U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–103 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–797

TERROR ATTACKS: ARE WE PREPARED?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,

LABOR, AND PENSIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINING PREPARATIONS FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE TERRORIST ATTACKS, FOCUSING ON A CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS PLAN, TAILORED

TO EACH NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENT, WHICH ESTABLISHES

A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING FEDERAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL ASSETS AND COORDINATING WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN AN EMERGENCY

JULY 22, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina

JOHN WARNER, Virginia

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

SHARON SODERSTROM, Staff Director

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

(III)

CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2004

Page

Gregg, Hon. Judd, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 1

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2

Thompson, Hon. Tommy, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; accompanied by Julie Geberding, M.D., Director, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention and Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director, National

Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ...................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 18

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 21

Tolbert, Eric, Director, Response Division, Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security ........................................ 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security .................. 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Sellitto, Mike, Deputy Fire Chief, Washington, DC. ............................................ 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Thibault, George E., M.D., Vice President, Clinical Affairs, Partners

Healthcare ............................................................................................................ 98

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100

Waltman, Susan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Greater New

York Hospital Association ................................................................................... 102

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105

Martinez, Ricardo, M.D., Super Bowl Senior Medical Advisor, National Football League, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Medical Sports Group .. 116

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Articles, publications, letters, etc.:

Questions to Secretary Tommy Thompson from: ...........................................

Senator Gregg ............................................................................................ 124

Senator Kennedy ....................................................................................... 125

Senator Murray ......................................................................................... 125

Senator Clinton ......................................................................................... 126

Question of Senator Clinton for Andy Mitchell ..................................................... 127

(1)

TERROR ATTACKS: ARE WE PREPARED?

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room

430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Dodd, and Alexander.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GREGG

The CHAIRMAN. If we can get everybody’s attention, Secretary

Thompson is on his way. He is in a car on his way. I thought in

order to expedite the hearing since we have got some very interesting witnesses we want to hear from, and unfortunately we have a

variety of votes coming up which may totally disorient the events

here—here is Secretary Thompson. Great.

Nice to have you, Mr. Secretary, and it is nice you are joined by

Dr. Gerberding and Dr. Fauci, obviously.

The purpose of this hearing is to review the status of our preparation and our capacity to deal with a significant biological event.

One would presume it would be terrorist driven. There has obviously been a tremendous amount of attention to this issue by this

committee, but more importantly by the government generally.

Since 9–11, we have put over $14 billion in the issue of defending

this country against a biological attack, and we would like to review where we stand with the members of those government agencies which have the priority responsibility in this area.

The issue, I believe, breaks down into a number of functions. The

first is our ability to detect prior to an event biological agents coming into the country and potentially being dispersed and where we

stand in our capacity for such detection. The second goes to the

issue of our capacity to deal with a biological event, specifically

what our status is relative to the production and development of

antibodies and vaccines, a major issue, our stockpile capability and

what we have in the pipeline to deal with things like anthrax, botulism, smallpox, plague, and the top six areas that we have identified.

The third area that this breaks down into is our capacity to contain an event and to handle the surge of need in the area of health

care which would occur from an event. If it is, for example, a smallpox outbreak, the capacity to contain the actual outbreak, if it is

an anthrax attack, the capacity to deal with the issue of health

care and caring for people who have come in contact with the

2

agent, and specifically whether or not we have gone through and

participated in enough preparation in those areas which would be

most likely subject to such attack; and, finally, the coordination

issue, which is a constant issue of concern between the State and

Federal agencies which are responsible.

I think the 9–11 report which has just come out, which I have

only had a chance to review, as I suspect most people have, in a

superficial way, but one of the very apparent conclusions of that is

that preparation is absolutely key in our capacity to deal with

these types of events, and our job, I think, as a Congress is to review where we stand in that preparation process. That is what this

hearing is about, and we look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We have got an exceptional group of folks here to talk to

us, and I will yield to Senator Kennedy for his thoughts.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

Senator KENNEDY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

and thank you for having this hearing. I think it is enormously important and it is timely as well. If we look at just yesterday when

we were at the White House and the President signed the BioShield legislation which will bring together both the private sector

and the public sector in order to try and develop the kinds of vaccines and treatments to protect against some of these pathogens

that may be used in a terrorist attack, this is progress. That is certainly enormously important.

