

Hayes International. Mr. Kniphfer played a key role in developing 

Birmingham’s action plan when Hurricane Katrina struck. Mr. 

Kniphfer earned his bachelor’s degree in management from the 

University of Alabama, Birmingham. 

Welcome. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, 

please. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE 

PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA—THE WIRELESS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Bilirakis. Thank you for affording CTIA the opportunity to 

participate in today’s hearing. 

My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, and I serve as the 

Association’s Vice President for Regulatory Affairs. In that capacity, I have been involved in the wireless industry’s efforts to implement the commercial mobile alert service called for by the WARN 

Act, and I am pleased to have the chance to share with you today 

what the wireless industry is doing to begin delivery of a state-ofthe-art alerting system by early 2012. 

The WARN Act became law as Title VI of the SAFE Ports Act. 

CTIA strongly supported enactment of that legislation, which we 

believe struck a reasonable balance by attempting to augment the 

existing Emergency Alert System without imposing technology 

mandates on the wireless industry. This approach was consistent 

with and built upon previous public-private partnerships that led 

to the successful creation of Wireless Priority Service and wireless 

AMBER Alert programs. 

In the WARN Act, Congress developed an innovative procedure 

to address the goals of emergency alerting by securing the partici-
30 

pation of wireless companies in the development and deployment 

of what has been envisioned as a 90-character, geo-targeted, succinct alert capability that would let consumers carrying a wireless 

device know that there was an imminent threat to health or safety. 

From CTIA’s perspective, it appears that Congress’ vision is 

working as designed. In the first year after the WARN Act became 

law, the FCC established the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee, comprised of more than 40 individuals representing Tribal, local, State, and Federal government agencies, including FEMA and NCS, communications providers, vendors, 

broadcasters, consumers groups and other technical experts. I 

served on that committee on behalf of CTIA. Over 11 months, the 

Advisory Committee generated more than 600 documents, held 

hundreds of meetings, and spent thousands of man-hours to develop a thorough, workable, commercial mobile alert systems plan. 

The FCC has issued orders largely adopting the recommendations of the committee. Among other things, the FCC’s orders set 

forth the alerting service architecture proposed by the Advisory 

Committee and concluded that a Federal entity should aggregate, 

authenticate, and transmit alerts to the participating wireless providers. As Administrator Penn has detailed, FEMA will play this 

role. 

The FTC also has required that participating providers must 

transmit three classes of alerts—Presidential, imminent threat, 

and AMBER Alerts—and that consumers be permitted to opt out 

of the latter two but not the first. Importantly, the FCC agreed 

with the Advisory Committee that wireless providers opting to deliver alerts should ‘‘not be bound to use any specific vendor, technology, or device to meet their obligations under the WARN Act.’’ 

Following issuance of the FCC’s first report and order, wireless 

carriers had to elect whether they would participate in the delivery 

of CMAS messages well in advance of finalizing the technical specifications for implementing alerts. I am pleased to tell the subcommittee that mobile providers representing nearly 97 percent of 

wireless subscribers elected to participate and provide wireless 

emergency alerts, demonstrating the success of this public-private 

partnership. Moreover, this figure is likely to increase as additional 

carriers elect to offer the alerts to their customers once the system 

is deployed. 

Since providers made their initial election, the wireless industry 

has been working in close consultation with FEMA and the FCC 

to make the investments and system modifications necessary to enable wireless carriers to begin deployment by April, 2012; and 

through advanced efforts by the industry, the FCC, and FEMA, 

CMAS capabilities will be available in New York City by the end 

of this calendar year. 

While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the marks 

necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act, there are 

two areas beyond our control that must be addressed if a seamless 

National deployment is to occur and be operational next year. 

First, FEMA must stand up its CMAS gateway and be capable 

of receiving and distributing alerts to participating carriers. 

Through our cooperative coordination with FEMA, we believe that 

is on track to occur in a timely manner. 
31 

1 CTIA—The Wireless Association® is a nonprofit membership organization that has represented the wireless communications industry since 1984. Membership in the association includes wireless carriers and their suppliers, as well as providers and manufacturers of wireless 

data services and products. Additional information about CTIA may be found at http:// 

www.ctia.org/aboutCTIA/. 2Pub. L. 109–347. 

Second, substantial and on-going care must be taken to ensure 

that potential alert originators at the State, county, and local levels 

are properly trained about how and when alerts should be originated. This is crucial, because it is these alert originators who are 

responsible for disseminating critical information to the public in 

a timely manner. If consumers receive confusing or unnecessary 

alerts, then even the best alerting system will ultimately fail. We 

urge you to exercise your oversight authority to ensure that these 

objectives are received. 

The addition of wireless alerting capabilities to the Emergency 

Alert System will greatly enhance the ability to promote public 

safety and health in times of crisis. The wireless industry is committed to begin delivering CMAS capabilities next year and to 

working with FEMA and the FCC to ensure that subsequent generations of wireless alerts support additional functionality. We look 

forward to an on-going dialogue with the subcommittee as this 

process moves forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today’s panel, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Guttman-McCabe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE

JULY 8, 2011 

Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for affording CTIA 1 the opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing. My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, and I serve as the Association’s 

Vice President for Regulatory Affairs. In that capacity, I have been involved in the 

wireless industry’s efforts to implement the Commercial Mobile Alert Service 

(‘‘CMAS’’) called for by the WARN Act, and I am pleased to have the chance to share 

with you today what the wireless industry is doing to deliver a state-of-the-art alerting system by early 2012. 

The Warning, Alert, and Response Network or WARN Act became law as Title 

VI of the SAFE Ports Act 2 in October 2006. CTIA supported enactment of the legislation, which we believe struck a reasonable balance by attempting to augment the 

existing emergency alerting system without imposing new cost or technology mandates on the wireless industry. This approach was consistent with, and built upon, 

previous public-private partnerships that led to the successful creation of Wireless 

Priority Service (a collaborative effort between the National Communications System and the wireless industry) and the AMBER Alert program (a joint effort involving the Department of Justice, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the wireless industry). 

In the WARN Act, Congress developed an innovative procedure to address the 

problem of emergency alerting by securing the participation of interested non-governmental parties in the development and deployment of what has been envisioned 

as a 90-character, geo-targeted, succinct alert capability that would let consumers 

carrying a wireless device know that there is an imminent threat to health or safety. From CTIA’s perspective, it appears that Congress’s vision is working as designed. 

In the first year after the WARN Act became law, the Federal Communications 

Commission (‘‘FCC’’) established the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory 

Committee (‘‘CMSAAC’’ or ‘‘Advisory Committee’’) comprised of more than 40 individuals representing Tribal, local, State, and Federal government agencies (including FEMA and the NCS); communications providers; vendors; third-party service 

bureaus; broadcasters; consumers’ groups; and other technical experts. I served on 
32 

3 In the Matter of The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No 07–287, adopted April 

9, 2008, at paragraph 33. 

the Advisory Committee on behalf of CTIA. Over 11 months, the Advisory Committee generated more than 600 documents, held hundreds of meetings, and spent 

thousands of man-hours to develop a thorough, workable, commercial mobile alerts 

system plan. 

Following delivery of the Advisory Committee’s recommendations, the FCC has 

issued orders largely adopting the recommendations developed by the CMSAAC. 

Among other things, the FCC’s orders set forth the alerting service architecture proposed by the Advisory Committee and concluded that a Federal entity should aggregate, authenticate, and transmit alerts to the participating wireless providers. 

FEMA will play this role. The FCC also has required that participating providers 

must transmit three classes of alerts—Presidential, Imminent Threat, and AMBER 

alerts—and that consumers be permitted to opt-out of the latter two but not the 

first. Importantly, the FCC agreed with CMSAAC that wireless carriers opting to 

deliver alerts should ‘‘not be bound to use any specific vendor, technology... [or] 

device’’ to meet their obligations under the WARN Act.3

Following issuance of the FCC’s first report and order, wireless carriers had to 

elect whether they would participate in the delivery of CMAS messages, well in advance of finalizing the technical specifications for implementing the alerts. I am 

pleased to tell the subcommittee that mobile providers representing nearly 97 percent of wireless subscribers elected to provide wireless emergency alerts, demonstrating the success of this public-private partnership. Moreover, this figure is 

likely to increase as additional carriers elect to offer the alerts to their customers 

once the system is rolled out. 

Since providers made their initial elections in September 2008, the wireless industry has been working, in close consultation with FEMA and the FCC, to make the 

investments and system modifications necessary to enable the CMAS system to be 

operational by April 2012. And, through advance efforts by the industry, the FCC, 

and FEMA, CMAS capabilities will be available in New York City by the end of this 

calendar year. 

While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the marks necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act, there are two areas beyond our control that 

must be addressed if a seamless National deployment is to occur and be operational 

next year. First, FEMA must stand-up its CMAS gateway and be capable of receiving and distributing alerts to participating wireless carriers. Through our cooperative coordination with FEMA, we believe that is on track to occur in a timely manner. Second, substantial and on-going care must be taken to ensure that potential 

alert originators at the State, county, and local levels are properly trained about 

when and how alerts should be originated. This is crucial because it is these alert 

originators who are responsible for disseminating critical information to the public 

in a timely manner. If consumers receive confusing or irrelevant alerts, then even 

the best alerting system will ultimately fail. We urge you to exercise your oversight 

authority to ensure that these objectives are achieved. 

The addition of wireless alerting capabilities to the Emergency Alert System will 

greatly enhance the ability to promote public safety and health in times of crisis. 

The wireless industry is committed to delivering CMAS capability next year, and 

to working with FEMA and the FCC to ensure that subsequent generations of 

CMAS support additional functionality and granularity. We look forward to an ongoing dialogue with the subcommittee as that process moves forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today’s panel. I look forward to your 

questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Goucher, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE D. GOUCHER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

MAINE ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, TESTIFYING ON 

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF STATE BROADCASTING ASSOCIATIONS 

Ms. GOUCHER. Thank you. I am very honored to be here with you 

today to share the often lifesaving and valuable public service that 

full power local radio and television stations provide during times 

of crisis. 
33 

When disaster strikes, Americans know they can turn to their 

local broadcasters for news and information. When the power goes 

out, which it does, when phone service and the internet go down, 

which they do, broadcasters move heaven and Earth to stay on the 

air delivering vital information to battery-operated receivers. 

