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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–609 PDF 2009

THIS IS NOT A TEST: 

WILL THE NATION’S EMERGENCY 

ALERT SYSTEM DELIVER 

THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 

TO THE PUBLIC? 

(111–65) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

September 30, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Axtell, Tom, General Manager, Vegas PBS, Las Vegas, Nevada ........................ 29 

Coletta, Jim, Collier County Commissioner, District 5, Naples, Florida ............ 29 

Goldstein, Mark L., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 6 

Hamlin, Lise, Director of Public Policy and State Development, Hearing Loss 

Association of America, Bethesda, Maryland .................................................... 29 

Muth, Richard, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, State Emergency Operations Center, Reisterstown, Maryland .................. 29 

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

Federal Emergency Management Agency .......................................................... 6 

Ra ́mon, Juan, Representative, National Council of La Raza, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 29

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 51 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 52 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Axtell, Tom ............................................................................................................... 55 

Coletta, Jim .............................................................................................................. 64 

Goldstein, Mark L. ................................................................................................... 68 

Hamlin, Lise ............................................................................................................. 85 

Muth, Richard .......................................................................................................... 97 

Penn, Damon C. ....................................................................................................... 105 

Ra ́mon, Juan ............................................................................................................ 135 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

Federal Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions from the 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 119 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 52609.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 52609.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 52609.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 52609.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 52609.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 52609.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 52609.007
(1) 

HEARING ON THIS IS NOT A TEST: WILL THE 

NATION’S EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM DELIVER THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE TO THE 

PUBLIC? 

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. The hearing will come to order. I want to welcome 

all of today’s witnesses. 

Currently, our Nation is fascinated with television shows, you 

know, CSI and 24, where the characters work with a myriad of 

state-of-the-art weapons, scientific tools, and communication devices. Most Americans use the Internet and mobile phones, personal digital assistance. We can Skype video conference our friends 

5,000 miles away who sound as if they are just down the street. 

We can Google and find out millions of pieces of information almost 

instantaneously. 

Most of the country, to the credit of the American people, has 

embraced the use of smart technology. Consequently, many Americans believe that they have the capability to receive a Presidential 

emergency message via their cell phone, PDA, or fax. They are 

wrong. In the event of a national emergency, heaven forbid, a 9/ 

11 or an Oklahoma City bombing-type event, citizens must rely primarily on an emergency alert system built in the 1960s, with little 

progress to show since. 

Today, thousands of citizens across the country rely on the familiar system that interrupts television viewing with a beeping sound, 

the multicolored stripes across the screen—you know, the same 

stuff that was there when we were kids—and the words, the same 

words, This is only a test of the Emergency Alert System, or EAS. 

This system was built during the Cold War to provide citizens 

with an emergency broadcast on their television or radios advising 

that they have 5 minutes to seek appropriate shelter because a tornado is approaching, or to evacuate the area because a hurricane 

will arrive in a few hours, or other disasters. If there were a need 

to reach the Nation to convey an emergency message, it is, at best, 

questionable whether a sizeable portion of the country would receive it. The Government Accountability Office reports that there 

are many unaddressed weaknesses that limit the effectiveness of 

2 

the Nation’s primary public alert and warning system, as far as it 

goes, considering technology today. 

FEMA is responsible for administering the national EAS, with 

assistance from the Federal Communications Commission, to ensure compliance with regulations. Broadcast radio and television 

stations and satellite radio operators are required to participate in 

national-level EAS alerts. And State and local governments may 

use the EAS on an as-available basis, but participation is voluntary. 

Our Subcommittee’s jurisdiction is primarily implicated because 

of the large number of natural disasters this country experiences 

every year. Indeed, most of the disasters far and away are disasters under our Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Approximately 90 percent of all messages disseminated by EAS are generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather alerts. 

In June 2006, President Bush issued Executive Order 13407 directing the Department of Homeland Security to modernize and integrate the Nation’s public warning system to create a robust Federal warning system and to report on progress on at least an annual basis. The FEMA Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) program was initiated in 2004 and became the programmatic mechanism to carry out the executive order. FEMA defines IPAWS as a ‘‘system of systems’’ which is intended to eventually integrate existing and new alert systems, including EAS. 

Unfortunately, we are now nearing the end of 2009, and national-level alert capabilities have remained virtually unchanged 

since the 1960s, and new technologies are not even close to being 

adopted. Consequently, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and I asked 

GAO to examine, one, the current status of EAS; two, the progress 

made and FEMA’s efforts to modernize and integrate alert and 

warning systems; and three, the issues and challenges involved in 

implementing and integrating a public alert and warning system. 

Today, FEMA will testify on the report we asked FEMA to prepare, which has been titled ′′Emergency Preparedness: Improved 

Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System.′′ 

At the June 2008 hearing, we heard from various EAS IPAWS 

stakeholders, including Federal partners, State and local governments, emergency management associations, the broadcast industry, and others, that FEMA had not met with them periodically to 

get their advice or to inform them of their program progress or direction. At the hearing, this Subcommittee was clear that immediate leadership by FEMA was expected, and that simply attending 

events and conferences that other groups hold is not an effective 

way for FEMA to interface with stakeholders. The then-Assistant 

Administrator for Continuity Programs, General Martha Rainville, 

said that ′′FEMA will be setting up a formal group, an advisory 

group, if you will, that will work to make sure to inform the 

IPAWS program.′′ 

There has been some very recent progress, but stakeholders still 

express frustration with the lack of communication and coordination overall. Therefore, it has become necessary for Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and I to introduce H.R. 2591, the Integrated Public 

Alerts and Warning System Modernization Act of 2009, to specifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
3 

cally direct FEMA to establish an IPAWS modernization advisory 

committee to ensure stakeholder input. 

Currently, I understand that most of the members of FEMA staff 

who will be responsible for the current and future implementation 

of IPAWS are fairly new. We hope that with the new administration, the revolving door of staff, shifting program goals, lack of specific plans and timetables, no periodic reporting on progress, and 

lack of performance measures will be a thing of the past. 

The danger from terrorism and natural disasters only increases 

with an antiquated alert system, and FEMA should expect frequent 

oversight and reports on progress due to this Subcommittee. Without leadership, and in the absence of Federal standards and protocols, many States and localities have felt they had to begin building 

their own systems. A useless patchwork of alert systems that are 

unable to communicate with one another is the likely result of the 

State-by-State approach underway. We have seen that result before 

when police and firefighters on 9/11 could not communicate. We 

cannot repeat the same mistakes again. 

Several of our witnesses have stories to share that will remind 

us of what is at stake for citizens, and why there must be no more 

delay in building a modern integrated alert system that takes into 

account the end-users, our fellow citizens. 

Again, I welcome today’s witnesses and look forward to your testimony. And I am pleased to ask for remarks from our Ranking 

Member, my good friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me first 

take this opportunity to thank you again. You have been exceedingly open, accessible, and willing to look at any issue that is important to all of the Members of your Subcommittee, and I cannot 

thank you enough. And this is another hearing which I think is 

very, very important. 

I am also pleased to welcome all of the witnesses, including a 

good friend of mine, Commissioner Jim Coletta, who is a county 

commissioner from Collier County. Madam Chairwoman, he had a 

lengthy county meeting—I believe it was, I don’t know, close to 8, 

9, 10 hours—a late night, and he is here this morning. I want to 

thank him for flying up here and testifying later on. 

Also, he is accompanied by Dan Sommers, Madam Chairwoman. 

You have been in Florida and south Florida. And particularly you 

have seen the quality of the emergency management personnel 

that we have there. Unfortunately, we have more experience than 

we would like to have. Dan is one of those quality individuals that 

is doing a spectacular job in keeping the people of southwest Florida safe. 

I worked with the Chairwoman on this hearing because, as everybody knows, I represent one of the most prone-for-hurricanes 

part of the country. And the ability to warn the public is, frankly, 

an issue of literally life and death. This is not theory, this is life 

and death. And I, like the Chairwoman, who just spoke to us right 

now, we are both totally determined and committed to modernize 

this system. And again, I thank her for her leadership in this. 

In the age of iPhones and GPS, one would think that—and I 

think most people believe—that the President of the United States 

could, if there was an emergency, target a specific area and make 

4 

sure that the information is out there. Well, the reality is that, if 

you would think that would be the case, you would be dead wrong 

because that capability does not exist in our country. The fact is, 

is that if a big disaster hit today, the President could only send out 

a message basically to the entire country, and it is doubtful if that 

message would actually get to those who really need to hear it, to 

those who are in the way of whatever disaster it may be. There is 

a likely chance that message would never be received to those that 

really need to hear it. 

If you are hearing or visually impaired or handicapped or have 

limited English proficiency, then you are pretty much out of luck. 

And we will hear from the witnesses today, I am sure, a little more 

about that. 

But why, though? Why, one would ask, is that possible? Because 

the Federal Government, frankly, relies, as the Chairwoman said, 

on these phone lines and on the TV and radio signals that we have 

seen from time to time—as the Chairwoman said, from the sixties 

we have been seeing that same message, antiquated computers and 

phone lines, and FEMA has frankly made very little progress in 

upgrading the system to the technology that is available, 21st century technology. We are really dealing with sixties technology still. 

In addition to gaps in coverage, the existing emergency alert system again only reaches the public through those medias, through 

television and radio. Now, let me tell you, in 2007, this system was, 

frankly, of very little help in Florida when tornados ripped through 

several towns at 3:00 in the morning and killed 21 people. That is 

why I said a little while ago, this is not theory. In the case of emergencies and in the case of the State that I represent and others, 

obviously, this is a life or death situation. When those 21 people 

were killed in their beds at 3:00 in the morning, it is unlikely that 

they would have been watching their television and listening to 

their radio at that time. But it is likely that they had cell phones, 

and it is likely that they had land lines, and it is likely that they 

had other ways where they would have maybe been able to receive 

the information. 

Now, if that was not bad enough, GAO warns that it may get a 

lot worse if States, as the Chairwoman just mentioned, go it alone 

and start developing their own patchwork of systems because the 

Federal Government is MIA, is nowhere to be found. And then we 

risk the real possibility of having first responders not being able to 

communicate with each other, the Federal Government not being 

able to communicate with State governments and local governments, et cetera. 

So we are in danger of repeating the same mistakes that were 

made with the first responders’ radios if we don’t get this program 

on track and get it on track now. Time is of the essence. 

That is why, as the Chairwoman said, we introduced—I introduced with the honorable Chairperson of this Subcommittee and 

other Members of the Subcommittee the Integrated Public Alert 

and Warning System Modernization Act of 2009. This bill would establish a framework for the development of IPAWS. We wish we 

didn’t have to do this. As was stated a little while ago, the President, in 2006, actually issued an executive order and, unfortuVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
5 

nately, nothing happened. So we wish we didn’t need legislation, 

but clearly it has been shown to us that we do need legislation. 

It would require that IPAWS include, among the things that it 

would include, multiple communication technologies, a capability to 

send both a Presidential message and States and local alerts, a capability to warn individuals with limited English proficiency and 

individuals with disabilities, and the ability to geotarget alerts to 

affected communities. 

The bill would also establish an advisory committee composed of 

key stakeholders, including State and local emergency management 

officials, NOAA, the private sector to ensure that IPAWS is not developed in a bubble or in a vacuum, but rather that it incorporates 

the experience and the expertise of others and the newest technology. 

At the end of the day we have, frankly, two possible futures 

when it comes to emergency alerts. One is a future in which the 

Federal Government continues to operate its system based on the 

1960s, hoping that those who happen to be watching TV or listening to the radios receive the warning and where States, frankly, 

tired of waiting—and local governments, it is not only States, local 

governments are also moving forward with their efforts because, 

again, the Federal Government is nowhere to be found—so where 

States and local governments just continue to do their own thing 

and develop their own possibly incompatible systems; or, which is 

the preferable option, we can move forward on a digital system of 

systems, as it has been called, that allows officials to target lifesaving information over multiple devices and through multiple 

technologies to people in danger. Those are the options that we are 

facing. 

So, which future we choose, frankly, will be critical in saving 

lives, or not, and ensuring that our communities are properly prepared for major disasters that we know will hit our different communities. 

Once again, I want to thank Chairwoman Norton again for working with me on this important issue. She has been to southern 

Florida; she has been everywhere. She will not accept status quo. 

And I need to thank you for your leadership there once again. 

I also need to thank Chairman Oberstar for including my legislation as part of his larger Stafford Act reform bill. That bill is a 

huge priority for him. The fact that he has allowed this bill to go 

on there is something obviously that we are all very grateful for. 

So, again, I thank you. I thank those of you who are going to be 

testifying in front of us. And with that, I would like to yield back 

the remaining part of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cao, the gentleman from Louisiana, do you 

have any opening remarks? 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

On behalf of my constituents in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, 

I want to extend my thanks to the Chairwoman and the Ranking 

Member for holding this important hearing today. I would like to 

also thank them for their sustained attention with hearings like 

those today and yesterday to discuss post-hurricane recovery. 

Getting the integrated public alert and warning systems up and 

running is critical to ensuring the safety of our citizens. This nextVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
6 

generation infrastructure will move away from the traditional 

audio-only radio and television emergency alert system and provide 

us state-of-the-art coverage. 

IPAWS will take advantage of all available warning networks, to 

include cell phones, land lines, pagers, faxes, personal digital systems, desktop computers, et cetera, and will enable us to communicate with one consistent message over more media to more people 

before, during and after a disaster. 

For a district like mine, which is vulnerable to hurricanes and 

other natural disasters, the comprehensive advance warning that 

IPAWS offers will be invaluable. That is why I am very disappointed to hear of the delays in implementation of this program 

that was first envisioned over 8 years ago. I am very eager to hear 

the GAO’s explanation as to the status of this program and 

FEMA’s explanation for the delays. Each day, month and year this 

program is delayed, we run the risk of losing lives. 

Over 2,000 Americans died during Hurricane Katrina. And in the 

written testimony for today’s hearing, I saw one report of a man 

not knowing of the impending flood until the waters were rising 

around his house. Just from this example we can see the importance of communication. And for this reason, I have taken an active 

role in increasing the government’s capacity for getting emergency 

information out to our citizens. I have authored legislation that directs GAO to conduct a study on our current ability to reach nonEnglish speakers with emergency information and what additional 

government resources are required to adequately communicate 

with such communities. I have discussed this and other revisions 

to the Stafford Act with Chairman Oberstar, and he is supportive. 

I have authored legislation that would extend the Interoperable 

Emergency Communications Grant Program through fiscal year 

2012 to give States additional time to apply for these grants. I am 

a cosponsor of the Chairwoman and Ranking Member’s bill to ensure the implementation of the IPAWS program. I organized Members from the Gulf Coast in sending a letter to the Department of 

Defense to look at pilot programs for implementation of IPAWS 

while FEMA is working out their implementation of IPAWS. 

This is the 21st century. With the technology we have available 

to us today, there is no excuse for any more delays in getting 

IPAWS up and running. I know that the Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member and I, we want to hear firm commitments to deadlines 

from FEMA for which you can be assured we will hold you accountable. There should be no more delays. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. We will go to our first panel. And we will hear first 

from Mark Goldstein, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, 

Government Accountability Office. Mr. Goldstein. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE; AND DAMON C. PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our report 

7 

being released today on the status of the Nation’s emergency public 

alert and warning systems. This system, the Emergency Alert System, EAS, provides the President and other authorized officials 

with the limited capacity to transmit emergency messages to the 

public. 

In our previous work, we have found that EAS relies upon antiquated methods that date back to 1963, exposing the system to 

weaknesses, including questionable reliability and versatility. 