Senator Gregg has identified that obviously we want there to be

an emphasis on preventing an attack so that we are going to have

accurate intelligence so such an attack and assault on the United

States will not take place. We wanted to have the development of

these vaccines and other materials so that if we are going to be attacked, they are going to be available and accessible to the public.

That is enormously important, and it is very important to take

steps developing vaccines, and there is significant progress on it.

We also want to be able to detect, but also, as the Chairman

pointed out, contain an attack. That is where our health delivery

systems play such an important role, and I know we are going to

hear about what has been happening up in, for example, my own

home city of Boston where Partners Health Care spent $6 million

on terrorism preparedness, but received only $233,000 from the

HHS hospital grant program; Boston Medical Center, spent $2.7

million, but received only $39,000; Dana-Farber spent $439,000, received only $15,000; Caritas Carney is reimbursed only about 3

percent of what it spent.

Now, money is not all of the answer to this, but what we are

finding out with these hospitals, and this is pretty characteristic

around the country, that these are funds that are being taken away

from patient care, and we have not got the unlimited kinds of resources. The major hospitals even in smaller towns have not got

those kinds of resources. Prior to 9–11, Senator Frist and I had

strongly supported having additional kinds of help and assistance

for the hospitals that will have a major role in containment of an

attack. Smaller community hospitals, or other kinds of health delivery systems also have an important role.

3

We will hear later on, Mr. Chairman, some of the challenges that

are out there in our community, and we want to make sure that

we are giving the kind of support to the Administration in terms

of the funding levels so that they can do their job. If they are not

going to get the funding levels that are going to be necessary to do

the job, we can not expect that they are going to give the kind of

support to the communities and health facilities to be able to do

the job in areas of the bioterrorism threat.

This hearing is very important. I think you have got an outstanding group of witnesses. We look forward to the testimony. I know

the Secretary yesterday spoke at a conference, enormously well attended, about the importance of information technology and how

we can deal with a lot of different issues not only in bioterrorism,

but just on health care generally. This is an area that I know you

are interested in. I know he is very interested. We are all interested, and we will have a chance to deal with that at another time,

but I hope we can look forward to the comments and the testimony

of our distinguished panels.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. You made a point which I

want to emphasize, because just to preamble this, I hope our witnesses will address these issues. We are concerned about the flow

of dollars out, the fact that no 2004 dollars have gone out, the fact

that 62 percent of the 2003 dollars have not gone out, and that we

still have even 2002 money that has not gone out. We are also concerned about the fact that the hospitals, it appears to be a formula

which is essentially spreading money thinly across a lot of hospitals rather than focusing the money on the hospitals which would

be the most likely targets for having to handle surge capacity.

I am also concerned about the fact that even the most minimal

standards, which are essentially reporting standards which HRSA

has set up—of those minimal standards, which are three, few

States have met all three. Issues like that, issues such as the fact

that we are hearing rumor that the smallpox vaccine which we are

purchasing may not be able to get through FDA approval and that

the anthrax vaccines have complications.

Those are some of the specifics. Obviously, Mr. Secretary, you are

going to talk about the general issues, but we hope you will get

down to specifics also. It is a pleasure to have you here, Mr. Secretary. You have got an extraordinary group of people helping you

and you have made great strides. There is a long way to go; I am

sure you will admit to that, but I want to congratulate especially

CDC and NIH, who are represented, of course, by Dr. Gerberding

and Dr. Fauci for really the exceptional leadership they have given

us in the health care field generally and your leadership as head

of HHS, which I think has been extraordinary.