Wildfires, floods, tornadoes, chemical spills, no matter what the 

event, everywhere across our Nation local communities depend on 

their broadcasters to deliver on-the-ground, street-by-street coverage before, during, and after disaster strikes. 

In addition to our on-going comprehensive news coverage of 

emergencies, broadcasters are also the backbone of our Nation’s 

Emergency Alert System. As you know, EAS is a network that 

seamlessly connects public safety authorities to over-the-air radio 

and television stations and cable systems with the push of a button. EAS is used during sudden, unpredictable, or unforeseen 

events to alert people to take immediate action to preserve life and 

property. 

Perhaps the most visible headline-grabbing and heartwarming 

use of EAS is for AMBER Alerts. Since broadcasters created this 

program in 1996, AMBER Alerts have helped to bring 523 children 

home safely after being abducted. 

Radio and television stations are very proud of our keystone role 

in EAS. For 60 years, from CONELRAD through EBS to EAS and 

now on to the next generation of alerting, broadcasters stand ready 

to be America’s first informers. We consider the delivery of timely 

alerts and warnings to be the highest and best use of our spectrum, 

our facilities, and our resources. 

The hot new buzz in the alerting community is social networking, 

and broadcasters are also leveraging their news dissemination capabilities across these pathways. When you receive an email, a text 

alert, or a Facebook message from your local radio or TV station, 

you know you are getting reliable information from an authoritative source. 

The on-going effectiveness of the EAS network depends on several important factors. 

First, as previously mentioned, a training program for State and 

local public safety officials on how to use EAS is desperately needed. The knowledge and expertise of local authorities as to how and 

when to deploy EAS is currently at what we consider an unacceptable level. We stand ready to deliver the message, but first we need 

someone to deliver it to us. 

We applaud our friends at FEMA for undertaking the development of a training program which will certify State and local officials to send alerts through the Federal IPAWS gateway. While 

this is a good first step, it does not address those State and local 

officials that don’t have the fundamental understanding of or willingness to use EAS. Some sort of incentive for them to take this 

training, such as possibly tying it to grant funding, would encourage a greater understanding of the beneficial uses of the system. 

Second, as you know, FEMA is in the midst of implementing the 

next generation of public alerting, which will modernize the technology used to deliver EAS messages through the introduction of 

the Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP. This will require most 

broadcasters to replace their EAS equipment at their own expense. 
34 

This may cost a broadcasting station anywhere from $1,200 to 

$3,000, but broadcasters will do this willingly because we consider 

EAS to be at the core of our public service mission. 

We must ensure that as our stations are upgrading to receive 

and retransmit a CAP-formatted message, local and State jurisdictions have the proper training and funding to be able to send us 

a CAP-formatted message. 

In addition, States and localities must purchase their own EAS 

origination equipment, and the Federal Government must ensure 

that its primary entry point network is fully built out. All of this 

will ensure that the public will indeed benefit from the next generation of public alerting. 

We respectfully urge the committee to consider the creation of a 

National working group on emergency alerting. Governance authority for our National warning system is divided among several Federal agencies, while the primary use of the system is at the State 

and local level. At present, there is no mechanism to bring the message originators and the message deliverers together except on an 

ad hoc basis. As a result, the system is not being used as effectively 

as it could be. Creation of a National working group would help to 

ensure that problems get addressed, lines of communication remain 

open, and ideas for continual improvement of the system are 

brought to the fore. 

Finally, broadcasters need credentialing from State and local authorities to allow them to access their facilities during times of 

emergency. Congressional action in this area could greatly enhance 

our ability to maintain operations and deliver vital information to 

our audiences. 

I am so grateful for this opportunity to share my views on emergency communications to the public, and I look forward to working 

with you toward our shared goal of keeping the American people 

safe through timely alerts and warnings. 

Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Ms. Goucher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE D. GOUCHER

JULY 8, 2011 

Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, Members of the 

committee. My name is Suzanne Goucher. Since 1994 I have been the President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the Maine Association of Broadcasters. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you today about the valuable, often life-saving services 

that full power local radio and television stations provide during natural disasters 

and other crises. 

As discussed in detail below, local broadcasters are the most important source of 

vital emergency information for all Americans. In addition, local radio and television 

stations serve as the backbone of this Nation’s Emergency Alert System (EAS). I am 

pleased to share with you today the views of Maine’s broadcasters about how to improve our emergency communications system in the digital age. 

To date, much of the discussion related to emergency communications has concerned improving interoperability among fire, police, and other public safety authorities and emergency operations; namely, the ability of these various authorities 

to communicate with one another during a disaster. While broadcasters support this 

laudable goal, we also believe the time is ripe to expand the conversation to include 

improved emergency notification to the public. To a significant degree, interoperability and public alerting go hand-in-hand, such that the success of each depends 

partly on the success of the other. For example, the lessons learned during 9/11 

demonstrate that improved emergency communications among public safety officials 

certainly would have improved the critical, life-saving information that could have 
35 

1Moni Basu, ‘‘Radio Stations Chug Along 24/7 in tornado-devastated Joplin,’’ CNN (May 24, 

2011). 2Matt Pearce, ‘‘Joplin Radio Stations Become a Lifeline for Tornado-Stricken Residents,’’ L.A. 

Times (May 25, 2011). 3 Id. 

4Doug Lung, ‘‘Broadcasters Inform Citizens During Weather Emergencies,’’ TV Technology 

(May 26, 2011). 5 ‘‘Radio’s Multi-Platform Reach Informs, Alerts Joplin, MO Tornado Victims,’’ All Access (May 

25, 2011). 6 ‘‘Radio Beams Regional Tornado Relief Message,’’ Inside Radio (May 27, 2011). 7 Brian Stelter, ‘‘This Just In: How Your House Is Faring,’’ The New York Times (June 27, 

2011). 

been shared with the public. Below, I will focus my remarks on public alerting, and 

our efforts in Maine to improve emergency notification to the public. 

I. BROADCASTING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE FOR CRITICAL, LIFE-SAVING

EMERGENCY INFORMATION FOR ALL AMERICANS

Broadcasters’ commitment to public service is never more apparent than during 

times of crisis. During an emergency—particularly one that arises with little notice—no other industry can match the ability of full power broadcasting to deliver 

comprehensive, up-to-date warnings and information to affected citizens. Local television broadcasters reach 99% of the approximate 116 million households in the 

United States, while local radio reaches an audience of more than 243 million Americans on a weekly basis. The wide signal coverage of broadcasters ensures that anyone in a car, at home or even walking around with a mobile device can receive upto-the-minute alerts when disaster strikes. As a ubiquitous medium, broadcasters 

understand and appreciate their unique role in disseminating emergency information. Radio and television broadcasters are first informers during an emergency, and 

Americans know to turn to their local broadcasters first for in-depth coverage. 

Radio and television stations are also our Nation’s most reliable network for distributing emergency information. Even if the electricity is out, causing the internet 

and cable television to go down, and phone service is lost because networks are 

clogged or cell towers or phone lines are down, free, over-the-air broadcasters can 

still be on the air. Our dedicated news and weather personnel use their familiarity 

with the people and geography of their local communities to provide the most useful, 

informative news to their audiences, whether that includes information on where to 

shelter-in-place, or which streets will serve as evacuation routes, or where local 

businesses may find fuel or generators. 

Broadcasters deliver emergency information with passion. Let me give you some 

recent examples. In May of this year, in the town of Joplin, Missouri, local radio 

station KZRG began wall-to-wall coverage an hour and a half before the unprecedented tornado devastated this area.1 Immediately after the tornado, cell phones, 

the internet and landline telephones went down. KZRG’s one-story office building 

remained standing. Zimmer Radio, which owns KZRG and five other stations in Joplin, consolidated multiple broadcasts into a single feed of nonstop disaster coverage.2

Music announcers and talk show hosts transformed into on-air first responders and 

informers.3 Employees drove to the station immediately after the tornado in order 

to provide information on medical assistance, to help locating missing family members, and to direct residents as to where they could buy gas and groceries.4 Seven 

of Zimmer Radio’s staffers had lost their homes, but still they reported for duty to 

help their neighbors.5 In nearby Springfield, Missouri, Clear Channel’s five radio 

stations collected nearly 50,000 pounds of food and $20,000 of cash for Joplin victims from listeners.6

A month after the Joplin tornado, flooding in Minot, North Dakota, has sent hundreds fleeing from their homes. Residents turned to local broadcast television stations for current information. One station, KXMC, has been replaying coverage of 

the floods over and over at the request of residents who want to see what is left 

of their neighborhoods. And as The New York Times said in an article last week, 

when the station ‘‘has not been showing viewers their submerged homes, it has been 

broadcasting news conferences, explaining the intricacies of dike construction and 

sharing viewer photos from around the town.’’7

Additionally, as a devastating storm developed near Springfield, Massachusetts, 

last month, all three local broadcast television stations went wall-to-wall with coverage. In an area not used to tornadoes, the stations captured dramatic images— 

including those from sky-cams of the tornado whipping up water from the Connecticut River—and broadcasting them to viewers. Following the storm, the stations 

continued to report on the damage and recovery and provided information on relief 
36 

8Scott Fybush, ‘‘Radio, TV React to Mass. Tornadoes,’’ NorthEast Radio Watch (June 6, 2011). 9 ‘‘CC Cluster in MA. Superserves During Last Week’s Tornado,’’ Radio Ink (June 7, 2011). 10See, e.g., Michael Plugh, ‘‘What I Left Behind In Japan,’’ Salon.com (March 22, 2011), available at http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/03/22/japanlilleftlbehind/index.html. See 

also Live Blog: Japan Earthquake, The Wall Street Journal (March 11, 2011, 8:06 a.m. posting 

of Chester Dawson) (‘‘Unable to use cell phones, many used their smartphones to tune into television broadcasts and find out what had happened. ‘It’s very convenient being able to watch live 