In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security, by executive 

order, was given the responsibility for modernizing public alert and 

warning systems to ensure their capability of distributing alerts 

through varied telecommunications modes and to tailor alerts to 

specific geographic areas. 

FEMA, the entity within DHS responsible for the program, is 

working on the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, 

IPAWS, which is intended to eventually integrate EAS into a larger warning network. When completed, EAS is expected to be superseded by the IPAWS ′′system of systems′′ to form the country’s comprehensive public alert system. 

As FEMA develops IPAWS, State and local governments are implementing their own warning systems, which may be difficult to 

integrate with the broader IPAWS system. My testimony, based on 

our report today, focuses on the current status of EAS, the progress 

made on FEMA’s efforts to modernize and integrate alert and 

warning systems, and coordination issues involved in implementing 

an Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. 

GAO’s findings from today’s report are as follows: First, as the 

primary national-level public warning system, EAS is an important 

alert tool, but it exhibits longstanding weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. In particular, the reliability of the national-level relay 

system, which would be critical if the President were to issue a national-level alert, remains questionable due to a lack of redundancy, gaps in coverage, a lack of testing and training, and limitations in how alerts are disseminated to the public. 

Further, EAS provides little capability to alert specific geographic regions. FEMA has projects underway to address some of 

these weaknesses; however, to date little progress has been made, 

and EAS remains largely unchanged since GAO’s previous review 

completed in March 2007. As a result, EAS does not fulfill the need 

for a reliable comprehensive alert system. 

Second, initiated in 2004, FEMA’s IPAWS program has made little progress. IPAWS is intended to integrate new and existing alert 

capabilities, including EAS, into a system of systems. However, national-level alert capabilities have remained unchanged, and new 

technologies have not been adopted. 

IPAWS efforts have been affected by shifting program goals, a 

lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly organized 

program information from which to make management decisions. 

The vision of IPAWS has changed twice over the course of the program, and strategic goals and milestones are not clearly defined as 

IPAWS has operated without an implementation plan from early 

2007 until this summer. 

Subsequently, as State and local governments are forging ahead 

with their own alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has 

8 

stalled, and many of the functional goals of IPAWS, such as 

geotargeting of messages and dissemination through redundant 

pathways to multiple devices, have yet to reach operational capacity. 

FEMA conducted a series of pilot projects without systemically 

assessing outcomes or lessons learned, and without substantially 

advancing alert and warning systems. FEMA does not periodically 

report on IPAWS’ progress; therefore, program transparency and 

accountability are lacking. 

Third, FEMA faces coordination issues in developing and implementing IPAWS. Effective public warning depends on the expertise, efforts and cooperation of diverse stakeholders, such as State 

and local emergency managers and the telecommunications industry. However, many stakeholders GAO contacted know little about 

IPAWS and expressed a need for better coordination with FEMA. 

A GAO survey indicated that the majority of State emergency 

management directors had little communication with FEMA regarding IPAWS. FEMA has taken steps to improve its coordination 

efforts by planning to participate in emergency management conferences and building improved relationships between the IPAWS 

program and FEMA regional offices. However, despite stating its 

plan to create a stakeholder Subcommittee and state advisory committee, FEMA has established neither group and has no current 

plans to do so. 

In the report released today, GAO recommends that FEMA implement processes for systems development and deployment, report 

periodically on progress toward achieving an Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System, and implementing a plan to verify the 

dependability of IPAWS and to train IPAWS participants. 

In response to our report, DHS agreed with all the recommendations and provided explanations of actions aimed at addressing 

them. However, FEMA’s planned actions to address the recommendations may be not sufficient. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you have. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. 

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

Mr. PENN. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

First, I would like to say that our hearts and prayers go out to 

the families of those affected by yesterday’s tsunami in American 

Samoa and the adjoining regions. FEMA activated its National Response Coordination Center yesterday, and Administrator Fugate is 

moving lifesaving equipment into the area. I got notification just as 

I came into the room that the first assessment team has arrived 

on site. And I know you have gotten updates, and we will continue 

to provide those to you as the situation develops. 

I am Damon Penn, the Assistant Administrator for FEMA’s National Continuity Programs Directorate. I recently joined FEMA 

after retiring from the United States Army. 

My first exposure to continuity programs came about 15 years 

ago when I began work on some Department of Defense programs, 

and my experience with FEMA began in 2004, when I served as 

9 

Defense Coordinating Officer for Florida. There I was responsible 

for Department of Defense response and assets in support of the 

State emergency management’s efforts for the four hurricanes that 

ravaged the State. I also served in that same capacity for Hurricane Katrina in 2004 in the State of Mississippi. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today and give you an update on the status of the Integrated 

Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS. 

IPAWS, as you are well aware, is the Nation’s next-generation 

public alerting system. Its purpose is to provide public alert and 

warning services to Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal 

emergency managers. 

In partnership with organizations like the Association of Public 

Television Stations, IPAWS will integrate and modernize the emergency alert system by increasing the number of dissemination 

paths to the primary entry points, or PEP stations. Further, it will 

provide an interface to commercial cellular carriers, giving them a 

broadcast cellular alert capability. 

In addition, the program is developing interoperable standards to 

support the distribution of alert and warning messages to State 

and local warning systems, such as emergency telephone network 

dialers, Web sites, cellular phones, and other technologies. 

My vision of IPAWS is to provide an effective and comprehensive 

system that enables the proper authorities to alert and warn over 

90 percent of the American people through multiple means under 

all conditions. The end state of the system is that it will deliver the 

Presidential State, territorial or tribal messages by multiple 

means. 

As an example, imagine that a toxic cloud is released from an industrial accident. The individual in the affected area can expect to 

be notified by a network public and private television, AM/FM or 

satellite radio, a call to his residence or a cell phone call, a text 

message to his cell phone, a message on the NOAA weather radio 

band, and if he or she is disabled or unable to speak English, a 

message in the format that they can understand. And the system 

will accomplish this by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

I realize the size of this undertaking and it is not without its 

challenges, but we have made great strides in the past few months. 

Just last week, the Organization for Advancement of Structural Information Standards, OASIS, which is an international standards 

organization, sent the CAP protocols in the balloting. This will provide us the standard for the industry protocols by as early as the 

end of next week. From there, vendors are already working on nonproprietary hardware, and broadcasters will have everything they 

need to be compliant with the new standards by late next summer. 

We successfully competed a test of the emergency alert system 

last week that represents step one of a three-part validation towards conducting a nationwide test of EAS. As you are well aware, 

a nationwide test has never been conducted. Our next step is a system-wide test that we will conduct in Alaska in January. This is 

to validate our current capabilities and provide the credibility that 

has been lacking that our stakeholder need so they will support a 

nationwide end-to-end test by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

10 

Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with providing 38 new primary entry point stations. They have completed site surveys on 15, 

they will complete the other site surveys in the coming months, 

with a complete construction date 24 months from now. 

We have also updated our outreach at all levels. For example, we 

delivered 22 regional and State briefings since July of last year, 

and we have three major working groups that meet bimonthly. 

During my short tenure, I have personally met with Members 

who represent the broadcast industry, the Federal Communications 

Commission, the Primary Entry Point Administrative Council, the 

White House Resiliency Directorate, and several people that represent State and local governments. I am currently scheduled to attend four major conferences of stakeholders before the end of the 

calendar year. 

Our efforts have not been one-way communications. We have 

learned a great deal from our State, local, territorial, and tribal 

partners. For example, Florida and several other States are helping 

us leverage capabilities and technologies they already have using 

targeted cell phone calling and interfacing with communication devices for the disabled. Texas is sharing the software they piloted 

to integrate into the NOAA alert system. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are using satellite receivers to relay messages directly 

versus a daisy-chain approach. Texas and Washington have installed geotargeting systems and are testing the capability to integrate plume modeling into their systems, and we are trying to leverage this as well. 

The State, local, territorial and tribal governments are also clearly dictating their needs and their vision to serve their citizens so 

we can build an adequate capability into our systems and meet 

what they need and expect in the future. 

As the program runs its lifecycle, I am sure there are going to 

be developmental and engineering problems. There are going to be 

conflicts among stakeholders and program delays. But these will 

not be setbacks, they will be challenges we will overcome. 

Our policy is moving forward and is on schedule, and we will 

keep moving forward. FEMA and our State, local, territorial, and 

tribal partners are all committed to IPAWS and recognize the importance to United States citizens. I lead a highly dedicated group 

of professionals all of whom share my commitment and my vision 

of IPAWS. 

Madam Chairwoman, I again thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today, and I am pleased to take any questions you may 

have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you both for your testimony. And Mr. Penn, 

we recognize you are new. We thank you for your testimony. 

I would like you to personally deliver this message to OMB. This 

Committee will not tolerate receiving testimony at 8:30 p.m. the 

day before the hearing. We believe that the holdup is at OMB. Deliver that message before it is delivered in unison by the Congress 

through the appropriation bill. Inexcusable. There was even an attempt to get us, in another Subcommittee—or I think it may indeed have been in this one—to delay the hearing. It will never happen. It will never happen. Plenty of notice. And make sure they 

11 

know it so they don’t put you in that position again because we do 

not blame you. 

On your best judgment, both of you, if the President of the 

United States had to send out an emergency message today, who 

would receive the message and who would not? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think it is very unclear, Madam Chairwoman, 

who would receive it. The system, on its best day, only 82 percent 

of the population is covered by the primary stations. And when the 

message leaves the primary stations, as the limited testing has 

shown so far, there is no assurance that a message would get very 

far. 

Ms. NORTON. After it leaves the primary stations, there is not an 

assurance that it would reach very far into the targeted area are 

you saying? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. There has been limited testing 

of the system. FEMA, in the past, has not been very willing to test 

the system, but they did finally test it several years ago, and three 

of the primary stations never received the message at all, which 

would have affected potentially millions of people. And thenin an 

inadvertent, accidental test in Illinois in 2007, when someone 

frankly pushed a wrong button, what happened was that the cable 

companies never received the message either. The equipment that 

the cable companies used was not functioning. And so, no, there is 

very little assurance that the system is working properly today and 

that a Presidential message would get to the American public. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Penn, before you answer, we have these different estimates, FEMA estimates, 82 percent of the population— 

whatever that means—are covered in the day and 75 percent at 

night. And just as an aside, how can it be that the State of Maine 

has no coverage—it is a big State—at all? Just so you know, Mr. 

Diaz-Balart, we believe that parts of your State may not have adequate coverage and that parts of Mr. Oberstar’s district may not be 

covered. How can we have those kinds of ins and outs and gaps? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. The PEP stations, there are only 35 PEP stations, the primary stations that distribute the information to other 

stations. 

Ms. NORTON. There were originally 34, and we upped to one 

more, 35. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. What is taking so long? If PEP stations are what 

we have been relying on, why are we inching up, what takes so 

long? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. FEMA indicated the ability to put 69 of them in 

place within a short period of time, but they have been unable to 

reach that goal. 

Ms. NORTON. If they had 69, would the coverage be—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. The coverage would be approximately 90 percent 

at that point in time. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Penn, what has slowed up the implementation 

of PEP stations? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chair, I am not convinced that we had a comprehensive building program in our plan, and I am not sure that 

we took into consideration the time that it would take to build the 

stations out and establish the protocols needed for them. Our curVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
12 

rent plan is to build 74 stations, and we have the Corps of Engineers building those for us. As I mentioned earlier, 15 of those sites 

have already been site surveyed, so we know what the requirements are. The others will be done in the next few months. And 

then 24 months is what we estimate it will take for us to get all 

of those PEP stations in place and tested and ready to operate. 

Ms. NORTON. So, for the record, you will have almost doubled or 

doubled the number of stations up to the numbers—is it 74—within how many months did you say? 

Mr. PENN. Within 24 months. 

Ms. NORTON. Within 24 months. And you have an implementation plan for doing it rather than a simple goal of the kind FEMA 

has had and never met? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am, we do. We have already contracted 

through the Corps of Engineers. The funds are available, they have 

them. They have given us a report that their program is on budget 

and that it is on time. And we don’t expect to have a problem with 

delivering the stations, as promised. 

Ms. NORTON. That is very good news. 

Is the PEP station the primary way we should be giving these 

alerts today? We are talking 50 years of progress since, or maybe 

not. You have to think what will reach the greatest number in the 

shortest amount of time, or should there be more than one way to 

reach the greatest number? What do you do in an infinitely mobile 

society to make sure that there is notification that is timely? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chair, it is a primary entry point for the message to get to the broadcast community, so that is what makes the 

PEP station so important because it is the gateway into everything 

else, and all the other capabilities that we mention. 

As I mentioned in my earlier testimony, another major breakthrough has been the CAP program, the common alerting protocols 

that make sure that all equipment that the States and locals have 

and all the equipment that we develop will all talk to each other 

and all be of the same protocol, so it will be interoperable. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Penn, this is very important what you are saying. By the way, how did you reach that number of 74? Why not 

84 or 104? 

Mr. PENN. When we did a coverage survey, Madam Chairwoman, 

that is the number that we determined we were going to need 

based geographically. 

Ms. NORTON. In order to get to what percentage of the population 

and in order to get to the State of Maine, for God sakes? 

Mr. PENN. With a target of better than 90 percent coverage. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that include the State of Maine? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair, it does. 

Ms. NORTON. Why is Maine a blackout here? 

Mr. PENN. To be honest with you, I do not know. 

Ms. NORTON. I want you to report. I think it is very serious to 

have a State that is vast in its land space but not in its—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. If I may, Madam Chair, Maine is covered by 

public radio stations, which are connected to the EAS system 

through satellite, but they don’t have a primary entry point so 

there is a different approach. But there are problems with that approach. 

13 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean they would get the notification, the 

State of Maine, as quickly as we would in the District of Columbia? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is unclear, and the primary reason is because they are not developed as PEP stations, and so, therefore, 

they are not designed to necessarily have someone at the stations 

all the time or to have fuel and redundant systems in place—— 

Ms. NORTON. They may not have backup and so forth? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Diaz-Balart, I think you may have a vote. I, 

regretfully, do not yet have one, so—soon though. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Despite your best efforts. 

Ms. NORTON. Indeed. So I am going to ask you for your questions 

at this time. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I believe there are three votes. 

Mr. Penn, let me first thank you for your service to the country 

and the military. And then also, yes, thank you also for the 2004 

season. That was slightly busy when you were the DOD coordinator in Florida. Thank you for the job that you have done there. 

One of the concerns that I have is—and again, I preface this with 

the fact that we know that you haven’t been there long. I know 

your background, and I know that you are a person who delivers. 

But obviously one of the concerns that we have is that these 

timelines have continued to constantly shift, so the purposes and 

the goals have continued to change. Obviously one of the concerns 

that we all have is the fact that this doesn’t continue to happen. 

Secondly, so I can kind of get them both out, is it correct that, 

Mr. Goldstein, you mentioned that if 69 of those plans, PEPs, were 

out there, about 90 percent of the population would be subject to 

get notified, correct? But that is assuming that they work, and we 

have some questions about them working and the information 

being up. So even that is, frankly, a bit of a positive outlook, is it 

not, rosy outlook? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, it is. The limited testing that has been done 

so far indicate that there are problems with the system in which 

a message may not be received by intended recipients. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Now, am I to understand that there is not one 

of those in southern Florida? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. A PEP station, sir? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I would have to get back to you. I would be 

happy to. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great, thank you. And again, going back to my 

question—and Mr. Penn, I apologize, your rank was what when 

you retired? 