Mr. Secretary.

4

STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY THOMPSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ACCOMPANIED BY JULIE L. GERBERDING, M.D., DIRECTOR, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; AND ANTHONY S. FAUCI, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES, BETHESDA, MD

Secretary THOMPSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for your compliments, and thank you, Senator Kennedy and

Senator Gregg, for your leadership in so many areas on public

health, and I appreciate that and congratulate you and thank you

very much.

Thank you for inviting me to discuss an issue of the highest importance, protecting our country from the threats of bioterrorism.

As you all know, our highest priority is to safeguard the American

people. This is a responsibility that President Bush takes seriously

and I know that it is a responsibility that each of you take very

seriously as well.

I am very proud to talk about my department’s important role

in defending America, because we have accomplished a great deal

over the past few years. The contrast between what we were doing

a few years ago and what we are doing today is absolutely striking.

The Department will spend 12 times as much this year on bioterrorism preparedness as we did 3 years ago. Thanks to your support, funding has gone from $305 million in 2001 to $3.9 billion in

2004, and we have requested $4.1 billion for next year.

On bioterrorism-related research alone, we have gone from

spending $53 million in 2001 to $1.6 billion in 2004. That is more

than 30 times as much for bioterrorism research. The Department

has almost 10 times as many staff members working on bioterrorism readiness as we did in 2001. We have gone from 212 to 1,700

this year. We have dramatically improved our capacity to respond

to the threat of smallpox. In 2001, when I came in as Secretary,

we had less than 15 million doses of smallpox vaccine available and

no dilulence. The vaccine was undiluted, and we had no capacity

to distribute it. Today, we have more than enough doses to vaccinate every man, woman, and child in America if necessary.

Research is also underway towards a new improved smallpox

vaccine, and Dr. Fauci is here to testify about that if you so desire.

Research is also underway towards an improved anthrax vaccine,

and we expect it to be available beginning in the middle of 2005.

We right now in our stockpiles, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, we have enough doses to last 60 days for 13 million people,

and we are estimating within the next 12 months to have that up

to 20 to 22 million people.

Senator KENNEDY. Can I say just on this point, Mr. Chairman—

I want to, since you are talking about availability of resources, just

give the assurance to the people of Boston, and New York as well,

as they are concerned about the security issues, about the anticipation of what has been done to protect those communities. I did not

want to interrupt your testimony, but at some time maybe at the

end, there would be great interest in both of those communities if

you might just give a comment about what steps you have taken

also in terms of the preventive aspects.

Excuse me.

5

Secretary THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Senator.

In building on these successes yesterday morning, the President

signed in your presence, Senators, Project BioShield into law, a

proposal that was drafted by our Department and was lobbied by

our Department, and it is a new initiative that creates a more secure source of funding to purchase the new vaccines and treatments. $5.6 billion has already been appropriated for BioShield

over the next 10 years, and in particular, I like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their tremendous efforts to pass this vital initiative. It would not have happened without your leadership in our country, and my department

is in your debt for that.

In order to protect the safety and security of America’s food supply, and you all know that this is a big concern of mine, we have

increased the food import examination more than six-fold from

12,000 in 2001 to over 78,000 in 2003, and our goal is to hit 96,000

this year. We went from only a few States in having coordinated

public health and hospital plans in 2001 to having every single

State complete joint planning this year.

Our public health infrastructure is better than ever. From county

health departments to CDC in Atlanta to the 24-hour command

centers next to my office in the Department of Health and Human

Services as well as the command center at CDC, and thanks to the

improved infrastructure, we are better able to identify and track

outbreaks quickly and are better equipped to connect our resources

to State laboratories and health offices. We now are connected.

When I started, we were only connected to 77 laboratories. We now

have 121 laboratories connected to CDC and to the information

room in the Department as well as we have expanded a number

of communities. We have 90 percent of all health departments now

connected to the health alert network throughout the country.