TV when the phones are down,’ said Minori Naito, an employee of Royal Bank of Scotland in 

Tokyo. ‘Otherwise, we’d have no idea what is going on.’ ’’). 11 Alabama Tornado Survey, Billy McDowell, VP of Media Research, RAYCOM Media (May 

2011). 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 2010 was also a critical year for local broadcasters and the communities they served. For 

example, in early May of 2010, as record rainfall hammered the State of Tennessee, every local 

news station in Nashville preempted regular programming in favor of continuous, commercialfree weather event content for almost an entire weekend. Local radio stations provided constant 

weather alerts. During the flooding, Dennis Banka of WUCZ in Carthage, Tennessee, managed 

to single-handedly keep his station on the air for almost 48 hours straight for the benefit of 

local listeners in need. Mr. Banka and his station had vital contacts with emergency personnel 

and other authorities and were able to report critical information about the known instabilities 

of two local dams in a timely manner. Here in Washington, during the blizzards that hit the 

East Coast in 2010, broadcasters provided up-to-the-minute information that was critical to affected residents. For instance, Washington, DC station WRC–TV’s wall-to-wall coverage and ‘‘potentially life-saving newscasts’’ were lauded by Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. John 

Eggerton, ‘‘As the Snowy World Turns,’’ Broadcasting & Cable (Feb. 10, 2010). As Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Chairman Genachowski observed, ‘‘Not only were local broadcasters a lifeline for the community, WRC–TV used its robust website and Twitter feed to help 

residents who had lost power get up-to-the-minute information through their computers and 

phones.’’ Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski, NAB Show 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, at 2 (April 13, 2010). 15The Economic Realities of Local Television News—2010: A Report for the National Association of Broadcasters (April 2010) at 24, attached to Comments of the National Association of 

and food supplies.8 And the four local radio stations cut all music and gave continuous news updates, including live phone calls from the Governor and the head of 

the Red Cross. The news director and an announcer also took calls from dozens of 

listeners looking for information on what to do and where to go.9

Local stations also offer hyper local weather alerts and information on multicast 

channels. TV stations are in the process of rolling out innovative mobile DTV services, which will enable viewers to receive live, local broadcast television programming—including local news, weather, sports, emergency information, and entertainment programming—on an ‘‘on the go’’ basis on mobile-DTV capable devices such 

as smart phones, laptop computers, and tablets. Over 70 stations in Washington, 

DC, and elsewhere around the country have commenced offering mobile DTV service, and hundreds of other stations have announced plans to continue the Nationwide roll-out of mobile DTV in the near-term. Mobile DTV is a reliable and spectrally efficient (one-to-an-unlimited-number) means of disseminating emergency information to viewers. Following the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan, 

residents reported that the country’s mobile television service was a lifeline source 

of information, particularly in the wake of cellular network and power outages.10

In times of local crisis such as these, broadcasters provide astounding service to 

their communities. 

Beyond anecdotal evidence, statistics paint a vivid picture of the power that the 

broadcast medium has to save lives. Following tornadoes that struck in Alabama in 

late April, Raycom Media conducted a survey of residents who were impacted. According to the survey results, a vast majority—71% of adults—said they were 

warned about the storm by watching television.11 An additional 10% of those surveyed learned of the tornadoes via radio. A mere 6% of respondents learned of the 

tornadoes through internet, smartphones, or Twitter/Facebook.12 This occurred despite the fact that 75% of those interviewed were at home during the tornadoes, presumably with access to the internet and other sources of information.13 This reliance on radio and television for dependable, up-to-the-minute information was true 

even for young citizens ages 18 to 24. We might expect this demographic to rely 

more on the internet and social media for information, but fully 77% of them reported that they tracked the storms via radio or TV.14

And there are many more examples. Broadcast stations continue to provide emergency information and other services even though the costs—in overtime for personnel, in meals and hotels, in equipment, and of course in advertising lost due to 

providing wall-to-wall news and information coverage—are substantial. For example, one station reports that a single season’s hurricane coverage cost $160,000 before accounting for lost advertising revenue.15 Another station reports that it lost 
37 

Broadcasters, Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in 

a Digital Age, GN Docket No. 10–25 (filed May 7, 2010). 16 Id. at 24. 17See http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=enlUS&PageId=2810#2 (last visited June 28, 2011). 18See, e.g., Alaska Plans EAS Test Using EAN Code, Radio Magazine (Dec. 31.2009), available 

at http://radiomagonline.com/studiolaudio/EAS/alaskaleanltestl1231. 19See Public Notice, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces That First Ever 

Nationwide Diagnostic Test of the Emergency Alert System Will Occur On November 9, 2011 

at 2 PM EST, EB Docket No. 04–296, rel. June 9, 2011. 

50 percent of its revenue for an entire month following the events of September 11, 

2001, because its intensive news programming preempted so much of its normal 

programming.16 Emergency journalism clearly requires the commitment of substantial resources from the Nation’s local broadcasters. 

II. LOCAL BROADCAST STATIONS REMAIN THE BACKBONE OF THE NATION’S EMERGENCY

ALERT SYSTEM

In addition to the on-going, comprehensive coverage that broadcasters provide 

during emergencies, we are also the backbone of the Emergency Alert System 

(EAS). EAS is a largely wireless network that connects over-the-air radio, television 

and cable television systems. The in-place infrastructure of EAS allows the prompt 

dissemination of alerts to the widest possible audience, or to target alerts to specific 

areas, as appropriate. EAS is intended for use during sudden, unpredictable, or unforeseen events that pose an immediate threat to public health or safety, the nature 

of which precludes any advance notification or warning. 

Under EAS, local broadcasters put their facilities and their airwaves at the disposal of Government authorities to transmit life-saving emergency warnings. EAS 

can be accessed or triggered by the President, Governors, and local authorities 

under certain conditions. Most alerts are originated by the local and regional offices 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS). Broadcasters typically work in partnership with State, county, 

and local emergency managers and public safety officials on how best to deploy EAS. 

The content of EAS messages can vary depending on the nature of the emergency, 

but may include information on evacuation plans and routes, shelter-in-place instructions, storm paths, and America’s Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response 

Alerts, or Child Abduction AMBER Alerts, which help expand the eyes and ears of 

local law enforcement when a child is abducted. Nation-wide, since the inception of 

AMBER in 1996, AMBER alerts have helped safely recover more than 523 abducted 

children.17 In fact, the Amber Plan was originally created by broadcasters with the 

assistance of law enforcement agencies in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. 

Clearly, EAS participation is an important component of broadcasters’ public service. Although participation in EAS on a local level is technically voluntary, virtually 

all radio and television stations participate, and do so proudly. All EAS equipment 

is purchased by broadcasters at their own expense. All stations must test their EAS 

systems on both a weekly and monthly basis. We have all seen or heard the familiar 

announcement: ‘‘The following is a test of the Emergency Alert System. This is only 

a test.’’ 

In January 2010, and again in January 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) jointly conducted State-wide tests of the EAS in Alaska.18 Radio and television stations in 

Alaska coordinated closely with Federal and local authorities in Alaska to help ensure the success of these tests. Their efforts included a comprehensive public awareness campaign that provided Alaskans with repeated advance notice of the Statewide EAS tests, and helped to prevent any undue surprise or confusion. 

Building upon the lessons learned in the Alaska tests, the FCC and FEMA announced that they would conduct a Nation-wide test of the EAS system on November 9, 2011.19 The broadcast industry supports this National EAS testing. We are 

committed to working with our Federal and local partners to ensure that the National test is useful and informative. Broadcasters are also preparing for the National exercise by reviewing their internal EAS equipment and processes, and if appropriate, upgrading software or hardware in advance of the National test. 

Although broadcasters provide EAS and in-depth emergency information as part 

of their service to the public, and do so enthusiastically, participating in a reliable, 

functional EAS is not without certain challenges. For example, in June 2006, President Bush issued Executive Order 13407, entitled Public Alert and Warning System, 

which states: 
38 

20To this end, it is critical that IPAWS continues to receive full funding through the authorization and budgetary process to achieve and maintain its public alerting missions. 21 CAP is a messaging structure that allows emergency managers to provide in a digital format (protocol) detailed descriptions of an emergency event. It is an open, interoperable standard. 

See Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 13285 ¶¶ 22–25 (2007). CAP is also backwards-compatible to work with EAS and the NWS’ SAME (Specific Area Message Encoding) protocol. Id. 

at ¶ 5. 22See, In the Matter of Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the 

Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EB Docket No. 04–296, rel. May 26, 2011. 

‘‘It is the policy of the United States to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American 

people... establish or adopt, as appropriate, common alerting and warning protocols, standards, terminology, and operating procedures for the public alert and 

warning system to enable interoperability and the secure delivery of coordinated 

messages to the American people through as many communication pathways as 

practicable... administer the Emergency Alert System (EAS) as a critical 

component... ensure that under all conditions the President of the United States 

can alert and warn the American people.’’ 

In response, FEMA has served as the lead Federal agency for developing this program, called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Program. 

Among other things, IPAWS is designed to improve public safety through the rapid 

dissemination of emergency messages to as many people as possible over as many 

communications devices as possible. To do this, FEMA’s IPAWS program is planning 

to expand the traditional EAS to include additional technologies, to capitalize on recent shifts in how many Americans consume information. IPAWS will enable Federal, State, territorial, Tribal, and local emergency communication officials to access 

multiple broadcast and other communications pathways for the purpose of creating 

and activating alert and warning messages related to any hazard impacting public 

safety and well-being. Broadcasters are working closely with FEMA to ensure that 

EAS via free, over-the-air television and radio remains the essential backbone of the 

next generation of EAS and public alerting. 

Broadcasters are also leveraging social media and other message pathways to 

broaden dissemination of alert messages. When you receive an emergency alert via 

email, text message, or Facebook from your local radio or TV station, you know 

you’re receiving reliable information from an authoritative source. 