Mr. PENN. Colonel, sir. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, once a colonel always a colonel. So again, 

obviously, Colonel, our concern would be that these deadlines continue to slip. And I don’t know if you want to comment on that 

whatsoever. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir, I would, please, if I could. First of all, we will 

provide an outline of the PEP station locations back to the Committee within 30 days, not just for Florida and for Maine, but to 

give you an idea of where they all outline. 

14 

I apologize for this graphic and not having provided it ahead of 

time, but I thought about it at the last minute and thought I would 

bring it over. I think this will help explain part of your question 

about the timeliness and why things take so long for us to process. 

But I would like to preface those comments by saying that I am 

here now, I have a very clear vision, I have communicated that 

throughout, and I do not plan on changing that. We have also 

made some recent hires of some very dedicated, experienced professionals who will keep us on track. 

But the graphic is on my left. And it is not important that you 

be able to read the words, but I ask you for your attention to the 

three yellow bands that go horizontally, and then the three pieces 

that go down the left in blue. This is a snapshot of our overall systems plan. And what I did was took a small part of that to illustrate how things run concurrently and how some have to run sequentially. So if you take the first bullet there across the top that 

talks about the CAP, you can see in the fiscal year 2009 development process that we did, it took us an entire year. And you can 

see the blue arrow there, and that is the balloting that I mentioned 

as a major breakthrough with OASIS. And that is important again 

because it establishes a standard for everybody to adhere to for all 

equipment that they bring forward. 

The next period that you see between those two diamonds at the 

top is the amount of time that it will take us to have industry do 

their physical development of the hardware and the testing of the 

hardware that is required. And then the final part that is to the 

right of that diamond is the 180 days that are regulatorily required 

to give the broadcasters time to implement their plan. 

So when you look at that first row from left to right, it seems 

like a lot of time transpires, and it does, but a good portion of that 

is testing and fielding that we have to have to allow the hardware 

to be developed, and then the amount of time for the broadcasters 

to be able to implement that. 

Now, if you look at that chart from top to bottom, though, it will 

show two other programs that are happening simultaneously. Sea 

mass development, and then the PEP station development that we 

talked about before. 

So I say all that to tell you that I think my biggest personal challenge is to maintain momentum of our program. I think we are on 

the upswing on stakeholder buy-in, I think we are on the upswing 

on education, I think we are on the upswing on buy-in from the 

States, locals, territorials, and tribals, but my challenge is to make 

sure that when they look at single entries, as I just mentioned on 

this development plan, that they don’t focus on where they necessarily fall into only that one line, but that they look vertically as 

well and see where they fall into the whole program and where we 

need their continued support throughout the whole program. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Colonel, let me ask you—and again, I said we 

obviously understand you are new, and I have seen your track 

record, and obviously I am also a big fan of the new FEMA Director 

as well, who we know very well in Florida. And I keep saying unfortunately because we wish we didn’t have to deal with these 

issues, but we do. 

15 

Now, can we get your commitment that you will commit to provide this Committee, this Subcommittee and this Committee, with 

regular progress reports on the implementation of IPAWS so we 

can track the progress and know if any of the changes are occurring and any timetable slips are happening, whatever; can we get 

that from you? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir. I propose that we send you a written report 

once a quarter. And then of course we will meet at your convenience any time you would like more testimony for an update. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairwoman, if I could indulge in one 

last question, thank you again for your courtesy. 

Most emergency managers often say that one of the biggest problems with alert systems is that they basically frankly hit way more 

people than are in harm’s way, which obviously impacts their usefulness. So one of the benefits of the modern system would be the 

ability to target alerts to those affected communities. 

How localized would an emergency manager be able to target an 

alert under the system that you are looking at? 

Mr. PENN. Sir, with the systems that we have looked at so far 

in Texas and Washington, we have really asked to be able to do 

two different things. They have systems that fulfill part of this 

need, but their overall vision is the ability not only to target specific geographical areas, and those could be as large or as small as 

the communications infrastructure would support. If we are talking 

about sending a cellular message, of course there is a limit to the 

number of calls that can be made at one time. But over time then 

that number is, in essence, infinite. But our challenge there is to 

make sure that we target in the right sequence so we get the most 

affected areas first. That is some of the work that we are doing 

there. 

The other part of the work that we are doing, and it looks very 

promising is the ability to integrate plume modeling and other devices so it helps us decide which areas get targeted and which 

areas get notified first. So if you had an industrial spill, as I mentioned before, then to be able to target the people directly in the 

path of that cloud first. And those are the kinds of systems that 

we are working on there. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, both. I will be back right after 

votes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

I just can’t get Maine off my mind, you have to forgive me. I 

haven’t been to Maine very much, but whenever I see somebody 

really in need, I got to ask, are we going to build a PEP station 

there? Are your 74, your twice the number you have now? 

Mr. PENN. Ma’am, I will have to get back with you. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, there may be a reason. You will find me 

not a what person, but a why person and a how person. So my real 

question is why? Then I go on to, well, why? There may be a good 

reason. If they are relying on public broadcasting, well, you don’t 

rely on it here, you don’t rely on it in Florida. How come Maine 

got left to that? It has big cities, it has rural areas. So I need, within 30 days, an explanation as to why an entire State is left out 

there? 

16 

I am looking here at this map, Mr. Penn and Mr. Goldstein. 

There are States where you, for efficiency reasons, and because of 

the way communication works, as in the District of Columbia, for 

example, Maryland and Virginia work very often through us, the 

center of the universe. And you will find other areas where the center of communications system will overlap. But I am looking on 

this map, and I just don’t see any State—well, Vermont looks pretty much in need. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Vermont is not covered either. 

Ms. NORTON. Look, I see large gaps. I expect to see large gaps 

if you are doubling the number. So, it is a question of what are we 

going to do about Vermont and Maine? I would like to know why, 

in the first place, were—you know, you have got up in that area 

New Hampshire and Massachusetts saturated. And I am just at a 

loss to understand even the targeting mechanism for the PEP stations. If I can understand it, then it could be quite fine. But if you 

would make me understand that. And I would like to know in 30 

days whether, one, what is going to be done? Because I have no 

idea what should be done, I am not saying what should be done, 

but if in fact with an almost doubling or more than doubling of the 

number of PEP stations, then I would want to know if Vermont 

and Maine are to remain uncovered, why? And what is to assure 

them of fairly equal access, by which I mean of course 24-hour access, somehow or the other somebody on the network has 24-hour 

access. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair, I will get you that. And I will get 

you overall coverage for the Nation as well so that you understand 

what areas we can reach. 

The original plan for the PEP stations, as I understand it, was 

to focus on the larger populated areas first, and then, as you do the 

buildout plan, go to some of the more sparsely populated areas. 

And that may be why Maine doesn’t currently have a station. But 

the focus was to try to reach as many people as you could as early 

as you could and then build out the capability from there. But I 

will get a proper response back to you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Penn. 

I serve on the Homeland Security Committee as well. We have 

been in a terrible conundrum about interoperability and the rest, 

but I must say I am really caught short on how to get my arms 

around State and local governments going out on their own. 

I do not know what they are doing, I have no idea whether it 

would be useful, I have no idea how it will be tied into whatever 

is being done at the national level; and I would like to hear from 

both of you. Make me understand why a single dollar which is 

spent at the State and local levels today is guaranteed in any way 

to have any relationship to what it is that is being done at the Federal level. 

Or perhaps we ought to have 1,000 flowers to bloom, so maybe 

there should be a multimedia approach. We have many different 

ways of communicating today. You could have a national system— 

this system that you are building out—plus these other systems; 

but I need to know how you envision, how you see what, for example, we would end up with and what it would look like, given where 

17 

the State and local governments are. And I would like to know how 

far ahead of us they are. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think it varies, Madam Chair. 

For instance, in our survey, recently, that we did of all the State 

emergency management directors, we found that the majority of 

them are building their own systems without regard to what the 

Federal Government is doing. 

Ms. NORTON. What kinds of systems are they focusing on? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. They vary in different kinds of ways. Some of 

them would be compatible with what the Federal is doing. In fact, 

10 of them already use a CAP-compatible system, but most do not. 

Ms. NORTON. So let me stop you there. 

If they are not using a compatible system, what would be the effect of what they are doing? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, it is a potential Tower of Babel where the 

State and local governments and the Federal Government would 

not be able to get out a—— 

Ms. NORTON. Smokestack systems then? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. 

They would not be able to get out a message effectively. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I will ask you and Mr. Penn. 

It sounds to me as if States are in bad need of guidance. I am 

going to tell you that they are going to come in here and they are 

going to testify that we made them do it, that without Federal 

guidance, particularly in places that I would think people would 

feel themselves particularly vulnerable—if I were on the east coast 

or the west coast and you folks would not move, I would just have 

to move. 

Even in a matter that affects interstate commerce, as a matter 

of constitutional law if the Federal Government will not—if there 

is a hole, the courts will allow—here, of course, no legal question 

is raised, but to show you just how responsible State and local governments will feel, they will allow folks to do whatever they have 

to do. 

So I am very concerned that in the, shall we call it, fascination 

with technology, with people going around and selling people the 

Moon, that we are going to have systems upon systems built and 

billions of dollars spent for only one reason: There has been no Federal leadership, no Federal guidance. So what else can you expect 

people to do? 

You need to tell me what we should do, what the Subcommittee 

should be doing, what you should be doing right at the moment to 

inform or alert the States and localities of whatever it is you think 

they should know. 

Mr. PENN. Well, Madam Chair, I think your assessment is exactly correct. We have 50 States with 50 solutions because they 

have 50 different sets of problems. The reason they have had to develop their own solutions is because we have not given any national-level guidance and have not given them anything that they 

can use to build their systems on. 

I continue to go back to our Common Alert Protocols. I think that 

is the first step in making sure that all the hardware that everyone 

purchases in the future is compatible with all the other hardware. 

Ms. NORTON. That is what you have just shown us? 

18 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. By the way, I am going to say to you, Mr. Penn, 

that is the kind of thing that impresses this Committee, and maybe 

your military background helps to explain why you understand 

goals, and how goals mean steps and that nobody believes in goals 

without steps. So I was very pleased to see what you offered us 

there. 

This is my concern: I am now the State of Podunk, located in the 

County of Nowhere. Administrator Penn, I am about to put out an 

order for this super-duper technology, way better than EAS and 

anything you could possibly do. What is your advice and counsel 

when I write you tomorrow, asking what you think I should do? 

I am about to put it out. We have got a little bit of stimulus 

money. We will use some of that up on it. We are committed to the 

rest. Mr. Federal Government, tell us what to do. 

Mr. PENN. Well, first, Madam Chair, I would ask that you adhere 

to the recently established Common Alert Protocols so we make 

sure that your systems can communicate with all the Federal systems. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Federal Government, I am on board with everything you have given me so far, which ain’t much, which is why 

we are doing our own. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Penn, you will also find, when I ask a 

direct question, I will not stop until I get a direct answer. If you 

need to go back and figure it out, that is the best answer. If you 

think you know what you would do, then that is an answer. But 

′′doing what they are already doing well′′ is not an answer. 

Mr. PENN. No, Madam Chair. I am referring to the protocols that 

we are getting approved through the OASIS Foundation right now. 

Those will establish the language that all the computers need to 

speak. 

So I would ask you, as a State, if you were buying anything, that 

it adheres to those protocols. That way—— 

Ms. NORTON. Protocols, which will mean your system will be 

compatible with whatever we do in the Federal Government, and 

those protocols already exist? 

Mr. PENN. Those are currently being balloted on by the organization. I expect those to come out and be published in the next week 

or two. And then those will become the industry standard for all 

the equipment that is developed that we are going to use as a Federal Government; and it will be—if you purchase equipment with 

the same protocols, you will be able to communicate with all the 

Federal Government equipment. 

You will also be able to communicate with all of the other States 

that are developing programs. So, if Indiana has a good idea and 

they develop a system, then you will be able to purchase your system to use in your State, and you will be ensured that it is compatible with everything else that the Federal Government is using and 

the other States are using. 

Ms. NORTON. And it will all go through that Federal matrix of 

your protocols so that you will know about Indiana, et cetera? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. For lack of a better term, it will 

have a stamp on it that says it is compliant with CAP. 

19 

Ms. NORTON. So, in light of that, you would not say, Do not go. 

You would say, Go, if you would like, but with the protocols you 

have just described? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair, because throughout this whole 

process, as I mentioned, there are 50 States with 50 different sets 

of needs. They may have equipment that they need to develop to 

notify people in a rural area that might not necessarily be needed 

in an urban area. So they may need to do some of that to satisfy 

their own requirements as a State and their own alert notification 

requirements. But if they are lined up with these protocols, then 

they will also be able to channel from the Federal Government the 

message through all of those means that they have down to their 

citizens by the redundant capabilities that we are discussing. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Penn, in my hypothetical—all of my 

hypotheticals come out of my experiences as a law professor. In my 

hypothetical, someone has had the prescience to actually ask you 

before spending his money. 

Your testimony and the testimony of Mr. Goldstein is, people are 

not asking the unresponsive Federal Government. So my next 

question is, don’t you feel that you should put out proactive guidance of the kind you have just given and of, perhaps, other concerns or matters now to the States and localities throughout the 

United States? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. I think you are absolutely right. 

I think what we have done up to this point is, we have had a coalition of the willing; and the States that have participated and the 

broadcast organizations that have participated are already into 

what we are doing, and they are all very supportive. 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. 

Mr. PENN. I think the States that have elected to participate and 

the broadcasters and others that have elected to participate have 

all bought into what it is that we are asking, and they agree that 

we are going in the right direction. 

Ms. NORTON. I do not know what the word ′′elected′′ means, because your testimony indicated that there had been outreach. Can 

you therefore explain—maybe those elected are the ones who cannot come forward or are knowledgeable—why it is that we have 

found many stakeholders, including broadcaster associations and 

local government officials, who are unaware of the IPAWS program? That was frightening. 

Some are unaware of your goals. Some have never heard of 

IPAWS. A majority of the States’ survey respondents said they had 

received little or no information. So who is this, electing to come 

forward? 

Mr. PENN. Well, yes, Madam Chair, and that is why I said 

′′elected,′′ because we have not done a good job of educating and 

sharing our program across the broad spectrum. We have had some 

targeted engagements—— 

Ms. NORTON. So how are you going to rectify that when you have 

whole gaps and who even knows what your initials stand for and 

you are way ahead of them now into protocols for their computers? 

Mr. PENN. Well, part of my outreach strategy is to start with Administrator Fugate, and when he meets this fall with—or actually 

this winter with the State emergency managers, one of the items 

20 

on his agenda is to discuss IPAWS and to make sure they understand what the system is and how it works. 

Ms. NORTON. Who is going to elect to come? 

Mr. PENN. That will be all of the State emergency managers in 

that forum. I think that is the first step. 

Ms. NORTON. When is that to take place again, please? 

Mr. PENN. I think it is January, Madam Chair, but I will have 

to verify. It is either January or February. 

Ms. NORTON. Within 30 days, would you verify when that will 

take place? Since those who ′′elect′′ to come may get the word from 

Administrator Fugate, would you also tell us within 30 days how 

you intend to inform the stakeholders of what you are doing in a 

readable and brief-enough form to be read? 

Particularly, I am concerned with them knowing about doing 

their own systems without making sure they are going to be compatible. 

Do you have any idea, Mr. Goldstein, how many of these systems 

are not compatible as of now? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It is our understanding that, right now, only 10 

States are CAP-compatible. But I need to also mention one thing, 

which is that CAP is not a magic bullet. CAP does not allow for 

the receipt of live audio, for instance, and so there are questions 

about the ability of CAP to be an effective protocol. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that leads me, of course, to the question of 

what is the ideal national system—CAP plus what? 