Still, we know that hospitals, State health departments, and

other front-line agencies cannot possibly be fully prepared for any

disaster. We have established strategic national stockpiles of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies as part of a nationwide preparedness training and education program for State and local health

care providers, first responders, and governments. These push

packages and stockpiles include large quantities of antibiotics,

chemical antidotes, life support medications, and other medical and

surgical items. We call these push packages, and they are stationed

in strategically located warehouses ready for immediate deployment.

We went down, some of my staff went down, and investigated

how fast they could load, how fast they could be prepared to respond, and it was amazing how quickly they were able to do it.

These supplies can be delivered to anywhere in the United States

or in the United States territories within 12 hours. I believe we

could do it much faster, but our goal, of course, is always 12 hours.

Because of all of these dramatic steps, I am happy to report that

we are better prepared to prevent and to respond to any public

health emergency. That does not mean that we can prevent everything, but we can respond very quickly. We have identified several

specific areas where we can do even more to protect America.

6

First, we are anticipating future threats. We know that terrorists

want to do everything they can to harm America, and they can be

creative in their use of new or different biological agents. We are

working to stay a step ahead of those who would harm us, using

biotechnology, medical research, and other methods to evaluate

new toxins and agents that can require new detection methods,

preventive measures, and treatments.

Second, we are working to develop safe, effective medical countermeasures against biological weapons agents, and we are taking

into consideration the possibility of new or genetically-engineered

agencies.

Third, we will continue to lead the effort to prepare for mass casualty care. Our public health system has to be prepared to deal

with widespread illness and casualties in the event of a biological

attack or a naturally occurring outbreak of disease. We are working

to create a national surge capacity so that hospitals and Federal,

State, local, and private agencies will able to provide rapidly expandable mass casualty care. The Department is also taking a

number of specific steps to prepare for upcoming profile events,

which Senator Kennedy just mentioned, including the Democratic

and the Republican National conventions.

For each of these events, the Department has developed a detailed plan, Senator Kennedy, that establishes a framework for

managing Federal public health and medical assets that may be required in an emergency. We have made every effort to plan and be

prepared for a broad range of contingencies. We have invested

staff, resources, and energy to coordinate with our Federal, State,

and local partners, and with the event planners to ensure to the

extent feasible a rapid and effective response to any public health

emergency that may occur. We also are making available push

packages for each one of the conventions in the immediate area. All

of us hope that these two political conventions will be safe, but

even if they are not, we are very prepared to respond.

As during any high profile event, including the recent State funeral for President Reagan, we took charge of making sure that

medical doctors and medical personnel were available for any kind

of attack if it were to happen, as well as the G–8 Summit on Sea

Island. The Department’s command center, which operates on a

24–7 basis serves as the primary vehicle for communicating and coordinating with not only HHS personnel in the field, but also relevant staff from the Department of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and key State and local event officials.

I know some of you have seen the command center. I was going

to show it to you, but I know both Senator Kennedy and you, Senator Gregg, were over there. We have invited your staffs to come

over. Several of the staff have been over, and we are extending an

invitation to the rest of the staff to come over. It is, we think, an

epicenter of what a command center should be like, and we have

had the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security,

NSC, and the Vice President come down and view it. All of them

were quite impressed of our capabilities to observe, to watch, and

to respond. I invite all of you to come tour it as well. I know you

will be impressed with those capabilities.

7

So, let me reiterate, the stakes here cannot be any higher. We

are committed. We are resolved. We will continue to do our part

in helping to prepare and protect the country. I have with me Dr.