In Maine, and Nation-wide, radio and television stations do a commendable job 

assisting public safety officials in disseminating emergency information, whether 

through our on-air news programming, or through EAS. Regarding the latter, we 

fully intend to continue our efforts to devote personnel and attention to making sure 

that our internal EAS systems work properly. However, the on-going reliability of 

the EAS network will depend on the success of several important developments. 

First, the success of EAS will largely turn on the expertise and ability of local 

authorities to fully deploy EAS and act as a ‘‘civil authority’’ with full access to the 

system. In the past, some of the isolated instances where EAS could have been used 

more judiciously directly resulted from a lack of awareness or expertise on the part 

of local officials concerning EAS. In this day and age, it is unacceptable that some 

local emergency managers remain unaware of the benefits of EAS, or how and when 

to trigger an EAS alert. Clearly, many State and local authorities need additional 

training on the proper use of EAS and the proper crafting of alert messages. At 

present, the only training they receive is the technical manual that comes with an 

EAS encoder-decoder. FEMA is taking steps to address this vacuum by creating a 

training and certification program for users of the system. We applaud this initiative.20

Second, as mentioned above, FEMA is in the midst of implementing a next generation of EAS. This new system will modernize the technology used to deliver EAS 

messages from public safety officials to EAS Participants. Under the Commission’s 

existing rules, broadcasters and other EAS Participants are required to process an 

EAS message that is formatted in this new ‘‘language,’’ known as the Common Alert 

Protocol (CAP).21

The FCC is in the process of reviewing its EAS Rules, including whether to extend the current September 30, 2011 deadline for all EAS Participants to install 

equipment capable of receiving a CAP-formatted message.22 This will be a substantial burden for a number of broadcasters, as it will require the replacement of EAS 

equipment at most radio and television stations. The costs of such equipment are 
39 

23The cost for new CAP-compliant EAS equipment ranges from $1,200 to over $3,000 per facility. 24 [sic] 

not insignificant, particularly to small radio and television stations,23 still struggling from the recent severe recession. It is critical that, as Participants are required to upgrade their equipment to receive a CAP-formatted message, local and 

State jurisdictions have proper funding and training to be able to transmit a CAPformatted message.24 This will ensure that the public will benefit from the next-generation of public alerting. 

Third, authority for EAS is spread across multiple Federal agencies with differing 

priorities, while the primary use of the system is by State and local officials. At 

present, there is no mechanism for the users of the system and the distributors of 

the messages to come together to discuss issues and work out problems. I respectfully request the committee to consider adopting language creating a National EAS 

Working Group, and directing it to meet on a regular basis and report back to this 

and other committees of jurisdiction, to ensure that the lines of communication remain open and that ideas for continuous improvement of the system have a forum 

in which they can be heard. 

One other critical improvement can be achieved without expenditure of any funds. 

Specifically, broadcasters need credentialing from State and local authorities to 

allow them to access their facilities, such as studios and transmitter sites, during 

times of emergency. This will enable radio and television stations to repair or maintain their equipment and fully leverage their resources, local knowledge, and training to keep the public informed during emergencies. While certain States accommodate broadcasters who need to access their facilities, such cooperation is not universal. Congressional action in this area could greatly enhance our ability to maintain operations and deliver vital information to our audiences. 

Finally, in Maine, we are undertaking an effort to substantially improve and modernize our emergency notification plan. Under this ‘‘perfect’’ notification plan, a 

managed ‘‘system-of-systems’’ would be created through which multiple systems 

would work together to deliver more alerts and warnings more securely, faster, and 

to more people. This State-wide program would be designed to take advantage of 

existing investments and future initiatives, including a modernized EAS system, 

and would be poised for connection to any National system that is developed. At the 

same time, however, the plan would maintain primary responsibility for alerting at 

the local level and would include the ability to target alerts geographically. 

The goal of this Maine State-wide notification program would be to deliver alerts 

and warnings throughout the State with sufficient capability and speed, in advance 

of pending disasters, to help prevent loss of life and property. The program would 

be consistent with State and Federal initiatives and standards. This program will 

also require funding. These funds would be used to create and manage the program, 

facilitate collaboration, develop operational and governance guidelines and training, 

purchase technology, and conduct public outreach. Maine has recently undergone its 

third round of budget-cutting in the past 6 months. The State cupboard is bare, and 

a large question looms: How will the State pay for the system it needs to take advantage of these new technologies? 

A properly working EAS is a fundamental and essential component of our Nation’s Homeland Security. It is crucially needed in our State of Maine to respond 

to the myriad of potential man-made and weather-related threats facing our region. 

One of the 9/11 terrorists began his fateful trip at the airport in Portland, Maine, 

on his way to Boston. We share a long, rural border with Canada that is difficult 

to secure. We have a large oil depot in South Portland that provides our winter 

heating supply. Bath Iron Works is a primary defense contractor to the U.S. Navy. 

The Seabrook nuclear power plant sits just 15 miles below our southwestern border. 

And we are experiencing seemingly more severe weather events in recent years, including 25 tornado warnings between 2009 and last week, which have resulted in 

15 confirmed tornado touch-downs. Even in a small, rural State like Maine, a hardened, fully capable alerting system is necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens 

and our infrastructure. 

Maine is grateful to Chairman Bilirakis and this committee for hosting this hearing and for your interest in improving our communications to prevent the loss of 

life and property in the future. As we continue to discuss damage estimates, disaster-related costs, and rebuilding our communities after the recent severe floods, 

tornadoes, and wildfires around the United States, we must take care not to overlook this opportunity to improve public warning and emergency communications in 

advance of the next event, instead of during its aftermath. We should be planning 

for the next emergency, not preparing for the last one. Thank you. 
40 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Kniphfer, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN W. KNIPHFER, EMERGENCY 

COORDINATOR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA 

Mr. KNIPHFER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, 

good morning. On behalf of the 665,000 residents of Jefferson 

County, Alabama, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. 

On April 27, 2011, our county, which is the most populous in 

Alabama, was struck by four tornadoes in a single day, destroying 

or heavily damaging nearly 5,000 homes and businesses and displacing thousands of residents. The cost of cleaning up the rubble 

alone will approach $260 million, while total property damage is 

estimated at $1 billion. 

Our response to and recovery from this natural disaster has reinforced a lesson we already had learned from hard experience, that 

every emergency occurs at the local level. With this in mind, local 

officials must be prepared to respond quickly and effectively—especially in the initial phase of a disaster—before our State and Federal Governments provide supplemental assistance. 

My office, the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency, 

is responsible for ensuring that the citizens of our county are prepared to respond to, and quickly recover from, any emergency or 

disaster that confronts us. As a result of our preparations, we were 

ready to fulfill that mission when the April tornadoes hit. 

The single most important aspect of any disaster recovery effort 

is the ability to communicate. Communication is not simply the 

ability to speak to others but also the ability to transfer data. By 

way of example, our neighbors in Tuscaloosa County had less than 

an hour before the same storm struck Jefferson County. All of the 

assets they owned for use in a disaster were destroyed. Cell phone 

towers were damaged, internet access was minimal, many roads 

were impassable, and communication was virtually non-existent. 

Tuscaloosa County’s emergency responders found it difficult to communicate with each other and with the outside world. 

We were more fortunate in Jefferson County. Our emergency operations center survived the storm intact. What we were not prepared for was the enormous amount of in-bound phone traffic that 

overwhelmed our telephone system and made out-bound calling difficult. But we had a unique asset, a mobile communications unit 

that gave our emergency management team immediate, full-time 

phone and internet service. 

This mobile communications unit, developed and built, Mr. 

Chairman, by a small business called F4W, Inc., in your home 

State of Florida, was a lifesaver for the people of Jefferson County. 

It was up and running even before the tornadoes struck, providing 

fixed and mobile communications to our emergency responders 

throughout the entire recovery process. 

Because we had the ability to communicate, we could execute our 

emergency operations plan immediately. Our first responders knew 

quickly what to do and where to go, and we were able to help our 

citizens to begin recovering from this terrible disaster quickly and 

efficiently. 
41 

In addition, we were able to increase our communications capabilities throughout the recovery process, to meet needs we had not 

previously anticipated. Because county residents had no access to 

cell phones or the internet for a considerable period of time, we established telecommunications registration centers throughout the 

county, giving residents the means and opportunity to make phone 

calls and report damage to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency via the internet. To fulfill this need, we rented additional 

mobile communications units from F4W. 

In our emergency operation center, we further expanded our 

abilities by installing, on the fly, a private branch exchange system 

that mirrored our fixed-wire telephone system, enabling our responders to speak to each other by dialing a four-digit extension 

code, no matter what unit supported their communications. They 

were also able to text-message, electronically chat, and email each 

other seamlessly. Today, this provides us with a redundant system 

in the event our primary system is off line for any reason. The 

back-up system kicks on, and we never miss a step. Once again, 

this was provided for us by F4W. 

When we learned that Tuscaloosa County’s emergency response 

team assets were destroyed along with their primary headquarters, 

we dispatched our mobile emergency management trailers there. 

With that support, their emergency management infrastructure 

was back on-line less than 36 hours after the storm hit. Again, the 

communication equipment we used to support Tuscaloosa were 

products we have purchased from F4W over the past several years. 

Now that the emergency phase of the April 27 disaster has mostly passed, I am focused on continuing to enhance our ability to respond with optimal efficiency and speed, regardless of the situation. My organization embraces the standards established and administered by various Federal agencies, including SAFECOM, the 

National Emergency Communication Plan, the National Emergency 

Response Interoperability Framework, and the Resilient Communication System of Systems published under the DHS SECURE 

Program. We also support CAP, HIPAA, IPAWS, OASIS, and Sarbanes-Oxley. 

As emergency responders, we embrace the new standards and 

technology developed from those protocols. But, regardless of these 

standards and new discoveries, I must, above all, perform the requirements of my position to serve the citizens of my county to the 

best of my ability. Our organization realizes that we cannot wait 

for decisions to be made in Washington when our people need protection of their lives and property in the immediate term. 