Now, I ask this question with some hesitation because the industry knows how to update and how to reinvent itself into newer and 

newer forms of technology. Okay. There comes a point when whatever is the next doodad is of not much interest to me. It may be 

of interest to my grandchild, but this is not about playing games. 

It is about systems that are state of the art, that will not have to 

be updated every year in order to be useful. 

If you have a vision of what you are doing—and Mr. Penn, I certainly see a new vision for IPAWS—what is the vision for a communication system that would incorporate more than the CAP system, recognizing that the States are already into some systems beyond the old, traditional system? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. 

The CAP is, for lack of a better term, a language that says that 

any equipment that you have will follow this same language, so 

that is the thing that connects us together. 

Ms. NORTON. But do we really want people to leave people to the 

salesmanship of high-tech types who always have a new doodad for 

you and some advice and counsel on what it is we are aiming for? 

Now, if people want to spend their money over and above what 

it would take to have a national system that incorporates technology, state-of-the-art technology, recognizing that that covers a 

broad field, would you be in a position now or in the future to offer 

them advice about what a national system ideally should look like? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. I think, in working with them, 

they will tell us what the system should look like. That is another 

deficiency, I think we have had: We have not actively solicited the 

solutions that are there and the needs for the States. 

21 

Ms. NORTON. What mechanism do we need to have in place to 

do that kind of solicitation? 

Mr. PENN. Well, the first thing we need to do, Madam Chair, is 

build some confidence and some credibility into what we are doing. 

Because part of the problem, I think we have with the stakeholders 

is, they are not ready to come forward because we have not proven 

as a Federal Government that we can deliver what I just told you 

we are going to deliver. 

I think we will go a long way with that with our tests that we 

are doing in January in Alaska, where we will do an end-to-end 

test of the network, which will be the first one that we have done 

at that level before; and then we will follow it by the end of 2010 

with a nationwide test from end to end that will show that the 

whole system works. 

Ms. NORTON. The testing is something that is happening, and it 

will be important, but these people are not even trained to use the 

present system. Too many of them are seeing nothing at the Federal level and have not even bothered. Here we have had to put 

in a bill directing that there be advisory committees. 

What would a true system of input look like? Are you building 

such a system? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. I see it as a series of conferences 

and Committees and Subcommittees, a real organization that does 

not address the overarching problem—we know what that is, and 

we have discussed the systems that we need. We need someone like 

Mr. Witmer behind me here, who is a technician and who can get 

together with a group of technicians; they can discuss the solutions 

and work out the nuts and bolts of how you do this. And we have 

started that on a small scale; we need to make that much larger. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Penn, we point back to May 2008 when FEMA 

intended to create stakeholder and State Subcommittees for stakeholders in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

and that has not been done yet, apparently. Neither the Federal 

nor the State Advisory Committee has been implemented, and that 

is why, you know, we just put a bill in. 

You figure, when you are talking to grownups, you get a commitment, and that is all it will take, but we have other devices known 

as a matter of law. We also have appropriation bills that can cut 

people’s funds or make people use their funds in certain ways, but 

that is really what you do with children. 

So you speak about these Committees; in 30 days, I want to see 

the outline to this committee of what a system with stakeholders 

embedded in your work—virtually embedded, since you are right 

that you cannot do this blueprint style, top to bottom—would look 

like. It does not have to have all of the stuff; we just want an outline of what it is you intend. 

If you submit that to us and would submit this around the country, it seems to me you would begin to let them know that it is 

coming, that it is a matter that the Subcommittee wants to do, that 

you want to do, and that it is going to happen this time because 

they have had their promises. 

Ms. NORTON. You know, part of what happened to FEMA is, 

these people were shifted in and shifted out. No wonder there has 

been no vision of what IPAWS should look like and where it should 

22 

go. Staff turnover. So, sure, if you can have a lot of staff turnover, 

then whoever comes in is going to do something that may be different unless it is so firmly established that there is a reason to 

continue it. And of course everyone knows—you have acknowledged 

that the personnel shifts have affected your work. 

Now, one of the problems this Subcommittee has—and we know 

that an agency is not serious if it is largely relying on contract 

workers, if it is not building it in. And contract workers can go off 

to the next contract if somebody happens to get a Federal contract. 

We were disturbed at the figures from FEMA as reported by 

GAO in June 2009—this is very recent—27 contractor staff, 5 

FEMA IPAWS staff positions filled out of 11 noncontract, full-time 

positions available. See, that is a signal to a Subcommittee that 

these people are doing this out of their hip pocket. 

So I have got to ask you about staffing, permanent staffing, that 

shows us and shows States and localities that this is a new beginning for IPAWS and what goes with it. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. 

We have also hired, sitting behind me, Mr. Antwane Johnson, 

who is a systems engineer with 20 years’ experience. He just came 

over to us from DOD. So, with him and Mr. Whitmer, I think they 

are the leadership of IPAWS; and as you are aware, I just joined 

FEMA and this project recently, but I plan on being here through 

the completion of the program. 

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. Are you hiring permanent staff to 

get this job done or are you going to continue to rely on contract 

people who can come and go? 

You know, do you have the positions or not? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chair, I have a combination of both. Currently, I have 11 full-time positions in IPAWS. Of those 11, I have 

7 that are filled. I have one that we just got a name against, we 

made an offer to. The other three close out this week in the government offering system. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are going to fill most of these 11 positions? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. That is my goal, to fill all 11. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, why have you been relying on—you know, the 

administration has said it is going to rely less on contract. The 

present majority believes that the proliferation of contract workers 

has meant more and more hands off as far as our ability and the 

Agency’s ability to track its own progress, to know whether or not 

there has been any progress at all because of the way contracts 

work. 

Now, why is FEMA, at least at the moment, using a majority 

contractor staff for this national work that is vital to national security and to all we do to alert people about natural disasters? Why 

is there this division at all? 

You have still got to pay money out. Why are you preferring to 

pay it out to people who are responsible to your contractor? This 

may not be his most important contract, and he can put those people out any time he wants to if he thinks he has got another contract—I don’t know, some DOD contract, he had better get that 

done; or they have got a deadline on this one, so off those people 

go. 

23 

I mean, why, if this work is important, has FEMA got this kind 

of subdivision, this kind of division of work? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chair, that is a good question. 

In addition to the 11 permanent staff that I just mentioned, we 

have 15 contractors that are part of our program management 

team. They do technical support and they do business operations. 

Ms. NORTON. Do they have skills that you do not have in-house? 

Mr. PENN. Well, one of the challenges, Madam Chair, is, this is 

a program with an end date. We expect it to be completed in 2012. 

So you cannot necessarily hire full-time Federal employees for a 

program that we know is going to one day be completed. So that 

is one of the reasons why we have the contractor support. 

The other reason is, at different times throughout the project, we 

need certain capabilities and certain technical skill sets that we 

might not necessarily need when we get to other parts of the program. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, and we can understand that. 

If, in fact, you were to tell me that these 27 people had skill sets 

that are useless to, of all people, the Department of Homeland Security, except on its project, then I would understand. Because nobody would want to just hire permanently people for—particularly 

with these kinds of upgraded skills. 

But you are part of the Department of Homeland Security. I can 

tell you, as a Member of that Committee, I have not been particularly impressed by their own level of technology, so I can understand that this was supposed to be an end date. 

I must say, in light of the poor record of FEMA on IPAWS, it is 

amazing that they would use contract employees as a reason of 

saying, Well, you know, this is only a short time. They have almost 

done nothing since our last hearing, so these have become, in effect, full-time people because we have gone on for so long. 

Just to put you on notice—you are new, Mr. Penn—we are going 

to require you to justify contract employees as necessary in this 

top-heavy way and as useful only for this project, rather than to 

allow this division, because we believe this has lots to do with the 

ins and outs of the matter. 

Mr. Goldstein, how has having contract workers move on and off 

affected the ability of IPAWS to develop? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think the combination of not having much of 

a permanent staff in the government and the turnover of staff and 

the turnover of project managers—there have been four in 2 

years—combined with a contract staff that is not permanent, has 

clearly affected the program’s implementation, the changes in vision and the slowness of the program’s development. 

I would also add that we think that some of the pilot projects 

that were put in place under IPAWS, because they have not been 

able to document lessons learned from these projects—in fact, a 

consultant recently determined that, of 28 projects, there was only 

status information available for 18 and that was only partial information. They have had a very difficult time documenting information in the program and using that information to leverage actual 

changes in IPAWS. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thought the whole point, Mr. Penn, of a 

pilot project—you have got to tell me what is going to come of this 

24 

and how much has been expended, because I thought the point of 

a pilot project was precisely to document it so you could use the 

information to move forward. 

So whatever happened to these pilot projects? And how much in 

Federal funds has been spent on them? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chair, I think Mr. Goldstein is referring to, 

among others, the Sandia contract project that we had several 

years ago where we, in fact, did not get the product that we were 

required to receive. We did not get the lessons learned; we did not 

get the results of the project as were outlined in the contract. That 

was a single overarching contract that covered pretty much the 

whole of IPAWS at that particular time. 

We do not have any contracts like that now, and I do not plan 

on initiating any contracts like that. The management of the system is my responsibility and mine alone, and we will continue to 

do that, but I think there are times in the foreseeable future that 

we will need short-term contracts for specific parts of our system 

and what we are doing. 

Ms. NORTON. Out of the total number, there were reports on, did 

you say, 18? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There was some information available on 18 of 

28. It was not a lot of information. The status and deliverables 

were only partly available, according to the consultant, and a lot 

of the documentation that would help FEMA use the pilot projects 

to implement permanent solutions was simply not developed and 

moved forward either for their own use or for the use of the stakeholders. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Penn, within 30 days, the Subcommittee wants 

the figure of how much has been spent in total, recognizing that 

some of it might have been useful. 

Ms. NORTON. How much has been spent, total, on pilot projects? 

This Subcommittee wants notification ahead of—I mean, it is the 

separation of powers. You can do that if you want to do it. We want 

notification if you intend to do any pilot projects. We want to see 

what the pilot projects are for and what the deliverables will be 

and how you will enforce them. 

Do you intend to do any pilot projects in the future, in the near 

future? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. The program that I mentioned in 

Alaska, where we test the full system, is in fact a pilot project. 

Ms. NORTON. When is that going to be? 

Mr. PENN. That happens in January of next year. 

Ms. NORTON. In 30 days, we want to see it. We want to see what 

the plan is, how we will track it, how we will use it, why it was 

chosen. 

I am going to ask the Ranking Member, who has returned, if he 

has any questions before I finish my questions. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I know that 

you want to move along, so I will be brief. 

Ms. NORTON. Go right ahead. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Before the votes, we talked a little bit about 

this, but I want to kind of go back to it. 

The GAO in its report—and frankly, today’s testimony—highlighted the number of areas of concern about the EAS and IPAWS. 

25 

In particular, the GAO points to missed deadlines and to timelines 

and timetables; and we talked briefly about that. In fact, there appear to be a number of discrepancies between FEMA’s IPAWS and 

the implementation plan issued in June of this year and what 

FEMA’s previous timetables were; and I alluded to that before. 

For example, the current implementation plan includes a target 

date of 2010 for the GAO targeting capability, but FEMA’s previous 

timeline was 2007. The implementation plan anticipates an EAS 

link this year, but the previous FEMA timeline anticipated completion of these by, again, 2007. 

For the PEP stations, expansion is now slated for 2010 to 2011, 

as opposed to, previously, when it was supposed to be 2008. 

So, you know, how can you account for why the IPAWS program 

has failed to meet these deadlines? Obviously, we need your assurances that we will meet those timelines, and I think you have already given us those assurances, but—obviously, I think you understand the nature of these questions when you look at some of 

the specifics in the GAO report. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir. 

I think, again, part of our problems with the overall project management and the way we have done that and what we have and 

have not done, I think, as an organization, is that we have also not 

done a good job of capturing the lessons learned and all of the 

deliverables as mentioned earlier from the contracts that we have 

let. 

So my plan for that is more vigilant management of the system, 

and I will provide the status of where we are and updates to you 

quarterly, as I committed to earlier. 

I would like to say that everything is going to proceed on track 

and that there are not going to be any problems or any time slippages of any programs that we have to support IPAWS. But I do 

not think that is realistic. I think the way we manage those and 

how we handle those and how we make them work with the other 

parts of the program are what is critical to a favorable outcome of 

IPAWS. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, two more if I may. I know 

that you want to move forward, and I know we have the other witnesses. 

Look, I am not going to lie to you. I have to admit to you—and 

I told you this before—I feel better just with the fact that I do 

know your track record in Florida. And I also know the FEMA administrator well, and there is nobody better in the country. However, obviously, I think there has been demonstrated an urgency 

for this legislation to move forward, and I appreciate your committing to getting back to this Committee. 

Mr. Goldstein, I do not expect you to comment specifically on a 

bill—you know, whether you like it or you don’t. But could you 

comment, are some of your concerns dealt with in the legislation 

that the Chairwoman and I have been talking about today and that 

the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, has agreed to 

put into his bill, which is one that I have sponsored? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think that any effort to improve the accountability of FEMA to achieve the objectives and to be able to put together a program that runs effectively, that has goals and objecVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
26 

tives and an implementation plan that is provided not just to Congress but can be used by stakeholders to chart their own course, 

all of that is very helpful. Being able to communicate with the public and the stakeholders will be critical as well. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You also mentioned in your testimony—and I 

have it marked—you mentioned, obviously, that State and local 

governments are implementing warning systems which may be difficult to integrate with the broader system. 

Would it be fair to say that time is of the essence? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. I think one of the reasons that States 

have moved out on their own is because there has not been clear 

direction from FEMA over the last couple of years, and they have 

felt the urgency to do so on their own. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Just one or two more questions. 

You know, probably ever since 9/11, people think of terrorism, 

and the alert that they most don’t want to get would be one of 

those alerts. 

This Committee, as I indicated in my opening remarks, mainly 

deals with natural events. DHS, because of the all-hazards concept, 

should be particularly concerned with the slow movement here because DHS is fully involved in natural events as well. But what is 

the involvement of DHS with a system that has lagged so far behind after 9/11 when almost everybody was on alert to do better? 

For example, the GAO, if you look at that report, GAO was not 

able to document reporting requirements or performance measures 

that were mandated by FEMA or DHS. 

Are there now regular reporting requirements? Are there now 

regular performance measures? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chair, there will be, from my perspective, now 

that I am in the Chair. I am not sure what the reporting was in 

the past and how that worked, but it is certainly my intention 

to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let’s hear from Mr. Goldstein. 

What was it like before so we will know what a before-and-after 

would look like? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Madam Chair, it was very difficult for GAO to 

obtain any documentation about how the goals were established, 

what the goals were, what kind of—— 

Ms. NORTON. Were there goals? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There were some very vague goals that most 

people would not commonly refer to as ′′goals.′′ 

Ms. NORTON. Different from those protocols, for example, than 

Mr. Penn spread across the—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There were some very vague, general objectives 

for what a program would be; and they changed fairly quickly. 

There were no—we were not able to obtain any performance measures. Implementation plans over a long period of time did not exist, 

and again, general documentation that you would expect to see in 

the audit of any program simply was not available. 

27 

Ms. NORTON. So, Mr. Penn, I will not ask you what you have got. 

You see what you don’t have, and that is what the Committee is 

going to be looking for. 

GAO is going to be coming in. This is all about having an objective, outside evaluator. So they have got to be able to report to us 

on the performance goals, et cetera, the next time. 