Gerberding from CDC and Dr. Fauci from NIH and Stuart

Simonson, who is the Assistant Secretary of bio preparedness in

the Department to help answer any questions, specific questions,

that you may want to refer to those individuals.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. Thank you very much

for having the hearing, and I will be more than happy to answer

any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY TOMMY G. THOMPSON

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Tommy

Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services. I welcome this opportunity to

share with you information on some of the preparations that our Department has

made for high profile events such as the upcoming Democratic and Republican National Conventions. As you undoubtedly know from the extensive media coverage

over the last several weeks, the security that will be in place for these two National

Special Security Events will be without precedent. The number of Federal, State

and local agencies as well as the sheer number of personnel involved in the planning and implementation of security measures for each of these events is unparalleled. While the Department of Homeland Security, acting through the Secret Service, is the lead agency for overseeing and coordinating all efforts related to the security of those who will be attending or working at the conventions, there are myriad

other agencies that are tasked with specific areas of responsibility.

I am here today to share with you some of the plans that our Department has

made and will be implementing prior to and during the course of these two high

visibility events. For security reasons, I am not in a position to provide any specific

details about these plans. However, I am able to speak about them in general terms

to give you an idea of the extent and magnitude of our efforts.

For each National Special Security Event or NSSE, HHS develops a detailed concept of operations (CONOPS) plan, tailored to the event and the venue, which establishes a framework for managing Federal public health and medical assets and coordinating with State and local governments in an emergency. This CONOPS plan,

developed through extensive collaboration with Federal, State and local public

health, medical and emergency management officials in the host city, describes the

array of actions that HHS is either taking or prepared to take to support the Secret

Service. It outlines not only the visible activities, but also the behind-the-scenes efforts that are critical to preparing for and responding to a public health emergency

that takes place in the midst of a national high-profile event. The Special Events

CONOPS plan is in turn supported by the HHS CONOPS Plan that spells out the

responsibilities not only of my immediate office, but also those of every relevant

agency within HHS.

One of the key agencies in our planning for NSSEs is the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention. CDC’s principal responsibility is to work with State and

local public health officials to prepare for and respond to a potential bioterrorist attack. Over the past several months, CDC staff has been working with health officials in both Boston and New York City to expand or otherwise enhance the local

syndromic surveillance systems to ensure close monitoring of uncommon symptoms

as well as unusual patterns of common symptoms reported by hospital emergency

departments and other outpatient clinics. Should a suspect case be detected, clinical

samples will be collected and promptly transferred to a laboratory within the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) for identification and characterization. In the case

of Boston and New York City, both local public health labs are members of the LRN,

thus reducing the time consumed in transporting the samples to an appropriate lab.

In fact, these two laboratories are fully equipped and staffed to diagnose the presence of organisms most likely to be used as a biological weapon.

To ensure that the requisite expertise is readily available, CDC’s Bioterrorism

Rapid Response and Advanced Technology (BRRAT) lab will provide onsite technical

laboratory support and consultation. Additional laboratory equipment from CDC as

well as LRN biothreat agent assays will be deployed along with the BRRAT Laboratory Director and other CDC staff who will assist in the onsite management of laboratory testing, data analysis, and any ensuing investigations. A CDC on-call reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
8

sponse team will be on a ‘‘bags-packed’’ status, ready to mobilize if the need arises.

Furthermore, a broad range of subject matter experts are on full, stand-by alert

prior to and during the entire duration of the high profile event.

In Massachusetts, the State health department has collaborated with both the

CDC and the Boston Emergency Medical Service in creating the Enhanced Surveillance Report form to capture information on patient visits to first-aid stations at the

Democratic National Convention. In addition to manual collection methods, the

State and city are currently researching information technology solutions to automate the daily collection of these completed forms. The State is also working closely

with appropriate representatives of the Boston EMS and the Boston Public Health

Commission Office of Environmental Health on a variety of emergency preparedness

activities. Recently they have completed an updated provider registry identifying clinicians with radiological expertise and are now proceeding to identify clinicians

knowledgeable about chemical agents.