The Emergency Broadcast Network, which has existed for decades, did save lives during our recent emergency. But I believe, in 

my county, that I require a more effective approach to alerting the 

general public, one that meets our requirements and one that we 

can afford. In that effort, budget cuts to Federal programs make no 

difference in our organization, because whatever happens we will 

find a way to acquire and implement the tools necessary to support 

our citizens and, when we can, our neighbors as well. 

Another way of putting it is that, although budgets have shrunk, 

our responsibilities to our citizens have not. Disasters are going to 

continue to occur, regardless of how much or how little resources 
42 

are available to us. To the extent that adequate funding continues 

to be a challenge, we will continue to substitute innovation, longer 

work hours, and complete dedication to our life-saving jobs. 

Having said that, I would add that, yes, cutting Federal grant 

funds to supplement the infrastructure of alert warning systems 

could impact many communities. But in considering that, we 

should also take the opportunity to ask how effectively those funds 

have been spent to date. In my view, it might make more sense, 

practically and financially, to target grant funds for regional 

projects that take into consideration the specific needs of affected 

communities, as opposed to using grant funding to leverage for imposing uniform standards that leave some critical needs on the 

local level unmet. This approach would allow committees such as 

this one to see first-hand how taxpayer dollars are spent and the 

results of successful implementations, as well as learning from failures. 

Here is how we are investing in our future in Jefferson County: 

Our current system requires us to use specifically designated and 

configured phones to communicate with each other. We are now 

working with F4W on software that will allow any ‘‘smart’’ cell 

phone to make encrypted calls and send and receive text messages 

and data over the internet if the phone has the right application 

installed. We can do this with or without cellular infrastructure. 

We are also working on the issue of persistent identity. Within 

a few months, F4W expects to deliver a software package that will 

allow people, not equipment, to determine access to their emergency communications system. In other words, an authorized emergency responder will be able to go to any terminal or use any 

smartphone device and, using their preset password or a device 

that identifies them, log in to any network and conduct safe, fullyencrypted voice communications and data sharing with others in 

their group. 

In addition to improving our internal communications capabilities and processes, we are working to expand and enhance our ability to communicate with volunteer and nongovernmental organizations, particularly as it relates to credentialing of representatives 

of such organizations who have critical interaction with our emergency response and recovery efforts. At present, these organizations issue their own ID cards, and our agency has no way of 

verifying those credentials. There is a clear need to link their systems with ours, for us to have some input into how their credentials are created and the information that is provided on those credentials. 

Prior to the April 27 storms, I had been working on development 

of such a system, utilizing a universal information format that 

would allow us, along with appropriate State and Federal agencies, 

to read and obtain information from cards issued by NGOs. Moreover, this system can be implemented at relatively low cost, utilizing existing bar code technology. 

By way of further explanation, let me provide a little background. After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration issued 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, the purpose of which 

was to develop a common identification standard while still ensur-
43 

ing that Government facilities and sensitive information remain optimally protected. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Excuse me, can you wrap up in the next 30 seconds, please? The testimony is submitted for the record as well. 

Mr. KNIPHFER. Okay. The cost of issuing the ID cards would have been $140 per card. 

We got it at no money for us. We worked in those cards that way. 

As previously stated, we incorporated FEMA’s integrated processing efforts in our system, and each of these potential advances 

will help the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency 

meet our responsibilities. 

As we go forward in working with these systems, as we go forth 

on activities, we support everybody’s work. We look forward to 

working with everybody and thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify and look forward to your questions, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Kniphfer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN W. KNIPHFER

JULY 8, 2011 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Good morning. On behalf of the 

665,000 residents of Jefferson County, Alabama, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify today. 

On April 27, 2011, our county, which is the most populous in Alabama, was struck 

by four tornadoes in a single day, destroying or heavily damaging nearly 5,000 

homes and businesses and displacing thousands of residents. The cost of cleaning 

up the rubble alone will approach $260 million, while total property damage is estimated at $1 billion. 

Our response to and recovery from this natural disaster has reinforced a lesson 

we already had learned from hard experience: That every emergency occurs at the 

local level. With this in mind, local officials must be prepared to respond quickly 

and effectively—especially in the initial phase of a disaster—before our State and 

Federal Governments provide supplemental assistance. 

My office, the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency, is responsible 

for ensuring that the citizens of our county are prepared to respond to, and quickly 

recover from, any emergency or disaster that confronts us. As a result of our preparations, we were ready to fulfill that mission when the April tornadoes hit. 

The single most important aspect of any disaster recovery effort is the ability to 

communicate. Communication is not simply the ability to speak to others, but also 

the ability to transfer data. By way of example, our neighbors in Tuscaloosa County 

had their Emergency Operations Center completely destroyed by an EF5 tornado on 

April 27, less than an hour before the same storm struck Jefferson County. All of 

the assets they owned for use in a disaster were destroyed. Cell phone towers were 

damaged, internet access was minimal, many roads were impassable, and communication was virtually non-existent. Tuscaloosa County’s emergency responders 

found it difficult to communicate with each other, and with the outside world. 

We were more fortunate in Jefferson County. Our Emergency Operations Center 

survived the storm intact. What we were not prepared for was the enormous 

amount of inbound phone traffic that overwhelmed our telephone system and made 

outbound calling difficult. But we had a unique asset: A Mobile Communications 

Unit that gave our emergency management team immediate, full-time phone and 

internet service. 

This Mobile Communications Unit—developed and built, Mr. Chairman, by a 

small business called F4W, Inc. in your home State of Florida—was a lifesaver for 

the people of Jefferson County. It was up and running even before the tornadoes 

struck, providing fixed and mobile communications to our emergency responders 

throughout the entire recovery process. 

Because we had the ability to communicate, we could execute our emergency operations plan immediately. Our first responders knew quickly what to do and where 

to go, and we were able to help our citizens to begin recovering from this terrible 

disaster quickly and efficiently. 

In addition, we were able to increase our communication capabilities throughout 

the recovery process, to meet needs we had not previously anticipated. Because 
44 

county residents had no access to cell phones or the internet for a considerable period of time, we established Telecommunication Registration Centers throughout the 

county, giving residents the means and opportunity to make phone calls and report 

damage to the Federal Emergency Management Agency via the internet. To fulfill 

this need, we rented additional Mobile Communications Units from F4W. 

In our Emergency Operation Center, we further expanded our abilities by installing, ‘‘on-the-fly,’’ a private branch exchange system that mirrored our fixed wire 

telephone system—enabling our responders to speak to each other by dialing a fourdigit extension code, no matter what unit supported their communications. They 

were also able to text-message, electronically chat, and e-mail each other 

seamlessly. Today, this provides us with a redundant system in the event our primary system is off-line for any reason. The back-up system kicks on and we never 

miss a step. Once again, this was provided for us by F4W. 

When we learned that Tuscaloosa County’s emergency response team assets were 

destroyed along with their primary headquarters, we dispatched our Mobile Emergency Management Trailers there. With that support, their emergency management 

infrastructure was back on-line less than 36 hours after the storm hit. Again, the 

communication equipment we used to support Tuscaloosa were products we have 

purchased from F4W over the past several years. 

Now that the emergency phase of the April 27 disaster has mostly passed, I am 

focused on continuing to enhance our ability to respond with optimal efficiency and 

speed, regardless of the situation. My organization embraces the standards established and administered by various Federal Agencies, including SAFECOM, the National Emergency Communication Plan, the National Emergency Response Interoperability Framework and the Resilient Communication System of Systems published under the DHS SECURE Program. We also support CAP, HIPAA, IPAWS, 

OASIS, and Sarbanes-Oxley. 

As emergency responders, we embrace the new standards and technology developed from those protocols. But regardless of these standards and new discoveries, 

I must, above all, perform the requirements of my position to serve the citizens of 

my county to the best of my ability. Our organization realizes that we cannot wait 

for decisions to be made in Washington when our people need protection of their 

lives and property in the immediate term. 

The Emergency Broadcast Network, which has existed for decades, did save lives 

during our recent emergency. But I believe, in my county, that I require a more effective approach to alerting the general public, one that is meets OUR requirements—and one that we can afford. In that effort, budget cuts to Federal programs 

make no difference in our organization, because, whatever happens, we will find a 

way to acquire and implement the tools necessary to support our citizens—and, 

when we can, our neighbors as well. 

Another way of putting it is that although budgets have shrunk, our responsibilities to our citizens have not. Disasters are going to continue to occur regardless of 

how much or how little resources are available to us. To the extent that adequate 

funding continues to be a challenge, we will continue to substitute innovation, 

longer work hours and complete dedication to our life-saving jobs. 

Having said that, I would add that yes, cutting Federal grant funds to supplement 

the infrastructure of alert warning systems could impact many communities. But in 

considering that, we should also take the opportunity to ask how effectively those 

funds have been spent to date. In my view, it might make more sense, practically 

and financially, to target grant funds for regional projects that take into consideration the specific needs of affected communities, as opposed to using grant funding 

as leverage for imposing uniform standards that leave some critical needs on the 

local level unmet. This approach would allow committees such as this one to see 

first-hand how taxpayer dollars are spent and the results of successful implementations—as well as learning from failures. 

Here’s how we are investing in our future in Jefferson County: Our current system requires us to use specially designated and configured phones to communicate 

with each other. We are now working with F4W on software that will allow any 

‘‘smart’’ cell phone to make encrypted calls and send and receive text messages and 

data over the internet if the phone has the right application installed. We can do 

this with or without cellular infrastructure. 

We also are working on the issue of persistent identity. Within a few months, 

F4W expects to deliver a software package that will allow people, not equipment, 

to determine access to their emergency communications system. In other words, an 

authorized emergency responder will be able to go to any terminal or use any 

smartphone device and—using their preset password or a device that identifies 

them—log in to any network and conduct safe, fully-encrypted, voice communications, and data-sharing with others in their group. 
45 

In addition to improving our internal communications capabilities and processes, 

we are working to expand and enhance our ability to communicate with volunteer 

and non-governmental organizations—particularly as it relates to credentialing of 

representatives of such organizations who have critical interaction with our emergency response and recovery efforts. At present, these organizations issue their own 

ID cards, and our agency has no way of verifying those credentials. There is a clear 

need to link their systems with ours—for us to have some input into how their credentials are created and the information that is provided on those credentials. 