Let me ask you about the training. It was very disconcerting to 

hear the stakeholders unable to use the existing system. 

In 2007, GAO recommended a training program. You mentioned 

that you are creating a training program. If you wanted to establish credibility with the stakeholders, probably the very best way 

to do it would be to offer training on what they have got now pending, what you are going to have, rather than saying, Oh, wait until 

you see these bells and whistles; then we will really train you. 

We think many of them don’t know how to proceed on the 

present, old-fashioned system. Would you tell us what you expect 

and how you expect training to be accomplished? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair. A number of solutions are available. 

We have just started working with the Emergency Management 

Institute, which is our controlling body that handles our training 

programs internally for emergency management. Within that, we 

have started to build a core structure with a number of courses 

that will be available online for emergency managers on the basics 

of how to work the system. 

Also, as we continue through our program model, we have several milestones for when we have to accomplish several training 

goals within that so that we keep the users on a level where they 

understand what kind of equipment we have and what they are 

supposed to do. 

So training is built into our long-term plan. Some will be electronic means training that they can access from the Internet, but 

some will be part of our emergency management training. Some 

are courses that already exist, and some are courses that we are 

going to have to add in the future. 

So we already have Federal-level courses for emergency managers. Adding parts into that curriculum as part of the solution 

and then adding specific courses for specific tasks is also part of 

the solution. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am trying to find out how people get trained 

on what you do now and then how you then build up to training 

on what you are putting into effect. So our information is that the 

lapse in communication from Washington and help from Washington means many people are pretty rusty with the present system. I am concerned about that because it is clearly going to take 

you a few years to get the system up. 

Could you get us, within 30 days, a continuum on training beginning with right now? 

Ms. NORTON. Now, some people will say, Well, that is one thing 

I know how to do. You can make people be trained, but if they 

know what they don’t know by saying, Look, this training is a— 

what do you call it when you have already been trained? 

Mr. PENN. Sustainment training. 

28 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, something like that that we recommend for 

even those of you who think you know the system, and then go forward from there. That is a way of saying, Look, we care about the 

stakeholders, and one of the reasons you see it is, now we are doing 

this training; even for those of you who are most advanced, there 

are some things that you probably need to know. 

I would just like to know what the continuum on training is, 

given the fact that there has been very little training. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, Madam Chair, and that is it exactly. 

The problem is sustainment training. I think we all do a good job 

of initial training when we field a new piece of hardware or software. But sustainment training is where you make your money, 

and that is the part we don’t do. 

Ms. NORTON. We were pleased to hear you talk about tests. You 

plan a working group to test the system. 

For the record, when do you believe the President’s EAS message 

will be able to reach the public? What is the end date for that, do 

you think? By that time, you will say it is—— 

Mr. PENN. For the record, Madam Chair, the end of fiscal year 

2010 is when I plan to do a nationwide end-to-end test. Part of that 

depends on the outcome that I have from Alaska, that I mentioned. 

As I said before, that not only gives us the information we need to 

know, if the system is functioning as we think it is functioning, but 

it also gives us the buy-in that we need from all of the stakeholders. 

Part of the problem in the past has been that the broadcast community was not willing to donate airtime to do a systemwide test 

because, regardless of when it is, that interrupts some portion of 

their programming. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t think you will have trouble saying, if we do 

a systemwide test based on your time frame, wherever you are— 

I can tell you, unquestionably, they interrupt right now. 

Would it be a test longer than that, than the one that beeps and 

goes out for, what can only be called a minute or so? 

Mr. PENN. No, Madam Chair, it would not necessarily have to be 

any longer, but it would not necessarily be at the time that they 

chose to do it. We could certainly do it at a time when it was not 

peak broadcasting. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, that is when they try to do a lot of them. I 

can tell you of somebody who has heard them in the dead of night 

here or, shall I say, the dead of morning. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I just cannot believe that if they thought there was 

a serious effort in Washington, that you alerted people that you 

were going to do this test—we have chosen it based on where you 

are at what tends to be the lowest viewer point, if that is what you 

want—you are not trying to see how many people are listening, 

right? 

It is hard to believe that if, by that time—you go through training, you have your advisory groups, and people have greater confidence—that you would get much resistance if you chose the time 

based on the time zone in which a particular locality is found. 

29 

Mr. PENN. That is my point exactly, Madam Chair. We have not 

given them the confidence in the system to this point so that they 

know that this time is well spent. And that is my challenge. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Goldstein and Mr. 

Penn. We have found this testimony to be very important and useful to us in reviving our own confidence that we are beginning to 

get something done. 

Thank you. You are excused. 

Ms. NORTON. I am now going to call Panel II. We will hear from 

you just as you are seated. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD MUTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MARYLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, STATE 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER, REISTERSTOWN, MARYLAND; JIM COLETTA, COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONER, 

DISTRICT 5, NAPLES, FLORIDA; TOM AXTELL, GENERAL 

MANAGER, VEGAS PBS, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; JUAN RAMON, 

REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND LISE HAMLIN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND STATE DEVELOPMENT, HEARING LOSS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, BETHESDA, MARYLAND 

Ms. NORTON. First, Richard Muth, Executive Director, Maryland 

Emergency Management Agency, State Emergency Operations 

Center. 

Mr. MUTH. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and Members of the Committee; and thank you for 

allowing me to discuss my concerns about the Emergency Alert 

System before your Subcommittee today. 

As you stated, my name is Richard Muth. I am the Director of 

Maryland Emergency Management Agency, and I am also here as 

a member of the National Emergency Management Association. 

Before being appointed to this position by Governor O’Malley in 

June of 2008, I spent 33 years as a first responder in Baltimore 

County, Maryland, including 15 years as the county’s Emergency 

Manager and Director of Homeland Security. So, today, I bring to 

you both a State emergency management director perspective and 

also a local emergency manager’s. 

My passion for the Emergency Alert System began in September 

of 2003 when the system failed the residents of Baltimore County 

as Tropical Storm Isabel was pounding the mid-Atlantic region. At 

approximately 9 p.m. the night of September 18, as Isabel was 

pushing water up the Chesapeake Bay, my office wrote an emergency alert message, urging residents of coastal areas of eastern 

Baltimore County to evacuate to higher ground. 

Unfortunately, the television stations decided not to air the 

broadcast immediately. Instead, they treated it as a press release, 

and ran the information on the 11 o’clock news. For some in the 

affected area, that was too late. By the time they were announcing 

evacuation recommendations on the late news, we were scrambling 

to get boats out to the stranded residents. 

We later learned that the broadcasters did not think it was appropriate to interrupt the regular programming to the entire Baltimore viewing area for a message affecting only a few dozen; but 

for the residents, it could have been life-or-death information. 

30 

Fortunately, none of the residents of that area were killed or seriously injured because of the flooding. However, the emergency response did make for some anxious moments for the residents, and 

it also risked the lives of the first responders who rescued them. 

Much of that could have been avoided if we could have depended 

on the media to broadcast the alert in a timely fashion, allowing 

people to safely evacuate. 

So, today, more than 6 years later, have things gotten any better? In some ways, yes. With technology, in Maryland, we have improved the system for distributing EAS messages. 

Back in 2003, the system in Maryland relied on, as you heard, 

what is known as the ′′daisy chain system′′; that is, alerts are first 

aired from larger stations and then carried by smaller ones. But if 

the primary station in that chain chooses not to air those messages, those below don’t receive them and don’t air any messages. 

Now, thanks to improved technology, we can notify a much larger portion of participating stations immediately, though a few still 

depend on the daisy chain system. Thanks to better coordination 

between my agency and the Maryland D.C. Delaware Broadcasters 

Association, I have more confidence that our State and local emergency managers, or my Agency, can get important messages out in 

a timely manner. 

Still, a State or local emergency manager nationally cannot depend on local radio and television stations to broadcast an emergency alert. That is because stations are not mandated to carry 

such broadcasts, although they would be required to broadcast a 

Presidential alert. 

There may be times that the President would be broadcasting 

lifesaving emergency information. In the global war on terror, for 

example, the President might be the right voice to calmly direct 

people across the Nation to take appropriate action in the face of 

an impending attack. 

But the vast majority of protective order messages are going to 

come from local and State emergency managers to warn the residents of impending floods, dam failures, chemical spills, and such. 

Without clear regulations requiring radio and television stations to 

broadcast State and local messages, we cannot be assured that the 

public will get the messages before it is too late. 

My written testimony contains a more detailed, technical description of the improvements we have made, a look at some of the improvements planned for the near future, along with some concerns 

about emerging technology and Federal regulations. But briefly 

here, let me offer several recommendations: 

First, because both the Federal Communications Commission 

and the Federal Emergency Management Agency control various 

aspects of the Emergency Alert System, delays have prevented 

needed regulations from being implemented in a timely manner. 

FEMA must adopt needed regulations, especially in regard to 

mandatory participation by broadcasters. While FEMA seems to be 

working towards enhanced public alerting in general, the progress 

is much too slow. The FCC, meanwhile, seems reluctant to allow 

the new procedures and technology capabilities that would make it 

easier to broadcast the right message to the right audience at the 

right time. 

31 

Second, leadership and coordination issues between FEMA and 

the FCC related to alerting systems must be resolved immediately, 

and the coordination needs to be communicated down to the State 

and local levels. 

Finally, we need funds to help pay for the continued operations 

of various systems, including not just EAS but other complementary services, such as various text, cell phone, reverse 911, and 

other existing technologies. 

We are just now learning that the Department of Homeland Security and some of the grants we receive from them are now being 

restricted to not be used for a continuation of service, which will 

also hamper the States and their ability to maintain these systems. 

Once again, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today, and any questions I will be more than glad 

to handle. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Muth. 

Jim Coletta, Collier County Commissioner, District 5, Naples, 

Florida. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart, you may want to introduce him. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you 

for this opportunity. 

I am glad to have the commissioner here. I have known the commissioner for a number of years, and I can tell you that I have personally witnessed—hopefully, what he will be talking about a little 

bit today. But I have witnessed this man go out there before the 

storms and after the storms, going door-to-door, individually, to try 

to make sure that people get the message. Because, unfortunately, 

in some areas, there is no other way to do it. 

And I have been a personal witness of that. It is a privilege to 

have him here. It is a pleasure to represent Collier County, but 

particularly when you have public servants like Commissioner 

Coletta and his colleagues in the commission. 

I will mention that the Director of Emergency Management for 

Collier County is also here, accompanying him—a great professional. 

There is a reason why Florida does the best job in the country, 

and it is because of individuals, as you well know, and leadership. 

And so it is great to have one of those individuals who shows great 

leadership and great caring here with us today. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. Coletta, with that kind of introduction, we expect great 

things of you and your testimony. 

Mr. COLETTA. I appreciate the kind words. I truly do. 

Madam Chair and Members of this Subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Jim Coletta, and I am an elected County Commissioner of District 5 of Collier County in southwest Florida. 

Naples is the county seat. However, I represent a district that covers a land area equal in size to Delaware; it includes the Big Cypress National Preserve and parts of Everglades National Park. 

One community in my district is Immokalee, which has a population of approximately 20,000 people. The 2000 Census identified 

71 percent of the population in Immokalee to be Latino, and I believe that that number has grown over the past decade. The per 

32 

capita income is only $8,576, and 40 percent of the population lives 

below the poverty line. 

Immokalee remains the center of the region’s agricultural industry. The farms of Immokalee produce a significant portion of the 

Nation’s produce and employ thousands of seasonal, or migrant, 

workers. 

I am here today to share with you my firsthand experience about 

the need for an improved public alert and warning system that can 

notify our citizens of a pending disaster. 

In the early morning hours of October 24, 2005, Hurricane 

Wilma, a Category 3 storm with winds of 120 miles an hour, made 

landfall in Collier County, the first hurricane to directly strike our 

community in 45 years. Thousands of county residents were impacted. Property damage was estimated to be in excess of $1.2 billion and, sadly, several deaths were attributed to the storm. 

While coastal Collier County was able to recover from Wilma in 

a relatively short period of time, thanks in part to good building 

codes that are strictly enforced, Immokalee, with its older homes 

and trailers that predated our building codes, took a major hit. 

That resulted in hardship for those residents. It was only by good 

planning by our emergency management team, led by Mr. Dan 

Summers, who has joined me here today, dedicated and hardworking government employees and the self-reliance of our citizens 

that recovery was achieved in a relatively short time. 

In the days and hours leading up to the storm, we found ourselves faced with the enormous challenge of trying to communicate 

to the residents of Immokalee the need to evacuate or seek shelter 

or take other protective measures, a problem that was compounded 

by the fact that it was harvest time, meaning that thousands of additional migrant laborers were in the community. 

The majority of the housing in Immokalee consisted of old trailers. It was evident that many of these trailers would not survive 

a major wind event, and these structures needed to be vacated, and 

the residents needed to be moved to public shelters at our local 

schools. 

The local media outlets were focused only on coastal Collier 

County where the bulk of the population lives, and on neighboring 

Lee and Charlotte Counties, with little information being provided 

to the residents of Immokalee, despite the best efforts of our emergency management office. 

There also existed at the time a weak communication structure 

between the commercial farms and local emergency management 

officials. The challenge became even more evident when commercial growers wanted to get in an additional day’s harvest prior to 

the landfall of storm-force winds, which was deemed to be too risky 

based upon the timing variables of the storm. 

Of course, our biggest challenge was the language barrier. Only 

one Spanish language radio station serves Immokalee, along with 

one weekly newspaper. The Spanish radio station was abandoned 

by its staff and was off the air the day leading up to the event. In 

an effort to reach out to the Immokalee residents, I enlisted the 

help of Spanish-speaking and Creole-speaking county employees 

and volunteers from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and officers from the sheriff’s department. We took to the streets of 

33 

Immokalee, going door-to-door, encouraging people to go to the public shelters before the storm arrived. 

I also wanted to persuade them not to work in the fields until 

dark, as usual, the day before the storm. Otherwise, they would 

miss the free bus transportation the county was providing to take 

them to the shelters, or they might find themselves arriving at the 

shelters, filled to capacity, during the storm event. 

It was very clear to me that the farm workers I encountered that 

day were unaware of the dangers facing them as the storm approached and were prepared to go to work in the fields. They had 

not understood the radio and TV weather forecast reports in 

English only. As I knocked on the doors with the interpreter at my 

side, I was utterly amazed to find that most people did not know 

a major hurricane was coming and did not know that their lives 

were in danger. Remember, this was less than 12 hours before the 

hurricane made landfall. 

Some workers ended up staying in the field until dark, but we 

were able to convince the sheriff’s office to keep the buses running 

to take the workers to available shelters, and fortunately, most 

people who wanted to get to a shelter managed to do so. 

The damage to Immokalee from Hurricane Wilma was enormous. 

The lessons learned from our Hurricane Wilma experience is that 

there has to be a better way to communicate emergency information to non-English-speaking communities. 

Our emergency management program has launched a number of 

initiatives to better serve the very unique challenge in the 

Immokalee area. One that seems very promising is called the 

Immokalee Recovery Coordination Group. It is a multiagency working group made up of the government agency’s social service entities and faith-based organizations that represent the diverse language and culture of the Immokalee community. When activated, 

they are responding to and coordinating recovery efforts. 

We are also publishing and distributing Spanish-language storm 

preparation guides, storm-preparedness CDs in Spanish and Creole, and have door-hanger emergency information available. We are 

utilizing churches and civic groups to communicate disaster outreach messages, and are developing plans to enhance public transportation resources. 

