Self-reflections on testifying before congress
- Jeannette Sutton
- Dec 22, 2025
- 6 min read
This post is a bit different from the rest; Here I share my personal reflections on the invitation to speak to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communication and Technology on December 16, 2025.
THE LEAD UP
Early in the week, I received an email from a staffer for the Subcommittee, asking if I would share my thoughts on some of the bills they would be discussing in their upcoming hearing. As a student of Dr. Dennis Mileti's, I was taught to give back to those who support our work and research and I also believe that change is still possible. I agreed to join their 30 minute call and to provide comments - specifically on H.R. 2076, Lulu's Law. This bill will "require the Federal Communication Commission to issue an order providing that a shark attack is an event for which a wireless emergency alert may be transmitted."
My primary comments about the proposed bill are as follows: we have more than 40 named alerts across the country; the use of named alerts is not effective without a significant public education program to explain what the name represents (the hazards) and the associated protective actions; a better approach is to simply use plain language; IPAWS does not restrict any alerting authority from issuing a WEA for any type of hazard or event. Thus I am not personally opposed to named alerts and, in fact, if I were on a beach and there had been a recent shark attack, I'd like to know that I should stay out of the water. However, as a beach-goer, receiving a "Lulu alert" would be pretty meaningless without additional information about the recent shark attack.
During our call, we talked about academic research on effective alerts and warnings, the IPAWS-funded project I led to develop the Message Design Dashboard and the research that supported it, and ended with a mention to reach out if there were additional questions. Two days later, I received an email inviting me to testify.
DEVELOPING THE TESTIMONY
Testimony before a committee is part of the permanent record. A witness is given 5 minutes to present their opening comments; the written testimony is not restricted in length. However, I was restricted due to the timing of the invitation. At the time of that email, I had just landed in Salt Lake City, Utah, where I was preparing to lead a workshop with universities on campus alerts and warnings. A little jet lagged from my 3:45am wake up, I asked my dear colleagues if this was an opportunity for which they would "move heaven and earth to make happen." They, Dr. Lori Peek, the director of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Dr. Joe Trainor, the Dean of the Biden School of Public Policy at the University of Delaware, unhesitatingly said "yes!"
A second call with the staffer oriented me to the task. It was Thursday evening. The testimony was due 48 hours before the hearing (Sunday). I was to teach the next morning for 4 hours, but I had all afternoon to work on it before boarding my flight for California on Saturday morning. I could do this.
The workshop was a resounding success. Campus based alerting is a critical safety feature - in fact, it is a requirement since the Jeanne Clery Act was signed in 1990 making alerts a priority for notifying the campus community of criminal activity. But there has been limited research to support this emergency response sector. We can bring our knowledge from the public sector to help institutes of higher education as a starting point for evidence based practices and that is what we did. Ask me about this any time - I'm happy to help.
Returning to my hotel room, I got to work. And then I got the call from home that shook up my weekend. My 13 year old Maine Coon, that creaky, cranky, polydactyl pain in the butt, was on her way to the emergency vet. She did not come home. I was crushed. But I was on the agenda for the meeting and I started to receive emails from staff supporting the other speakers (yes, they have staff). I was on the hook and I needed to return home as soon as possible. Change my flights, shake myself off, get re-focused.
Also, I am a writer. And writing is what grounds me. So I started writing and I kept at it all afternoon and much of the next day while traveling. Many thanks to my friend and colleague, Eddie Bertola, who helped me refine the points about IPAWS and the FCC, and also provided a much-needed listening ear as I broke down in the airport boarding area.
The testimony ended up being about 11 pages long, double-spaced, with footnotes to research to back up every claim. I knew I was going to have to cut this down for my 5-minute remarks, but it was a document that I was happy with and could submit with time to spare. Then I took a break.
BEING A WITNESS.
We flew to DC on Monday and had another call with the committee clerk and the staffers who provided information about the logistics for the day. Arrive early; meet in the side- room; enter the committee room as a group; greet committee members; begin the hearing; present your testimony; respond to questions; end the hearing; exchange business cards; say goodbye. Sounds simple.
I cut my 11 pages of testimony to 750 words. 5 minutes. In my classes, I tell my graduate students that I will cut them off if they go over their allotted time; they must be able to present their main ideas succinctly and briefly and this is exactly the reason why. You may have a once in a lifetime opportunity to speak before lawmakers and you must be able to tell your story, backed with evidence, in a very short period of time. Get it done.
Also, another piece of advice that my dear mentor gave me many, many years ago. When you enter a room, you should feel like a million bucks. Put on that outfit that makes you feel confident and professional. I did and it helped.
I was the last of the speakers to go. They represented practitioners, associations, industry, and small businesses. I brought the research; I cited facts and sources. And in true sociologist fashion, I also listened to my colleagues as they presented and adapted my initial remarks to fit the context better (there were two chairs and two ranking members to thank).
I was pleased with my comments and felt confident in my responses to committee members. I look back and wish I had prepared a few soundbites for specific types of questions. For instance, when asked about the use of AI for translation, I should have emphasized that you must have a good message to start with to get a good message out. If alerting authorities are not writing good messages in their primary language, English, how can we expect good translated messages?
Many committee members were not present for the hearing - there was a closed door briefing happening a mile away with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. Many committee members were in and out throughout, aided by their own staff as they managed competing obligations.
AFTERWARDS.
If you've read this far, you may be interested in the key points that I made in the hearing. Or maybe something about the emotional toll of the week. Or maybe seeing a peek inside of "how its done" is what you were hoping for. I'll wrap up with all three.
Key points: The United States does not have standards for alerts and warnings, nor do we have training focused on the messaging. We need to build and deliver training that is based in our 70-years of evidence on what motivates people to act. We need standards for every person touching alerts issued to the public. We also need policies, protocols, and procedures. And, we need continued funding to address the needs of our most vulnerable.
Emotional toll: I don't think I realize how exhausting that week was. I returned home and still had grading to do. Thankfully, I have an amazing spouse and my child is a fairly independent young adult who didn't need additional things from me last week even though his own university was affected by what was happening just up the road at Brown.
How its done: There are a few things I'd do differently next time. I'd try to come up with some key talking points that could be adjusted to questions. I'd also come with a binder full of pictures and bios of the committee members so that I recognized people in front of me. And I know to add the pleasantries that my colleagues on the panel also delivered in their remarks.