Prior to the April 27 storms, I had been working on development of such a system, 

utilizing a universal information format that would allow us, along with appropriate 

State and Federal agencies, to read and obtain information from cards issued by 

NGOs. Moreover, this system can be implemented at relatively low cost, utilizing 

existing bar-code technology. 

By way of further explanation, let me provide a little background: After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration issued Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive 12 (HSPD–12), the purpose of which was to develop a common identification standard while still ensuring that Government facilities and sensitive information remain optimally protected. The directive required agencies to issue ‘‘smart’’ 

cards to Federal employees and contractors—a goal that was good in concept, but 

which proved difficult to implement beyond the Federal level, largely due to the cost 

involved. 

The cost of issuing the ID cards mandated by HSPD–12 proved to be in excess of $140 per card. The Federal Government was footing the bill for these, so few people complained, other than some contractors who had to buy their own cards in 

order to do their jobs. In response, in May 2009, the Federal Chief Information Officers Council issued a supplement to HSPD–12, titled ‘‘Personal Identity Verification 

Interoperability for Non-Federal Issuers.’’ This put the States into the Federallycompatible ID card business, with responsibility for providing first-responder authentication credentials (FRACs) that Federal agencies can read and honor. 

But still, the cost issue remains a substantial hurdle to implementation. To have 

true interoperability as specified in the 2009 directive, the non-Federal cards were 

still required to incorporate a microchip with a format and security features approved by the Federal Government. This chip was only approved for use in February 

2011, with the cost per card remaining roughly the same—in other words, prohibitively expensive for State governments, like ours in Alabama, operating under tight 

budgetary constraints. As coordinator of a county EMA, I have to struggle to find 

enough money for necessities, let alone funding the additional expense of Federallyinteroperable ID cards. 

So what did we do? 

Working with ID card experts, I and others who work on the front lines of public 

safety and emergency management began developing an affordable FRAC system for 

State use. This system not only meets, but exceeds the standards set forth in the 

May 2009 directive. The card I wear each day contains my biometric data, my training certifications, and my medical information. It works with or without a network 

in place. It does not have a microchip—the single most expensive element in the 

Federally-issued cards—yet it is FIPS–201 compliant in every important way. It can 

even communicate with Federal systems for identity verification with a network system that links all emergency management agencies in every State of the Union. We 

call it NERVS, which stands for National Emergency Responder Verification System. 

Perhaps most notably, NERVS does not cost so much that it is unaffordable to 

cash-strapped State and county governments. And it was developed without a dime 

of Federal money. This show what can be accomplished through innovation and 

dedication to task. It has already been deployed in the State of Florida, and we are 

using it now in Alabama. It is worth noting that the use of this system in Florida 

began under Craig Fugate, before he became the head of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. In my opinion, his openness to and embrace of such innovative approaches to critical issues is a big reason he was appointed to his current 

position. 

In working to develop and implement such approaches, F4W, others, and we are 

mindful of the standards established in Federal Information Processing Standard 

Publication 201 on Personal Identity Verification Standards for Federal employees 

and contractors. All of the work we do together will meet those standards. 

As stated previously we incorporate FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert Warning System, or IPAWS, efforts. The mission of IPAWS is to provide integrated services and 

capabilities to local, State, and Federal authorities that enable them to alert and 

warn their respective communities via multiple communications methods. To help 

extend this technology to achieve the ultimate end solution meeting our needs not 
46 

defined in the standard published, F4W’s engineers and ID software engineers are 

working on creating a ‘‘System of Systems,’’ whereby Voice Over Internet Protocols 

will enable any emergency responder, using any commercially-available emergency 

communication system—not only F4W’s—to speak and exchange data with those 

using all other communications systems. If they succeed, it will be a remarkable accomplishment for a small business with very limited research and development capabilities. 

Each of these potential advances will help the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency better meet our responsibilities to our citizens. We are also increasing disaster awareness among our residents; continuing to train our emergency responders to meet any possible contingency; educating our residents, including our 

children on, what to do if disaster strikes—our next ‘‘Community Awareness Day’’ 

is scheduled for October 6 of this year—and offering even more resources to our population and our first responders through the internet and elsewhere. 

Through these activities and others, we hope to make Jefferson County a model 

for the entire Nation in preparing for emergencies and disasters, mitigating them, 

responding to them, and recovering from them. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much, sir. 

I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes or so. The first 

question will be for Ms. Goucher. 

Ms. Goucher, you testified that broadcasters must replace their 

own EAS equipment at their own expense in order to implement 

the Common Alerting Protocol, CAP, by September 30, 2011. That 

is the deadline. Can you help us understand the financial and 

logistical challenges that a typical broadcast station faces in complying with this mandate? 

Ms. GOUCHER. Certainly. As I mentioned, the cost of the CAP- enabled boxes is somewhere upwards of $2,000 to $3,000. For many 

broadcasters, that is just a cost of doing business. They budgeted 

for it. They have known it was coming. For some of my smaller 

broadcasters, that is going to be a high hurdle for them to overcome. I have got some small stand-alone stations, some religious 

stations, some college stations that don’t exactly have $3,000 lying 

around not doing anything. My association is looking at creative 

ways to help them fund those purchases, and in the end they will 

all make the purchases because, as I mentioned, not only is it a 

mandate but it is core to our mission. 

But we are also looking at some creative ways to fund the State 

piece of our Emergency Alert System. The State coffers are bare. 

In the State of Maine, we have had three rounds of budget-cutting 

in the past 6 months, and every time I go in to talk to my emergency management and public folks about this and say we are moving to this new CAP-enabled system and you need to buy some 

equipment in order to get on board with it, I get that deer-in-theheadlights look, like how much is this going to cost and where are 

we going to get the money. 

We think in that regard that it would be most helpful if FEMA 

could specify in their grant guidance that EAS is a permissible use 

of grant funds. That would put it on the radar screen for these officials when they are applying for the grant money to specify that 

this is an acceptable use of that money. When those dollars come 

in the door, they are spent four or five or six times, but if it were 

in the grant guidance, it would put the States on notice that they 

could apply for the funds for this specific purpose. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

My next question is for Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 
47 

Recently, the Personal Localized Alert Network, PLAN, was unveiled in New York City. This new public safety program is to be 

initialized. Of course, it is to be deployed in New York City and 

Washington, DC, by November, with Nation-wide deployment in all 

major urban areas being completed by the spring of 2012. It seems 

that the majority of the cellular carriers have embraced the concept 

of the PLAN, which is great. 

Can you please go into more detail of the impact of implementing 

PLAN on the wireless industry and why the name change? What 

is the purpose for the name change? Because it seems like it is 

very confusing. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Sir, I will start with your last question 

first, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t know the reason for the name change, to be honest. It 

didn’t come from our side of the equation. I think the FCC was trying to come up with something that they thought was easier to 

comprehend or to understand and to promote, is my understanding. 

As Admiral Barnett suggested, we had already gone down the 

path of trying to come up with a way to promote handsets that are 

capable of delivering alerts, and we reached out to our internal 

marketing department and we came up with something called 

Wireless Emergency Alert Capable. So, again, it wasn’t sort of rocket science. We just tried to find a way that would convey a meaning. I think at the FCC that was happening simultaneously, and 

they came up with the acronym PLAN. 

As long as there is an effort by the FCC, by FEMA, and by the 

industry to make sure consumers understand, I think we can 

bridge that gap of confusion that you and others suggest may exist. 

Our goal is to make sure that consumers are aware when the capability exists and which handsets have it, with the goal of having 

all handsets ultimately have the capability as they move through 

the production cycle. 

You asked previously about the impact on the industry. This is 

something that we brought to—Steve Largent, my CEO, brought to 

my executive committee many years ago; and we embraced, knowing there would be some significant cost to it. But, like Ms. 

Goucher said, we recognize that this is something that is the right 

thing to do, to embrace this technology. So our industry is committed to it. 

There were questions presented to the earlier panel about why 

yet hasn’t there been 100 percent. I am actually very proud of the 

97 percent that are represented. But one thing for the record that 

should be recognized is that carriers had to make a decision as to 

whether or not to participate voluntarily before there was any idea 

of what the technology solution would be. That was just one of the 

byproducts of the WARN Act. It was just an outgrowth of the timing. So nine of our ten largest carriers and a significant number 

of our smaller carriers immediately went on-board and said yes, 

but they didn’t really know what they were saying yes to at that 

time. That is why we expect the number will go up, because now 

there is a greater understanding of what people were saying yes to. 

You had asked Ms. Goucher about the cost. I think our smaller 

carriers will enjoy the benefits of the economies that are driven by 
48 

the larger carriers purchasing the technology and moving the 

handsets through the process. 

So it is costly. It is significant, significant expense. But yet it is 

one that the industry is bearing with a good social responsibility 

that they have done many times. Whether it is this or Wireless Priority Service or wireless AMBER Alerts, it is something that the 

industry and particularly the leadership of these companies really 

recognizes is important. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there an effort by the industry to educate people, the potential customers, with regard to the privacy issue? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. There will be an effort by the industry 

to alert consumers once the technology is up and running. The privacy issue I guess we are going to have to make people aware of. 

But it is not a concern from our perspective for the reasons that 

Admiral Barnett suggested, which is this is a broadcast-type technology, so the alert will be sent to a certain number of cell towers 

and in essence broadcast out sort of in concentric circles, and 

whichever devices are within that circle will get the alert. 

The carriers won’t be measuring who gets it or who doesn’t get 

it. It is a whole new technology really for our industry, and it is 

not designed to say X or Y handsets are in this area. It is just to 

say any handsets that are in the alerting area will get it. There is 

not going to be tracking of who gets it and who doesn’t. 

Additionally, the wireless industry is subject to a range of rules 

regarding privacy that are sort of overarching, beyond just this 

WARN emergency alert effort. So those would still hold, sort of protecting the privacy of the consumers. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I think it is great. It is wonderful. But the thing 

is we have to get the word out and educate the people. It is so important to save the lives. 