We are very experienced in southwest Florida in preparing for 

hurricanes. During 2004 and 2005, in addition to Wilma, we were 

also threatened by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, 

Dennis, Katrina, and Rita. I believe we have learned that all disasters are local and that no two disasters are the same for any community. 

Rural farm communities which enjoy a rural lifestyle face many 

challenges as it relates to communication and coordination. Ever 

since Hurricane Wilma impacted my district in 2005, we have witnessed the continued explosion of new technology that enables us 

to communicate with each other from virtually any place at any 

time. It would seem reasonable to expect government to be able to 

harness this technology in a way that can help people during times 

of crisis, especially those who have traditionally not been connected 

to so-called mainstream communication channels. 

34 

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not recognize Mr. Craig 

Fugate, the new FEMA Administrator. As you know, Craig served 

as the Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management 

under two governors, and did an outstanding job guiding the 

State’s preparedness and recovery efforts during the hurricanes, 

wildfires and other emergencies. I am certain he will do an excellent job for FEMA. 

Craig understands the critical need to communicate with citizens 

who may be in harm’s way, and we would certainly be grateful for 

any assistance that can be provided by our Federal Government to 

assist us in protecting lives and property during emergencies. 

Thank you. I would be glad top entertain any questions that you 

may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Coletta. 

The next witness is Tom Axtell, General Manager of Vegas PBS, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Mr. AXTELL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking 

Member, for inviting me to testify today and for having both the 

interest and quite a bit of passion on this subject. I am Tom Axtell, 

the General Manager of Vegas PBS. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If I may, we have a problem with the microphone. It looks like it is the same technology that we have. 

Mr. AXTELL. This is the problem for broadcasters. 

Well, I am Tom Axtell, the General Manager of Vegas PBS, and 

we run 100 percent of all of the NOAA announcements, AMBER 

Alerts, dust alerts, and other messages from our health department 

and other sources. 

Today, I am representing the Association of Public Television 

Stations and more than 360 public television stations across the 

Nation. I also have good experience in this area as a person who 

was downwind after Mount St. Helens erupted, and saw the role, 

both the good and the bad, broadcasters play in these situations. 

Mr. AXTELL. [Continuing.] When public television stations made 

their investment in digital transition equipment in the late 1990s, 

we quickly realized the significant advantages that digital technology could offer to education, public health, and public safety. 

Digital television’s bandwidth can be partitioned into multiple, simultaneous, wireless content streams, creating a system that can 

serve the public in many different ways at the same time. 

One of these ways is sending data that contains emergency information, training videos, maps or blueprints to enhance public safety. Public television’s congestion-free digital bandwidth is able to 

simultaneously support public alert and warning systems as well 

as encrypted networks to enable public safety and emergency management agencies to transmit vital information securely to personal 

computers, computers in police, fire, or ambulance vehicles, or computers connected to local area networks. 

In Las Vegas, this is done through the use of a small digital television receiver that we had manufactured and have installed in 

over 160 locations. This receiver was purchased and installed per 

vehicle for less than $300. 

When public television approached the Department of Homeland 

Security with a proposal developed in part by tests originating at 

our station in 2002, the Digital Emergency Alert System was born 

35 

through a cooperative interagency agreement. Deployed nationally 

as a part of the original DHS FEMA IPAWS plan, the infrastructure provides for a digital Presidential emergency alert and warning system to supplement the current broadcasters’ EAS. It also 

serves as the foundation that can facilitate governor and local authorities’ use of DEAS for State and local emergencies. 

At Vegas PBS, we worked with this system by securing grants 

to build out the DEAS technology to deal with the school emergencies, earthquakes, and other threats. We have blueprints, hazardous material locations, utility connections, and other information on over 400 public buildings residing on a data server in our 

facility. In a school emergency, we can send first responders vital 

medical information on medically fragile students, complete blueprints, authorize parent or guardian information to reunification 

centers, and other data. We also have fiber links to the State’s 

emergency data center with similar information on over 2,500 critical infrastructure sites they have identified and catalogued. 

Other local public television stations in the communities we 

serve across the country can replicate the successes we have had 

in Las Vegas with this system with appropriate assistance from 

Congress. I would like to offer two recommendations on behalf of 

public television that can enhance the national alert and warning 

system as well as public television’s local emergency response capabilities in this area. 

First, a renewed focus on IPAWS by Congress, which you have 

so ably demonstrated today, is essential to ensure the quality and 

reliability of Federal alert and warning systems. The legislation introduced by the Chairwoman and Ranking Member in H.R. 2591 

takes the right approach. We greatly appreciate being included in 

the IPAWS Modernization Advisory Committee as public television 

believes it can offer a unique perspective on these issues. 

Second, the WARN Act made funding available to stations to provide the equipment necessary to send geotargeted messaging and 

to allow for better bandwidth allocation management. This will enhance stations’ ability to create local alert and warning systems. 

However, those funds are currently being held at NTIA, awaiting 

coordination with FEMA. We urge this Committee to request that 

FEMA work with NTIA to expedite the release of these funds in 

order to enhance the buildout of DEAS. 

Tomorrow will be the third anniversary when the bill authorizing 

the release of these funds was signed by the President. This week’s 

headlines have featured fearful stories of people who were allegedly 

acquiring chemicals for potential subway bombings. It is clear to 

me that alert and warning cannot be put on hold or delayed. 

Again, thank you for inviting me today to describe public television’s alert and warning capabilities. I look forward to answering 

any of your questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Axtell. 

The next witness, Juan Ra ́mon, Representative of NFIB, which 

is a grassroots organization devoted to migrant workers. We have 

with him a translator. What is your name, sir? 

Mr. WESLEY. Good afternoon, Representative. My name is Carlos 

Wesley. 

36 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, sir. If you would be kind enough to 

translate, we would appreciate it. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. RA ́MON. Good afternoon. My name is Juan Ra ́mon, and I am 

a community leader with the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, or FIOB. 

I have worked with the indigenous community in California for 

10 years. I myself come from an indigenous community in Oaxaca, 

Mexico. FIOB provides support to indigenous farm workers who 

come from Mexico and Central America. We help them meet their 

basic needs and we educate them about their rights. 

I want to thank Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton and 

Mario Diaz-Balart for inviting me. 

In my testimony, I will talk a little about the experiences of the 

farm workers during the 2007 wildfires in San Diego, and I will 

also offer some recommendations. 

I would like to begin by giving you a brief idea about the farm 

workers in San Diego. They come from southern Mexico seeking agricultural work. They sleep under plastic tents in the mountains of 

San Diego without electricity or running water. They live in the 

hills because they can’t afford to pay rent. Their biggest barrier is 

language since they only speak indigenous languages. 

The October 2007 wildfires posed a great danger to San Diego. 

The fires threatened the areas where the farm workers live and 

work. We knew we had to physically go where they were. The 

workers already know us and they trust us because we speak their 

languages. In the places where they live, it is hard to get news 

from TV or radio; their only means of communication are cell 

phones, but sometimes those do not work because their phone 

cards run out or they have been unable to charge their phones. 

That is why we always have to be with them. 

When we got to the field, we asked people to leave. The fire was 

a mile away from the field and the air was filled with smoke. I 

spoke to them in Mixteco. I told them the fire was dangerous and 

that they should protect their lives and their health, and that we 

have found shelters for them. We were there for about 12 hours to 

ensure that if the fire changed direction, the farm workers would 

have a means of escape. Some were willing to go to the shelter, others did not. Ten of them did not come with us because they were 

afraid of losing their jobs or fear of immigration authorities. We advised them not to return to their homes because the fires were too 

close. They decided to sleep under the tomato plants. 

We were very concerned about the safety of the farm workers 

who were going to spend the night. We brought them sleeping bags 

and prepaid telephone cards, $5 worth. The next day, we returned 

at 6 a.m. To check on the farm workers, and we were there with 

them from 6 a.m. To 6 p.m. For a whole week. Most of the time 

it was only my organization that was communicating with the farm 

workers. 

We saw one of the bosses from the ranch, a fire chief, and people 

from the Mexican Consulate. The consulate tried to advise them to 

leave. The fire chief did not talk to the farm workers. 

37 

Many farm workers experienced itchy throats and watery eyes. 

I took them to a clinic where they were given free medical treatment. Fortunately, none of the farm workers was seriously injured. 

We learned from this experience how to better prepare ourselves 

for the future. There are some recommendations I wish to offer to 

the Committee regarding how to improve communications with indigenous communities and with other difficult to communicate 

groups. 

First, local governments should partner with community organizations. We already know how to communicate with our people and 

to make sure that the emergency message gets to them. During an 

emergency, we can inform the local government about what is happening, and we can also transmit messages from the government 

to our communities. 

Two, help the community to organize itself. We want to organize 

groups and leaders. During an emergency, each leader will be responsible for their group. 

Three, support natural disaster preparedness education as to 

what to do and where to go. Use photos and videos to help the understanding of those who do not read or write. 

Four, local governments make a small investment in organizations such as ours so we can help the government to help save 

lives. 

Cell phones were used during the 2007 wildfires, but that was 

not enough. Text messages are a big step forward and could help 

in communicating with people who speak languages other than 

Mixteco. 

We recommend that the Committee pursue other options. Six, 

one such other option could be to use radio, television. We can 

reach many indigenous people through radio and TV programs. For 

example, we could alert them to the H1N1 epidemic. These proposals will help improve the emergency alert system for all communities. 

This is all. You already have a copy of my testimony, and it includes more detail, so you can read it. Many thanks. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Ra ́mon. 

Finally, Lise Hamlin, Director of Public Policy and State Development, Hearing Loss Association of America. 

Ms. HAMLIN. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member DiazBalart, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 

and provide testimony on behalf of Hearing Loss Association of 

America and approximately 37 million Americans with some kind 

of hearing loss. 

I am Lise Hamlin. I amthe Director of Public Policy and State 

Development for Hearing Loss Association. 

I have a significant hearing loss myself and have experienced 

emergency alerting issues from a very personal perspective. I 

would also like to thank the Committee for providing the captions 

that are appearing here. It has helped me participate in this hearing, too. 

Now, as part of my job, I have delivered presentations around 

the country about emergency preparedness for people with hearing 

loss. Over and over, I have heard stories about emergency situations that were more difficult, more frightening, even life-threatVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
38 

ening because of communication difficulties during emergencies. 

And I have been there. 

On September 11, 2001, I was in my office in Manhattan when 

the World Trade Center was hit. My coworkers’ first reaction was 

to turn on the television; when we did, we found the news was not 

captions. Now, for me, it wasn’t as much of a problem because my 

coworkers interpreted for me. But for people who had no access to 

captions who were alone, it meant being isolated at a very scary 

time. 

Then I moved to the D.C. area around 2002, just before the sniper attacks. Now, when television programming was interrupted 

with breaking news about the shootings at gas stations or in malls 

or near schools, people with hearing loss were left behind. Now, 

those stories that were not captioned, they told us, because they 

were not obligated to because EAS had not been triggered. I guess 

what that means is that people with hearing loss don’t deserve to 

have access to the same information at the same time as everyone 

else. 

So when I am asked, will EAS deliver the President’s message 

to people with hearing loss, I wish I could give you a confident yes, 

but if a major disaster happened tomorrow, I cannot say with certainty that people with hearing loss will have received the message 

in an accessible way. 

Just this month, a woman from Kansas City, Missouri wrote me 

saying, Recently, the weather sirens went off, and the local station 

I was watching interrupted the news to report the storm, but without captions. I was left not knowing just what was happening, and 

I ended up calling the police to find out. I may be old, but I am 

still interested in the local news, and I also feel very unsafe in a 

bad storm. Now, when I asked that woman if I could use her story, 

she said yes, but don’t bother about the name; I am not looking for 

fame, I just need help being able to keep up with the world. And 

that is all this community wants; we want to be able to keep up 

with the world just like everyone else. 

Now, we know technology has changed dramatically since 9/11, 

and people who are hard of hearing or deaf have embraced this 

new technology eagerly. We use text messaging to a greater degree 

than most people, except perhaps teenagers; they may have us 

beat. But we need to exploit this new technology. We need emergency messages that reach each and every mobile device directly. 

We need e-mails and Internet messages that be can accessed instantly. We need research on what makes these emergency messages understandable. We need video emergency messages that are 

posted online with open captions in addition to sign language 

versions for those who need that. 

We need our States and local communities to have the capacity 

and policy in place to caption their streamed videos just as we need 

the national messaging system to support that. And we need broadcasters who post videos online to caption those videos. And if it is 

an official who is talking with a sign language interpreter right 

next to them, why can’t we get an angle that shows them both so 

people who need both can get that? That just makes sense. 

We also need to think about redundancy just as emergency managers will tell us. When the power goes out, many people can turn 

39 

to portable televisions or their radios, but for people with hearing 

loss, that won’t work. There is no requirement for captioning on 

televisions smaller than 13 inches, so we have no access to portable 

television and no access to radio. We need to change the rules so 

that smaller televisions and smaller devices altogether will be able 

to be captioned. And we need to support projects like the National 

Public Radio’s project to make captioned radio a reality. 

We also need to support all the recommendations coming out of 

the National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH on the access 

to emergency alerts. And there has been research coming out of 

Gallaudet’s RERC that has also been very valuable to help us get 

the access alerts we need, as well as through NIDRR, the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. 

At a time when there is so much in the way of new research, new 

technology that offers hope to people with hearing loss, we find 

that we are frustrated that these new technologies are not being 

exploited in the way they could be. People with hearing loss find 

their needs are often forgotten or remembered after the fact. We 

need for that to change. We need to be included right from the 

start. 

Hearing Loss Association stands ready to work with you to provide information and resources as well as to get the word out to 

consumers. We have a list of recommendations, which, for the sake 

of time, I will let you see in the written testimony. But we thank 

you for this opportunity to provide our testimony, and we urge you 

to take the steps necessary to ensure people with hearing loss get 

all the information they need when they need it. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Hamlin. 

Let us move on to questions. As a courtesy, I will ask Mr. DiazBalart if he wants to proceed first. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Let me thank all of you for your testimony. 

I have really just one question—and I asked the same question 

of the GAO, I will ask in different words. In your opinion—and I 

think, Mr. Axtell, you already mentioned it, but do you think that 

time is of the essence to move forward? And do you think that this 

legislation would be a positive step? And how much of a positive 

step in dealing with some of these issues? 

And whoever wants to deal with that, all of you, however the 

Chairwoman would like to deal with that. And that is all I would 

have at this stage. 

Mr. COLETTA. Congressman, if I may go first. Once again, thank 

you very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

Anything that you can enter into this mix to be able to get more 

information out to the public in a timely fashion would be extremely welcome. I don’t think there is ever such a thing as too 

much redundant information going out at a time of emergency. 

I would welcome any opportunities. If you can possibly move this 

bill forward this year, beautiful; if you can’t, we will support you 

next year, whatever it takes. 

Ms. NORTON. Any of the rest of you have anything to add to that 

answer? 

40 

Mr. AXTELL. We would strongly support public television advancement of this bill, and also the expenditure of funds from the 

WARN Act that have already been authorized. I think that will 

greatly strengthen the system. 

I would like to just point out, technology is going to keep changing. We are now, in Las Vegas, building on a new 4G network. 

IPAWS shouldn’t wait for the 4G network or the next computer 

card or the next thing. We need a system that we can deploy today 

for the next hurricane or earthquake or whatever the disaster is. 

