Hearing Of The House Subcommittee On Economic Development, Public Buildings, And Emergency Management Of The House Committee On Transportation And Infrastructure - "This Is NOT A Test: Will The Nation's Emergency Alert System Deliver The President's Messa

Hearing Of The House Subcommittee On Economic Development, Public Buildings, And Emergency Management Of The House Committee On Transportation And Infrastructure - "This Is NOT A Test: Will The Nation's Emergency Alert System Deliver The President's Message To The Public

Currently, our nation is fascinated with television shows, like "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,
mobile phones or personal digital assistants. 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 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 the
Oklahoma City bombing type events, citizens must rely primarily on an emergency
alert system build in the 1960s. Today, thousands of citizens across the country
rely on the familiar system that interrupts television viewing with a beeping sound,
the multi-colored stripes across the screen and the words, "This is only a test of the
Emergency Alert System (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 five 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 sizable portion of the country would receive it.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that there are many
unaddressed weaknesses that limit the effectiveness of the nation's primary public
alert and warning system, as far as it goes, considering technology today.
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is responsible
for administering the national EAS with assistance from the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) 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 each year. Approximately 90% of all
messages disseminated by EAS are generated by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 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 a yearly basis. The FEMA Integrated Public Alert 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 system," 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 have not been adopted. Consequently, Ranking Member
Diaz-Balart and I asked GAO to examine (1) the current status of EAS; (2) the
progress made in FEMA's efforts to modernize and integrate alert and warning
systems; and (3) the issues and challenges involved in implementing an integrated
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, the emergency
management associations, the broadcast industry and others, that FEMA has not
met with them periodically to get their advice or to inform them about 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 it to interface with
stakeholders. The then Assistant Administrator for Continuity Programs, General
2
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 made, 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 Systems
Modernization Act of 2009" to specifically direct FEMA to establish an IPAWS
Modernization Advisory Committee to ensure stakeholder input.
Currently, I understand that most of the members of FEMA's 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 increase with an antiquated alert system
and FEMA should expect frequent oversight and reports on progress. Without
leadership, and in the absence of federal standards and protocols, many states and
localities have felt they have 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. We have seen that result before when
police and fire on 9/11 could not communicate. We cannot repeat the same
mistakes again.
Several of our witnesses today 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.
I welcome today's witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
3

Source