Mr. Kniphfer, last month, this subcommittee held a field hearing 

where we heard from emergency management officials from around 

the country. Actually, in my district we had the field hearing. 

When asked about the upcoming deployment of PLAN, the officials 

were supportive of this system because it will help reach them 

reach commuter and tourist populations in a way that reverse 

9–1–1 systems cannot. You heard the story. It took 7 days in that 

particular community to notify them with the reverse 9–1–1. That 

is simply unacceptable, as far as I am concerned. 

I am interested in your thoughts on the deployment of the cell 

phone alerting system. What information have you received from 

FEMA about this system? Do you believe that this system will help 

to enhance your ability to alert and warn citizens in your area? 

Mr. KNIPHFER. Sir, anything that will enhance the alerting of 

people in time of emergency is going to help us. My worry is what 

people do after we alert them. Will they take that alert seriously, 

that educational process on the tourists? That is my concern afterwards. 

Those people in my area and yours in Florida, a lot of people 

come to Florida and don’t know what county they are in, and we 

alert them through a cell phone that if you are in Lee County, Florida, or Lake County, Florida, or Jasper or Gadsden County, Florida, they are not sure what county they really are in. So we have 

an educational problem, too, that goes along with that. Do they 
49 

know where to go to their place of safety? That is an educational 

process that is going to have to go along with that alert system. 

Do they heed that warning? 

After Katrina, I heard a lot of people talk that we survived a 

Cat-5 hurricane. There is nothing worse. When Katrina came on 

shore, it was not a Cat-5. So that is my situation. 

Anything that is going to help us get an alert to the people is 

going to help us, and that is my concern: How do we get to everybody? As we move forward and as technology takes over, we have 

kids now that don’t read emails anymore. They text and that is all 

they get on their cell phones. They don’t even read emails. So that 

is what we have got to go to as a society, how do we get to them, 

and that is what we have to look at now. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, you talked a little bit about what is necessary and what is unnecessary as far as warnings and alerts. 

Elaborate on that. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly. I think I want to clarify that 

this is not an indictment of FEMA, because I think they have really aggressively tried to go out and provide education to the alerters. 

But at least from my perspective, and it may be similar from Ms. 

Goucher’s, I am looking at the alert tools that are out there now, 

the alerting tools that exist now, including the county that I live 

in, which is right across the river but I won’t say which it is because I am about to say something potentially negative. But I have 

a small sort of phone book here of alerts that I have received over 

the last 2 years, and I will give you a few examples of some of the 

alerts. 

I was alerted to the existence of ‘‘a rapid fox.’’ Not a rabid fox, 

but a rapid fox. I was alerted to the fact that there were going to 

be flyovers, that there was a cable outage, that there was going to 

be buildings demolished, that it was cold and flu season. I could go 

on and on, and these are all in here. 

To Mr. Kniphfer’s point, he is concerned about what they will do 

and will they take it seriously. Our concern is you can build the 

greatest system and if you overuse it you get immediately to what 

we call the car alarm syndrome. Nobody pays attention to car 

alarms any more. 

So when I look at sort of what has come out of this alerting system, I think the last thing we want to do if we build this is pepper 

it with alerts that aren’t necessary and then people just stop paying attention. The reality is, unfortunately, I have fallen into that 

camp. So when a serious one comes out, my wife sort of resends 

it to me to make sure. Because if you went through this list you 

would find maybe 3 percent that were really an emergency alert, 

and that can’t be the case if we want to deploy this Nation-wide 

and we want people to really take advantage of it and take advantage of the ubiquity of mobile devices. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Would you define, say, a storm, a major thunderstorm, a necessary alert? Or a major accident, what have you? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I understand, and I completely recognize 

that there is going to be a cutoff point that is difficult to determine, 

and some alerts may fall on one side or the other. But what NOAA 

generally does and the National Weather Service, that completely 
50 

makes sense. Those are alerts that people should get, even though 

I know they have tiers of warnings and then watches and things 

like that. But I also think there are probably a significant percentage that you can cut off. 

An accident, I would say no, unless there are noxious fumes or 

gasses or dangers. Anything involving traffic I would argue no. 

This is me speaking personally. Buildings being demolished or cold 

and flu season, that to me is really abusing the system or using 

the system in a way that isn’t going to support when you really 

want people to respond to a very timely tornado, a significant tornado where you only have minutes to respond, or a tsunami. 

You want people looking at these things every time they pop up 

in case they are getting one that is that timely, and you want to 

make sure that you don’t overuse it such that people stop paying 

attention. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. They need to take it seriously. There is no question. 

This is for Ms. Goucher. In your statement you note your belief 

of the need of a National EAS working group and you mentioned 

that and maybe you can elaborate. If such working group were created, who do you believe should be members of the group? 

Ms. GOUCHER. Well, as I mentioned, there are several Federal 

agencies that have governance authority for the system—the Federal Communications Commission, FEMA, the National Weather 

Service, the White House. There are also several EAS participants, 

broadcasters, obviously, the cable television industry, now the cellular telephone industry. 

We just don’t have a forum to get us all together in a room on 

a periodic basis to hash out issues with the system. So we think 

that some kind of formal structure for that process to take place 

would be enormously helpful. 

As long as I have the microphone, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I 

would like to address the issue that—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Absolutely. Proceed. 

Ms. GOUCHER [continuing]. That my friend to the left here raised 

by about the education issue. 

I do want to state for the record that broadcasters are not asking 

for a mandate for FM chips in cell phones, but we do think there 

is an enormous marketing opportunity here that is being lost because we all carry these devices around with us all the time. So 

if you receive a 90-character text message that says ‘‘tornado warning, Lincoln County, tune to local radio and TV,’’ wouldn’t it make 

sense to be able to do that right from the same device? So that now 

you have an all-in-one mechanism in the palm of your hand to get 

not only the initial alert, where it is and what it is, but the actual 

follow-on information that you need, tornado warning, is it my 

house, when is it touching down, how long do I have to grab Toto 

and get into the cellar? 

Broadcasters can put that information in front of people. ‘‘Here 

are the evacuation routes.’’ If I were Verizon or AT&T, I would be 

all over this, to say, look, here is an all-in-one device for you that 

will give you not only the initial alert but also the follow-on information you need. Again, not a mandate, but a little encouragement. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Do you want to comment on that? 
51 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly, if I may. There are 41 

handsets in the United States that have FM chip sets. As we went 

through the process with the SimSac, the advisory group, we considered sort of what different potential solutions would be, and we 

had a similar request from the television broadcast industry to put 

a television chip and we had a request from the paging industry 

to put a paging chip and the satellite industry to put a satellite 

chip. 

What we were looking at as an industry is let’s not have a technology mandate. Let’s let consumers decide what they want in their 

devices and give them options. Having a choice of 41 different 

handsets, if that is what you choose, I think that is a fair number 

of options. 

We look at it, we are serving a wide range of consumers, everything from a standard flip phone to a smartphone to a tablet, and 

we try to make everyone happy. That is why there are a range of 

options and handsets and different price points. That is how we 

look at it. 

NAB has moved away are from the desire to have a mandate. I 

think that is a good thing. We talked with them maybe 2 years ago 

about this, and in that interim you have gone from a few handsets 

to 41. I think that is an evolution based on what consumers want. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Guttman-McCabe again, with regard to CMS, 

PLAN, are you satisfied with the progress that is being made in 

regard to that and are there any improvements that can be made? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I think we are very satisfied. The FCC 

and FEMA have been extremely active under Admiral Barnett and 

Administrator Penn and their teams. We met with them last week. 

We have about monthly meetings, maybe 20 or 30 of us in a room, 

and we will have monthly meetings from now until the launch in 

New York and the beginning of next year and are very happy with 

how they are moving forward. 

I do have to say FEMA in the last year or 2 years really has accelerated the process and their efforts. So I do think they are to 

be applauded for how much they have really focused on this. 

So we don’t have any issues right now with how it is moving forward. It is in our devices and being deployed in our devices. Networks are being upgraded with the technology. So this is a privatepublic partnership that we want to really hold up as one that is 

working and has worked. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Good. Excellent. 

Mr. Kniphfer, as you know, in November, FEMA and FCC will 

conduct the first-ever Nation-wide test for EAS. How is Jefferson 

County preparing for this test? 

Mr. KNIPHFER. We will be ready for it, sir. We had equipment 

ready to do that. We are ready to go down to the level to put it 

out with our broadcasters. That is one of the things we are working 

with the broadcasters. 

I think if you go back to April 27, if it had not been for our 

media, we would have lost a lot more lives. Like Ms. Goucher said, 

our media that day were outstanding. Our radio-TV were on the air 

24/7 covering the tornadoes, and had it not been for them, there 

would have more bodies that we would be counting today. They 

were a vital part of the alert warning system. 
52 

Any device you carry is only as good as the system as a whole. 

You have got to know what to do. Our four TV stations worked 

very good together that day in putting out the information. They 

tracked the storms coming out of Tuscaloosa County right through, 

and I think the people heeded the warning. Tuscaloosa County had 

a high death rate I think because they were hit quickly. Jefferson 

County saw it come through Tuscaloosa County and took the warning seriously and took shelter, and we only had 21 deaths because 

of that. 

I would also like to address the concern of the wireless industry 

and the amount of notifications you get. We need to look at that 

situation as an alert warning notification system where people can 

opt into what is that. If you want a alerts, then you get emergency 

alerts. If you want warnings, you get warnings. If you want community notifications of events, then that is notifications of such 

things as buildings being torn down, roads, and detours. 

You have to design the system. Some people want to know about 

every red light that is going to be tore down today, every street 

that is going to be blocked or anything. There is just news people 

out there wanting news information. They want to know what is 

going on all over town. Others just want to know if there is a storm 

in the area that is going to tear my house down, tell me. Don’t 

bother me with anything else. So those people want to be alerted 

strictly to that type of information. 