And then as these new things come along, if they are CAP compliant and so on, we will be able to wire them into a system of systems. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. On the issue of the WARN Act, both the Chairwoman and I took note of that, so we will be working on that. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

I tore out the testimony of Mr. Muth where—we are pretty close 

to where you are, sir, as kind of a classic example where the stations decided not to air—apparently didn’t have to—the storm Isabel message. They didn’t want to interrupt their broadcast for the 

entire Baltimore County and area. And you can understand they 

are afraid somebody will switch from 24 to something else by the 

technology they don’t even have. They argued that it only would affect a few dozen homes or so. 

Do you think that the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, as it is called, as it is being built out, would take care of that 

problem? What would you have the Federal Government do otherwise with respect to an emergency that is confined to an area and 

with respect to what the broadcasters should be required to do? 

Mr. MUTH. Yes, ma’am. First of all, I am not familiar with 

IPAWS. I have very little, if any, knowledge of the system at all. 

We haven’t been too engaged in the process. But regarding the 

problem we had in 2003 with—— 

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. You are not familiar with IPAWS 

at all? 

Mr. MUTH. No, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. No one has ever contacted you to bring you into the 

system? 

Mr. MUTH. No, ma’am. Not me personally, anyway. 

Ms. NORTON. Or your agency, the Maryland Emergency Management? 

Mr. MUTH. I was asking that question the other day preparing 

for this. They have been involved with two conference calls, but 

that has been about it. That has been the total engagement. 

Ms. NORTON. This is one of the reasons we are having this hearing today. If you don’t have the buy-in of an emergency management system located on the cusp of one of the centerpieces of the 

target, then you have lost the confidence of all of us. We are aware 

of how advanced your own system is, so it is important to get on 

the record. 

Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. MUTH. Yes, ma’am. So I think our problem in 2003—and I 

would have the same concerns today—is, once again, that the 

broadcasters are not mandated to send anything out that is from 

41 

the State or the local jurisdictions since, as was said earlier, there 

has never been a Presidential declaration on using the EAS system. They have always been used at the State or local level. Without that mandate, it leaves us hanging in never really knowing for 

sure whether these messages are reaching the public or not. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, wait a minute. Now, the broadcasters—that 

is why I am asking you what should the Federal Government do. 

The broadcasters are obviously mandated to do what is very, very, 

very, very, very—and put a lot of verys out there—rare. And so 

what is it that you think the Federal Government should mandate 

with respect to such territorial or area matters? 

Mr. MUTH. From my perspective, both from local and State, I 

would still say that the FCC needs to mandate that the licensed 

broadcasters have no option, that if the message is alerted from a 

public official—— 

Ms. NORTON. Because we are talking about a message of how 

long? Let’s be clear. 

Mr. MUTH. Thirty seconds. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that too much to ask, is all I can say, if it were 

to save one life or one injury? Why, in a country where we are supposed to care somewhat for our neighbor, would that be too much 

to ask? So that is important. 

Is there anyone who disagrees with that? Do you think that even 

though it may be confined to an area within an area within an 

area, do you think it is too much to ask 30 seconds for everybody? 

Now, the reason I say everybody is because if it is not everybody, 

somebody is going to try to get the run-on of somebody who is taking 30 seconds out from his broadcast in order to hope that it will 

use that remote. So do you think it has to be a universal requirement in order to be effective? 

Mr. MUTH. Yes, ma’am. With the present technology, I certainly 

do because it is the only tool we have. We can’t do immediate notifications without such a tool. 

Ms. NORTON. And there is no way to geotarget a national system 

like that. 

Yes, Mr. Axtell. 

Mr. AXTELL. Well, I am not sure I should speak on behalf of all 

the broadcasters in the entire country, but I can certainly say on 

behalf of our station and I think most public broadcasters that we 

take these alerts very seriously. In the State of Nevada, we were 

concerned that many, many, many people at a whole level of decisions would want to access broadcasting for messages that may 

seem important to them, but in the scope of things, may or may 

not be. And so our State has a policy where the State police can 

initiate an initiative so there is some secondary look at the scale 

and scope of the issue. So we get Presidential alerts, we get local 

alerts. And we have made the decision locally that if our health department says that after a forest fire in Los Angeles comes in and 

threaten people with asthma or other lung problems, we will run 

those alerts as well. 

So I don’t really have a problem with alerts from bona fide people who have perspective being mandatory—although I am not 

speaking for the industry per se. It is just philosophically I agree 

with you. 

42 

Ms. NORTON. I can understand how those in the immediate area 

might be required to issue an alert with greater frequency. But for 

one of us to get a zap to let us know that there is a very serious 

event occurring in our country. I mean, I wanted to know that 

American Samoa—I don’t think I will ever go there, it is very far 

away, but one-time alert to the Continental United States, if everybody has got that alert, I don’t see the argument. And I am open 

to it if anyone does for not taking 30 seconds to issue an alert. Why 

wouldn’t they, if anything, instill confidence that if you get in trouble there is going to be a similar alert, and therefore the system 

works? 

Mr. MUTH. Yes, ma’am. And I would like to counter Mr. Axtell 

only in that I certainly appreciate the concerns of the broadcasters. 

What I can’t agree to is that I, as the emergency manager for the 

State of Maryland, as appointed by the Governor, would be secondguessed by anybody as to the issuance of a message that I think 

that goes out. And the same as a local emergency manager; if that 

person deems this message is important enough, then it should be 

pushed. It shouldn’t be thought about as to somebody else who is 

not in that position to make that call makes those decisions. 

Ms. NORTON. Because this was in your local area. 

Mr. MUTH. Yes, ma’am, it was in my county. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is hard to understand the justification in the 

affected area. 

Mr. MUTH. And they can’t isolate that. And I will be the first to 

say that, they can’t isolate it just to the 20 square miles that we 

had impacted by the storm, and I certainly understand that. 

Ms. NORTON. Because they broadcast to how many square miles? 

Mr. MUTH. Many. These are major stations, so I am sure they 

handle a large part of the State. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Coletta. 

Mr. COLETTA. Yes, thank you again. 

If I may, I have had a little bit of experience with emergency 

management. I got involved well before I was a commissioner with 

a local emergency management director that came up with a couple 

of programs that I helped develop with him. I went for FEMA 

training two different summers in Emmitsburg, Maryland. I can 

tell you, for the most part, local control is the essence. If we wait 

for anything to come down from upstairs, State or Federal, it is 

going to be too late to react. We need to have clear channels to be 

able to work across. We need to be able to work on a local level. 

We know what the people need. But the problem is you don’t always have the mechanism to be able to reach out when you need 

to. So it is not so much who the communicators are, we know who 

they should be, they should be local people sitting on top of the situation. The problem is, is how do you get the communications out 

to all the different medians that are out there? What Federal requirements can be put out there to make this possible in a meaningful way? 

Ms. NORTON. Well, but you see there seems to be agreement that 

at least the 30-second warning should be on there. Now, Mr. Muth, 

you want that mandated, but at the same time you say in your testimony it is vital that States are allowed to manage their own EAS 

requirements. Well, what was the State of Maryland’s requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
43 

ment? And did it have a requirement that the county carry this life 

and death message for at least some residents of the county? 

Mr. MUTH. We internally, ma’am, have the procedures and processes, but once again, we don’t own the TV stations or radio stations, so once it got to them they chose not to push it. There is 

nothing we can do about that. 

Ms. NORTON. That is where the Federal matter comes in. We 

don’t own them, but we regulate them. 

Mr. MUTH. You license them. 

Ms. NORTON. And as long as the Federal Government doesn’t say 

you have to carry it—— 

Mr. MUTH. They are going to decide whether they want to or not. 

Ms. NORTON. And they will be the first one out there after the 

damage occurs. They will be on the ground saying you poor thing, 

and send some stuff to all of you people, but not to warn them in 

the first place. 

Mr. MUTH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So we will be working very closely with the FCC 

to make sure this coordination takes place. 

Mr. AXTELL. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to also point out 

that the WARN Act provided for geotargeting emergency messages, 

and that is exactly the complaint that you say the Maryland broadcasters were concerned about. So in our case, we have a broadcast 

and translator network that is about 380 miles north to south. We 

currently run emergency messages for snow emergencies in one of 

our counties even when it is 80 degrees in Las Vegas. We just do 

that because we carry every emergency message that we are asked 

to carry. But if we had geotargeting, we would just carry it in 

White Pine County, or a county like that, and not disrupt the viewing in Las Vegas. That is part of what the WARN Act permitted, 

and I think that would vastly increase voluntary compliance. But 

I am not arguing that you shouldn’t have mandatory compliance 

for bona fide emergency messages. 

Ms. NORTON. It was very concerning to me to hear your testimony, Mr. Coletta, and Mr. Ra ́mon’s testimony. I would like to understand, first of all, what percentage or portion of the population 

of the State of Florida is Spanish-speaking at this point? 

Mr. COLETTA. I am sorry, Madam Chairman, but I really can’t 

answer that question. I know in Collier County it is about 24 percent that speaks Spanish. That doesn’t mean Spanish is their only 

language, it means it is their main language. 

Ms. NORTON. You heard some promising testimony about a national test finally getting a test where we could have data and it 

would be written down so it could be checked, et cetera. If we were 

to do a test and it did not include ways to reach people such as 

those Ms. Hamlin testified about, people with special disabilities, 

did not reach people who speak a different language, could that be 

considered a test of a national system? 

Mr. COLETTA. It could be. 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about the national-level exercise that 

we are working our way up to. Suppose you did a national-level exercise in English for people who have no special disabilities, what 

would that mean? Would that be an exercise? I think that is the 

way they do it now. 

44 

Mr. COLETTA. How you reach them is going to have to be one 

heck of a clever way, possibly through their cell phone. As far as 

reaching the people who speak a minority language, that was the 

big difficulty, and that is what drew me to Immokalee rather than 

going to other areas in Collier County that were being well served 

by the media at the time. I knew there was going to be a lack of 

communications there. How you reach them, in our case, was door 

to door because there was no other way available to be able to 

reach them. 

Ms. NORTON. But have you had a real test since then—— 

Mr. COLETTA. No. 

Ms. NORTON. When I say a real test, you have almost constant 

storms of one kind of another. Since, was it Isabel? 

Mr. COLETTA. To be honest with you, since then they were fairly 

minor storms that didn’t require—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you have begun to have relations with organizations like Mr. Ra ́mon’s, so would you have to go door to door next 

month—— 

Mr. COLETTA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. —to reach people who speak Spanish as their first 

language? 

Mr. COLETTA. Yes. If I may, we put together a mechanism in 

place so that I personally don’t have to mobilize a large number of 

people. 

Ms. NORTON. But you have some people who would mobilize? 

Mr. COLETTA. I mobilize them in a manner of like an 8-hour period. 

Ms. NORTON. But we still don’t have any way to communicate 

through IPAWS, or through even the kind of system that Mr. 

Axtell is talking about. You have to have people on the ground in 

the storm to reach the people who would be disproportionately affected precisely because of their language or because of their disability? 

Mr. COLETTA. The only thing that we have going for us other 

than door to door is a low-intensity FM station that the Coalition 

of Migrant Workers has. It is an organization. It is a low-intensity 

station that they reach a certain number of the population out 

there. We can run emergency warnings through there. The only 

problem is that they don’t reach everyone. It is a limited clientele 

that they are reaching. 

At the last storm it was in place. The first thing it did, the antenna blew down and then the power went out. I got them a generator from emergency management, and they ran out of the tank of 

gas that came with it. No gas was available in the area, so I got 

a local marina to give them gasoline to get them back on the air. 

But, once again, this was a local initiative. Other than that radio 

station that was willing to stay there, the regular radio station, the 

commercial radio station abandoned their post at the time of the 

storm before the storm even got there. 

Ms. NORTON. Suppose Mr. Ra ́mon and people like him had cell 

phone devices or other similar devices, could the State, instead of 

sending out professional personnel who may not be close to the particular area, could the State deputize people in grassroots organizations, by supplying them with devices so that they who may be in 

45 

the fields, who may be in the trailers, who, when trained, could indeed go out and do the job? And would Mr. Ra ́mon and organizations like his be willing to take on that function if trained and if 

given the devices to inform them while we are getting a whole new 

system up? 

Mr. COLETTA. Madam Chair, you are right on target. What I can 

tell you is that, other than 4 years ago when I was dealing with 

a situation, today just about every migrant laborer has a cell 

phone. 

Ms. NORTON. They are already equipped, if we just have people 

who follow through. 

Mr. COLETTA. We need to be able to have some system to be able 

to reach out to them. They have a reverse calling system, the sheriff department does in Collier County. The only problem is it won’t 

reach cell phones. 

Ms. NORTON. So what good is it? Everybody has a cell phone. 

Mr. COLETTA. It is good for a lot of reasons, but not for something like this. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you could equip Mr. Ra ́mon and people like 

him with whatever is required, just like people walk around with 

walkie-talkies these days still. 

Mr. COLETTA. That would work, yes. But cell phones are something you carry as part of your person; a walkie-talkie, you are not 

going to carry it around. You are not going to carry a small AM/ 

FM radio. 

Ms. NORTON. What did you say the problem was with cell 

phones? 

Mr. COLETTA. The problem was is that the technology, as we understand it at this point in time, makes it very difficult. A lot of 

these track phones are not quite the high-tech phones that a lot of 

us own today that we can instant message each other. 

Ms. NORTON. That is why I am looking—understanding that I 

am looking for what happens between now and the time IPAWS 2, 

3 or 4, whatever you want to call it, gets up because we haven’t 

gone beyond one, to tell you the honest to goodness truth. 

Mr. COLETTA. Madam Chair, I think you found your mission in 

life. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Ra ́mon needs, and his folks, in the interim, need an interim strategy. And we need to advise FEMA 

what to do while they are getting it up, particularly in Mr. DiazBalart’s State. What did he say, 2010, or whenever. We have got 

to know what Mr. Ra ́mon can do or people like him can do who are 

on the ground now other than you go out there yourselves—— 

Mr. COLETTA. One of the first things, if I may suggest, Madam 

Chairman, is that I would allow Mr. Ra ́mon and some members of 

his community attend the training sessions that FEMA offers in 

Emmitsburg. That would be a tremendous start. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Ra ́mon, has anyone in your organization 

or in any local organization concerned with migrant workers or 

Latino workers ever been invited to attend any session that would 

train you on how to contact people in your community about a coming disaster? 

Mr. RA ́MON. No. 

46 

Ms. NORTON. Would you be willing to act on behalf of emergency 

management officials if you were equipped to do that contact work, 

people on the ground, people like yourselves, people in the organization? 

Mr. RA ́MON. Of course, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know how to do these things sitting here 

trying to think of commonsense ways to fill the gap. It will not be 

acceptable to say, ‘well, they knew we were working.’ Well, whoever 

sends the storms doesn’t care, so it does seem to me imperative. I 

am going to ask staff to contact FEMA because I did not ask FEMA 

what you are going to do in the meantime. As far as I am concerned, Katrina is in the meantime. And the notion of the Federal 

Government saying, ‘well, my Lord, we were 30 percent of the way 

through, what do you expect of us?’ We expect you to have, and 

staff, what I want to know is, in the absence of any way to communicate to Mr. Ra ́mon and his fellow members of his organization, 

even as we heard how well they are doing with plans to get up, 

we need to know what to do until then. Makeshift as this may 

sound, that is how we have done it in this country all along. What 

do you think they did 100 years ago? You carried the word, you did 

what you could. I don’t know what to tell you, but if they are reaching out, as they claim—reaching out means not only look what we 

are going to have when we have this spanking new wonderful system, it means that the Federal Government and FCC and local and 

State governments have a responsibility for public safety in between doing whatever you have to do, because that becomes extremely important with respect to Ms. Hamlin and Mr. Ra ́mon. 