So there is things you can do to regulate what kind of information you send to people, and you can break it down to alert, warning, notification. Usually, these are what we write down. This is 

what we are going to put out for alert. If you have an abducted 

child, that is primary to me as an alert. Let’s get that out as quick 

as anything. If we are going to be demolishing a building, then that 

is notification for people in an area that doesn’t bother a lot of 

other people. So if you want that kind of notification, you opt into 

that stuff and not just the AMBER Alert. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Actually, bringing up AMBER Alert, Ms. Goucher, would you 

provide the subcommittee with a better sense of the impact that 

local, even in general, local broadcasters have had in saving the 

lives of children through AMBER Alert? 

Then I want to ask you about Silver Alert, too. Are you familiar 

with Silver Alert as well? If you can talk about that, too, define Silver Alert. I can define it, but you will probably do a better job. 

Ms. GOUCHER. Sure. I will do both. I will do all the colors of 

alert. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay, good. 

Ms. GOUCHER. As I am sure you know, Mr. Chairman, the 

AMBER Alert program arose out of a terribly tragic situation in 

the Dallas-Fort Worth area where a young child named Amber 

Hagerman was abducted and murdered. The broadcasters in that 

area got together and went to local law enforcement and said, look, 

we have a tool that you can use to help prevent these situations. 

We can put the eyes and ears of everyone on the street at your disposal to try and find the vehicle, the abductor, the child. We have 

this Emergency Alert System. Why don’t you use it? 
53 

So they developed the first AMBER Alert system. My dear 

friend, the late Carl Smith of the Oklahoma Broadcasters Association, was the first one to do a State-wide AMBER Alert program. 

The other State broadcast associations piggybacked on that, took 

the program, brought it home to our own States and developed it 

from there to the point where we now have AMBER Alert programs in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. It is not hubris 

on my part to say that we have an AMBER Alert program in 

Maine because of me. 

We are now moving into Silver Alerts. Numerous States are 

bringing that idea forward. That is where we have an impaired 

adult, someone who doesn’t necessarily meet the criteria for an 

AMBER Alert, which is an abducted child under age 18, generally 

for people who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease or dementia who 

may wander away and be lost for a period of time. So, again, the 

media are stepping up to work with law enforcement to be able to 

get the word out quickly about these situations. 

We passed a Silver Alert program in Maine last year. We had 

one just last week. Luckily, the woman was found safely after 

about a day and a half, but only because you put people’s eyes and 

ears out there on the street to help in the search, to help in identifying what is going on and report back to law enforcement. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It has been very successful, as far as I am concerned. I know it has been in my State of Florida. 

Mr. Kniphfer, you wanted to comment as well on maybe Silver 

Alert or AMBER Alert? 

Mr. KNIPHFER. Those two items right there we are working very 

closely with law enforcement and with the elderly people putting 

those notices out very quickly in the broadcast world. It has helped 

us on two occasions already find our elderly that have come up 

missing. We have a couple of people that keep walking off from 

nursing homes that way, and they have come very close to getting 

those where we don’t have people we find later on in the wrong 

way. So that has helped us a lot with our broadcasts, getting the 

message out to people to locate those type of people. 

That is the kind of things that we need. That is what I call a 

really quick alert to me, is get that information out quickly and get 

it back so we can find it. 

If we can get that alert out to the people, they can get it on their 

devices, they can see pictures of the car or pictures of a kid that 

has been abducted. As quick as we can get a picture out there on 

a cell phone device, they can see what it looks like, a tag, a partial 

tag, they can get that information back to 9–1–1, to the dispatch 

centers, to law enforcement. We can capture that individual a lot 

quicker and possibly save lives. It is going to save a lot more lives. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Anyone want to comment on the next generation 

of 9–1–1? 

I have actually finished with my questions. I went way over my 

time. I want to give you an opportunity to say anything you would 

like on this subject matter. Anyone on the panel? 

Mr. KNIPHFER. They said earlier we are doing a lot of things with 

video teleconferencing and getting pictures back from the field 

where we can actually transmit pictures back using these cell 

phone devices, wireless devices back, so we are moving toward 
54 

holding video teleconferencing back with wireless devices with our 

people, responders in the field. It is going to be greatly enhanced, 

that we can actually communicate your command-and-control with 

video teleconferencing back from the operations center to the field 

commanders in the field. 

Things we are doing with the tablets now, with GIS and everything else, we are actually doing damage assessment a lot quicker. 

We can go out and take pictures of houses and do damage assessment real quick real-time now. We just did, thanks to the Federal 

Government in Operation Clean Sweep, cleaned property and debris removed quickly. In the State of Alabama after Katrina that 

was such a problem. We just now cleaned up a lot of the State of 

Alabama that way. We are trying to get an extension through for 

FEMA for 60 more days to go right of entry on property. 

The wireless technology we are using now can go along with the 

integrated process of a warning system, and integrating all these 

systems together is going to allow us to pass data and information, 

to get the information up to FEMA headquarters and to the President and quicker declare emergencies and disasters. We provide 

that information quicker and easier so we can actually show that 

response time, that disaster information that the President needs 

to see to declare disasters quicker. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

Ms. Goucher. 

Ms. GOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to echo Mr. Guttman-McCabe’s comments about FEMA. 

They have come a tremendously long way in the last couple of 

years toward fulfilling Presidential Order 14307—my memory escapes me. 

I have been at this a long time, and there was a period of time 

about 5 or 6 years ago where FEMA and the FCC weren’t even 

talking to each other about these issues. At least now they are getting in the same room and working together to move this forward. 

We are tremendously excited about IPAWS and the new CAP-enhanced EAS. That is going to give us so many more capabilities for 

enhanced messaging. A picture of the abducted child can be embedded in a CAP EAS alert. Now, that saves two or three steps on the 

part of law enforcement. You can just send out one message with 

all the information you need, the evacuation map, the route where 

the chemical cloud is blowing. So we are greatly looking forward 

to the rollout of this system, because it is going to enhance our own 

news dissemination capabilities. 

I think it is interesting, however, that we have seen the good and 

the bad in alerting here with a jurisdiction that truly knows how 

to use the system and use it wisely versus one where we have feral 

foxes—what was it—‘‘rapid foxes.’’ 

That takes us right back to the issue of training. We need to get 

down to the granular level with not just the State folks, but police, 

fire, EMTs, all the emergency responders. 

If my counterpart from Texas were here today, Ann Arnold from 

the Texas Association of Broadcasters, she would tell you an absolutely heartbreaking story about some wildfires in West Texas a 

few years ago. The local fire marshal sent his people up and down 

the roads with bullhorns to tell the people the fire was coming, 
55 

evacuate, the fire is coming, evacuate, because they couldn’t think 

of any other way to get the word out. There were two elderly ladies 

who lived down a half-mile dirt road that didn’t hear the bullhorns 

and died in the fire. 

They were soap opera fans. They were watching TV at the time. 

So Ann Arnold called the fire marshal the next day and said, why 

didn’t you fire off an EAS alert? They would have seen it on TV. 

His response was, what is EAS? 

That to us is unacceptable. You know, this system has been 

around in one form or another for 60 years. It should be in the 

DNA of emergency responders to think of using this system—not 

overusing it but using at times like that. 

I wind up going around the State providing training because, to 

date, there has been nothing else. The only training emergency 

senders, alert senders receive is the technical manual that comes 

with their encoder-decoder. There has been nothing else. 

So, to reiterate some of my oral testimony, we are very excited 

that FEMA is actually undertaking the development of this training program, but all it will wind up doing is certifying that you can 

send a message through the Federal aggregator. If you are not inclined to send an EAS message in the first place, that is not going 

to matter to you. So we need some kind of a carrot and stick to 

bring these folks to the table, to make them recognize this tool is 

at their disposal. We will put our airwaves and transmitter at your 

disposal. Please use them. This is what the system is for. Just use 

it wisely. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, anything further? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I guess, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I 

would just say I was in front of this committee several years ago 

before the legislation was enacted; and the future that I envisioned 

is happening. To me, that is a testament to Government reaching 

out to industry, private industry, and working in a collaborative 

fashion. 

We had 17 different organizations representing the wireless industry on the committee that developed the standards. There was 

a full commitment. If you look at that and you look at wireless 

AMBER Alerts, which picked up on the great work by the broadcasters and Wireless Priority Service, these are all voluntary efforts that the industry can really get behind and feel good about. 

The same is true to a large extent about next-generation 9–1–1. 

The industry realizes that 9–1–1 needs to continue to evolve. It has 

evolved multiple times since I have been at CTIA over the last 10 

years. But is a process. It takes a while to standardize and then 

move it into the technology and then deploy it. 

So we agree with some of the statements that some of the subcommittee members made about the need to able to text to 

9–1–1 and things like that. Yet it is not as simple as saying tomorrow you can text. My most recent alert, which was a text-based 

alert, and CMAS or PLAN or wireless emergency alerts, they will 

come as a text, but they are not text-based. They are not an SMS 

or a text. They are a broadcast service. 

But my most recent text alert from my local county was 

‘‘fternoon.’’ It took me a little while to figure out what ‘‘fternoon’’ 
56 

was. It took my 11-year-old 2 seconds. She said, Dad, it is ‘‘afternoon’’ minus the ‘‘A.’’ Well, that was the only thing I received from 

them. I didn’t receive the text before that ended with ‘‘afternoon’’ 

or anything afterwards. 

To me, that was an illustration of why you can’t just send 

9–1–1 text, because the system is not designed for this type of an 

exchange. When you dial 9–1–1, you want a response immediately. 

When you send a text, as many of the younger folks up behind you 

may know, it may go through instantaneously, and it may take 2 

or 3 minutes. In the case of ‘‘fternoon’’, the first half of the text 

never got to me. 

So to me it is engage industry, work through the process, and 

you are going to get an industry that I am proud of that most of 

our CEOs can say they do everything in their power to be good corporate citizens. This is an example that I think should be repeated 

as we move forward. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

I thank the witnesses, of course, for their valuable testimony. 

The Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions 

for you or questions for you. We ask you to respond to these in 

writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thanks 

so much for your patience. I appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