Ms. Hamlin, I am not sure what you would suggest as interim 

measures, but I would like to hear anything in the meantime regarding interim measures you think might be of use to the groups 

you represent. 

Ms. HAMLIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We have seen a few things work. We have seen Homeland Security give grants in this particular area, in the D.C. area, that provide text messaging about local events, which has been pretty effective. What the problem has been, I just received an e-mail last 

night from a person in California who had signed up for text alerts 

about tsunamis because she is concerned about what effects on the 

Pacific, and she got an alert that basically was impossible to read. 

She didn’t know what to do. 

She got an alert, but she didn’t know what to do. So we need 

more research to figure out what do you say when you get an alert. 

Because what is happening is ad hoc, the firefighter on the job is 

now sending out text messages. So that is a problem. 

The other problem, I am concerned when people talk about 

knocking on doors because people with hearing loss may not hear. 

I have heard situations where emergency managers have gone 

down the street with bull horns and people have been inside and 

not known what is going on. 

So my community, like what we just heard about cell phone use, 

we have access to text messages. In fact, in Maine also, Maine had 

a program specifically for people with hearing loss where they gave 

people an option of getting a NOAA radio, a NOAA weather radio 

or getting a PDA, something that would allow them to speak back 

47 

and forth so that they would get specific emergency alerts in Maine 

because they knew that the cell phones wouldn’t reach all areas. 

So they had a program with a grant which gave them the NOAA 

radios they would need so they would get those emergency alerts. 

So these are some of the ways, but even though States are 

strapped for money, it is very hard to get up a system like this unless they get money from Homeland Security or FEMA or some 

form of money to let the States know, some way for the States to 

get this up and running. 

Ms. NORTON. One of the things we will be questioning FEMA 

about are the existing CERT teams, because apparently what we 

have is a system that has some technology in place, some way to 

contact people, the average person and a person who speaks 

English, but incorporating people with disabilities or—and here is 

where you really get interesting—people who speak a different language. Now, the fastest growing group of such people of course is 

Spanish-speaking. But think about what your country is becoming; 

a patchwork of people who speak all kinds of languages. Hey, look, 

that is what you are, that is what you are going to have to do, or 

else the injuries and the deaths will be disproportionate; we know 

exactly where they will be. 

I don’t understand, Mr. Coletta, where you said the media outlets 

were focused only on coastal Collier County, where the bulk of the 

population lives, neighboring Lee and Charlotte Counties, with real 

information being provided to the residents of Immokalee, despite 

the best efforts of the emergency management office. I mean, 

doesn’t the media outlet go to those places? What does it mean 

when it says little outreach? Doesn’t it reach those places? What 

is the problem? 

Mr. COLETTA. Well, the problem is very simple. Once again, it 

has to do with the division of language. Yes, Immokalee receives 

television, they have several stations, they have radios, but just 

about everything comes across in English. They weren’t picking up 

on it. And that is why there were so many people that were not 

aware of what was happening. It is that simple. I mean, there have 

been some things that have taken place since then—of course we 

are talking 4 years ago, and we are trying to improve what we can 

as far as our communication infrastructure goes—but there is still 

a big gap in there, and it has to deal with the people that do not 

speak English. They just cannot get the message at this point in 

time. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that people who don’t speak English, or people 

like the people where Mr. Ra ́mon is who are located where they 

may be away from radio and TV? I mean, the State is full of Spanish-speaking people. How about those people? 

Mr. COLETTA. Well, we are talking different elements here. My 

element is very similar to what Mr. Ra ́mon referred to. We are 

talking about laborers who are coming into this country that only 

speak Spanish, that are concentrating on one thing; that is, trying 

to make enough money to be able to survive and to maybe send a 

little bit back home again. They are a very narrow scope of people. 

Generally, Spanish-speaking people that are permanent residents 

within the community have picked up enough English, they underVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\52609 JASON
48 

stand what is taking place, there doesn’t seem to be that kind of 

a problem. 

Ms. NORTON. Are Spanish-speaking stations tuned into this system the way other stations are, giving the emergency alerts and 

the rest? 

Mr. COLETTA. For the most part, yes, but in this one case in 

Immokalee, and that is what prompted me to go there to try to—— 

Ms. NORTON. What was up with them? 

Mr. COLETTA. Well, what happened was the station was abandoned. 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about the station—you said the stations that mostly were tuned to the—— 

Mr. COLETTA. Well, I am talking about the regular commercial 

television stations, radio stations, English-speaking stations. 

Ms. NORTON. I see. Well, what about English-speaking stations 

located in areas where there may be a significant Spanish-speaking 

population and a significant English-speaking population, what are 

they supposed to do with the EAS alert? 

Mr. COLETTA. I couldn’t answer that, why they don’t put it across 

in Spanish other than the fact that they probably don’t see a need 

for it. I don’t know what the requirement is. 

Ms. NORTON. Should that be mandated? As long as you are doing 

it for 30 seconds? 

Mr. COLETTA. It would be even better if there was some way to 

be able to separate the bandwidth where you could have a person 

just dial up a different language, any language, it doesn’t have to 

be Spanish, it could being Vietnamese, and they would be able to 

hear that translation take place. Now, I just read a little bit of 

some of the literature I received coming here ahead of time that 

something like this is in the works. I don’t know where it is. So 

I am just making that a suggestion of where to go. 

If you try to divide an established television station or radio station into English and Spanish in a time of emergency, I have no 

idea what the outcome would be. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, somebody has to figure that out because it is 

not enough to have it on Spanish-speaking stations and Englishspeaking stations. Hispanics learn English just like that. It is 

amazing how bilingual they are, especially since the rest of us are 

so dumb we can hardly speak English. So they are going to be 

quite able, millions of them. 

Ms. NORTON. But when you have got that kind of mixture, Federal guidance, it seems to me, itis going to be necessary for people 

to know what to do, since they do not want to do any of it. 

Mr. MUTH. Ma’am, if I can, even in the State of Maryland, in 

Baltimore County—the county I came from—we have a very strong 

Russian community, and so they will never end. I mean the communities are there. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, but you know, we may get to the point where 

there has to be dialogue. You know, if you come from New York 

City, heaven help you. We are not here to facilitate down to the 

lowest common denominator, but if there is information out here 

saying you can find out what that says and if you are dealing with 

the largest groups, just like, you know, you have Christmas—you 

know, if you are in New York, you may have Yom Kippur. We do 

49 

not have it here, so you are going to have to make those decisions, 

but it looks like those decisions are not even being made. 

Mr. MUTH. They are not made, and you mentioned this earlier 

in the first panel: What you have happening is every State is doing 

their own thing. 

Ms. NORTON. With no Federal guidance, what else is there? 

Mr. MUTH. Exactly. I concur. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ra ́mon, you had wanted to say something further, please. 

Mr. RA ́MON. Yes. Our organization has not been invited to this 

training, but when I used to work with the clinic, a clinic called 

Vista in northern San Diego, the Red Cross would come and offer 

us training and ask us to participate in help fairs and so forth, but 

since the funding ran out, I was laid off, and now I work as a volunteer with my organization. 

Then what I also know is that, in Fresno, there is a radio station 

that hooks up with a number of radio stations all the way down 

to Oaxaca, in Mexico. They have a program on Sundays, and they 

call it the Mixteco Hour. During that hour, people can send their 

greetings, and information is shared as to what is happening all 

over that area, all the way up to Oregon, from Fresno to Oregon 

as well; but the problem is this: only 1 hour on Sunday and it is 

only on the Pacific Coast. 

Ms. NORTON. But it does show you that there is the capability 

even now before we get the technology where it should be. 

Mr. RA ́MON. Yes, we can, not only with Mixteco. 

In Oregon, I understand that they are working with the Mixteco 

languages, and they are getting it out also in Trique, in Amuzgo, 

in Zapoteco. There are 22 languages we have in Oaxaca, and in Oregon they are able to put out this information through this radio 

station. I saw this in a report. I think it was on CNN. 

Ms. NORTON. FEMA has a lot to learn, it seems to me, from what 

people have done with their own leadership. 

I have to ask Mr. Ra ́mon another question. 

Perhaps Mr. Ra ́mon or the elected officials in the area received 

an explanation. It was troubling to hear you say that in the 2007 

wildfires that the fire chief was in the area, but did not communicate with farm workers. 

I would like you to elaborate. Perhaps there was some oversight 

because of something you did not know. Why did that occur? 

Mr. RA ́MON. When we got there, we asked the people if somebody 

had told them to leave the area because it was an evacuation area, 

and they said, No, no one has spoken to us. We have only seen this 

gentleman going back and forth, but he has not spoken to us. We 

asked the fire chief if he had given out any information, and he 

said, Well, they can leave voluntarily if they want to, but it is up 

to them. 

Ms. NORTON. Did he say it in Spanish or English? 

Mr. RA ́MON. In English. Someone else was translating for me. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, here is an area where you would expect especially to warn people away because of their greater vulnerability 

outdoors and in trailers and the like, but he was an English speaker, and you say that you saw him going back and forth. It may 

speak to the necessity to arm, even if with translators, people who 

50 

are major figures, such as the fire chief, with somebody who can 

communicate to people who need it. Of course they can go or not 

go if they want to. That goes without saying. Except, if it is an 

order of evacuation, you are not supposed to have any recourse, 

and of course you need to know how to get out. So, even having 

somebody on the ground—and we have been talking about, I guess 

it was, what Mr. Coletta had to do—it may not be enough if that 

person cannot speak the language either and, therefore, will take 

care of the people who speak his language, first and foremost, and 

then will go on his merry way. 

I only have another question or so. I have to ask about this, 

about the use of digital. Now that digital came on, it looks as if 

there is a whole new way, Mr. Axtell, for Maine, Vermont and, for 

that matter, for greater redundancy elsewhere, you know, with the 

digital bandwidth, not as much congestion. 

Are we seeing PBS jump onto this and Maine have now a whole 

new way to be alerted and Vermont? 

Mr. AXTELL. Well, there are a lot of stations that are very interested in pursuing this, but it is a financial issue. 

Ms. NORTON. Financially, how much? You had something that 

you said was only $300 or something. 

Mr. AXTELL. That is a solution. That is a device, and that is because we did a small run on a custom activity. I think, if you mass 

produced it, you would get it for a much lower price. 

We have a whole variety of PBS stations that are interested in 

working on this. Kentucky sends out wireless messages about tornadoes and other weather information to highway rest stops and 

other kinds of innovative activities. Wisconsin has sent some material to hospitals and to ambulances. Alabama is proposing to have 

a system that would replicate the system and enhance it, that 

which we have in Nevada. 

So you have lots of people who want to move forward, but the 

trick is you have got to have your emergency management folks 

who have critical databases say that you will become a redundant 

provider of data or they have to help define what the services are 

that they need, and as you pointed out, urban versus rural services 

will be very different. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, if FEMA had done what it was supposed to 

do, it would have beat digital. Now digital is here, providing whole 

new, very important technology to feed into the system. 

I want to thank all of you for this testimony. Of course we heard 

from the responsible officials, but I want to say, for the record, that 

your testimony has been equally important to this Subcommittee, 

and thank you very much for your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

51 


Insert offset folio 8 here 52609.008
52 


Insert offset folio 9 here 52609.009
53 


Insert offset folio 10 here 52609.010
54 


Insert offset folio 11 here 52609.011
55 


Insert offset folio 12 here 52609.012
56 


Insert offset folio 13 here 52609.013
57 


Insert offset folio 14 here 52609.014
58 


Insert offset folio 15 here 52609.015
59 


Insert offset folio 16 here 52609.016
60 


Insert offset folio 17 here 52609.017
61 


Insert offset folio 18 here 52609.018
62 


Insert offset folio 19 here 52609.019
63 


Insert offset folio 20 here 52609.020
64 


Insert offset folio 21 here 52609.021
65 


Insert offset folio 22 here 52609.022
66 


Insert offset folio 23 here 52609.023
67 


Insert offset folio 24 here 52609.024
68 


Insert offset folio 25 here 52609.025
69 


Insert offset folio 26 here 52609.026
70 


Insert offset folio 27 here 52609.027
71 


Insert offset folio 28 here 52609.028
72 


Insert offset folio 29 here 52609.029
73 


Insert offset folio 30 here 52609.030
74 


Insert offset folio 31 here 52609.031
75 


Insert offset folio 32 here 52609.032
76 


Insert offset folio 33 here 52609.033
77 


Insert offset folio 34 here 52609.034
78 


Insert offset folio 35 here 52609.035
79 


Insert offset folio 36 here 52609.036
80 


Insert offset folio 37 here 52609.037
81 


Insert offset folio 38 here 52609.038
82 


Insert offset folio 39 here 52609.039
83 


Insert offset folio 40 here 52609.040
84 


Insert offset folio 41 here 52609.041
85 


Insert offset folio 42 here 52609.042
86 


Insert offset folio 43 here 52609.043
87 


Insert offset folio 44 here 52609.044
88 


Insert offset folio 45 here 52609.045
89 


Insert offset folio 46 here 52609.046
90 


Insert offset folio 47 here 52609.047
91 


Insert offset folio 48 here 52609.048
92 


Insert offset folio 49 here 52609.049
93 


Insert offset folio 50 here 52609.050
94 


Insert offset folio 51 here 52609.051
95 


Insert offset folio 52 here 52609.052
96 


Insert offset folio 53 here 52609.053
97 


Insert offset folio 54 here 52609.054
98 


Insert offset folio 55 here 52609.055
99 


Insert offset folio 56 here 52609.056
100 


Insert offset folio 57 here 52609.057
101 


Insert offset folio 58 here 52609.058
102 


Insert offset folio 59 here 52609.059
103 


Insert offset folio 60 here 52609.060
104 


Insert offset folio 61 here 52609.061
105 


Insert offset folio 62 here 52609.062
106 


Insert offset folio 63 here 52609.063
107 


Insert offset folio 64 here 52609.064
108 


Insert offset folio 65 here 52609.065
109 


Insert offset folio 66 here 52609.066
110 


Insert offset folio 67 here 52609.067
111 


Insert offset folio 68 here 52609.068
112 


Insert offset folio 69 here 52609.069
113 


Insert offset folio 70 here 52609.070
114 


Insert offset folio 71 here 52609.071
115 


Insert offset folio 72 here 52609.072
116 


Insert offset folio 73 here 52609.073
117 


Insert offset folio 74 here 52609.074
118 


Insert offset folio 75 here 52609.075
119 


Insert offset folio 76 here 52609.076
120 


Insert offset folio 77 here 52609.077
121 


Insert offset folio 78 here 52609.078
122 


Insert offset folio 79 here 52609.079
123 


Insert offset folio 80 here 52609.080
124 


Insert offset folio 81 here 52609.081
125 


Insert offset folio 82 here 52609.082
126 


Insert offset folio 83 here 52609.083
127 


Insert offset folio 84 here 52609.084
128 


Insert offset folio 85 here 52609.085
129 


Insert offset folio 86 here 52609.086
130 


Insert offset folio 87 here 52609.087
131 


Insert offset folio 88 here 52609.088
132 


Insert offset folio 89 here 52609.089
133 


Insert offset folio 90 here 52609.090
134 


Insert offset folio 91 here 52609.091
135 


Insert offset folio 92 here 52609.092
136 


Insert offset folio 93 here 52609.093
137 


Insert offset folio 94 here 52609.094
138 


Insert offset folio 95 here 52609.095
139 


Insert offset folio 96 here 52609.096
140 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 97 here 52609.097