In New York City, the public health department is implementing electronic clinical laboratory reporting at city hospital laboratories. For disease reports that appear

to require urgent notification, this system has a feature to alert relevant health department staff on a 24/7 basis. Another system has been established to actively

track outbreak response and ensure timely and complete investigations of all suspect outbreaks, whether detected by traditional or syndromic surveillance. The goal

of this system is to implement investigations of urgent case and outbreak reports

within 24 hours of receipt of such reports. As part of its effort to develop surge capacity for mass casualties, New York City has recruited approximately 2,500 volunteers for its Medical Reserve Corps and a protocol has been developed for rapid

credentialing of these volunteers if the need should arise.

Through funds provided by the Health Resources and Services Administration,

hospitals in both Boston and New York City have been able to secure personal protective equipment for medical and ancillary staff and train them in the use of such

equipment. Efforts have been made to increase the isolation capacity of hospitals

in the event of an intentional release of a biological agent that results in a deadly

communicable disease. Hospitals in both of these cities have also expanded their capacity to decontaminate large numbers of victims should there be either a chemical,

biological or radiological attack. Adequate amounts of pharmaceuticals are now in

place at various hospitals in Boston and NYC to treat hospital staff and their family

members during the first 72 hours following an attack prior to the arrival of Federal

stockpiles. Furthermore, equipment has been installed in hospital emergency departments to ensure rapid communications among hospitals, other first responder

agencies and local Emergency Operations Centers.

Food safety and security will be the primary responsibility of the Food and Drug

Administration during the upcoming political conventions. FDA has been working

with State and local public health officials to prepare for and respond to a potential

terrorist incident involving foods. In Boston, FDA will be providing coverage at the

Fleet Center around the clock and will be monitoring retail food establishments, hotels and high-risk food producers/manufacturers. The FDA’s Northeast Regional

Laboratory (NRL), located in Jamaica, New York, is equipped to perform the full

range of chemical and microbiological analyses on products regulated by FDA and

will serve as a back up to the State and local public health labs. The NRL, certified

as a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory, has the capability to rule out a broad range of

biological agents, refer them to appropriate facilities, confirm the presence of a variety of select agents and toxins as well as screen for various poisons. FDA’s Emergency Operations Center located in Rockville, Maryland will be operational during

the entire course of both the Democratic and the Republican National Conventions.

In addition to these preparations, HHS will also be working closely with the Department of Homeland Security to monitor BioWatch air samplers in 31 cities, including Boston and New York City. The filters in these environmental samplers are

collected daily and tested for air-borne pathogens by laboratories in the LRN that

are supported by CDC.

One of the most important components of our preparations for NSSEs is the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) Program. The SNS Program has pre-positioned Push

Packs—large caches of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical equipment and supplies—

in strategic locations across the country. From these locations, an SNS Push Pack

can be transported to any affected area in less than 12 hours. If the incident requires additional pharmaceuticals and/or medical supplies, follow-on vendor managed inventory (VMI) supplies can be shipped to arrive within 24 to 36 hours. If

the agent used in the attack has been identified, VMI contents can be tailored to

provide the appropriate pharmaceuticals, supplies and other products. The Stockpile

contains sufficient quantities of antibiotics at this time to provide a 60-day prophylaxis course to over 12 million individuals exposed to anthrax. By the end of this

9

fiscal year we will have acquired enough antibiotics to treat over 20 million people.

These antibiotics also constitute appropriate prophylaxis or treatment for plague

and tularemia. We have now acquired a sufficient volume of smallpox vaccine to immunize every man, woman and child in the United States. We also have adequate

amounts of vaccinia immunoglobulin (VIG) to treat certain adverse reactions to the

smallpox vaccine as well as quantities of antitoxins for treatment of botulism. Members of the SNS Program staff will, of course, be deployed to all NSSEs to coordinate

issues in the field related to Stockpile assets.

For high-visibility events such as the political conventions, the SNS will also provide Special Events Packages that are configured with nerve agent antidotes and

cyanide kits that will be forward deployed to appropriate locations in Boston and

New York City. While a bioterrorist attack may not claim victims for days or even

weeks, a chemical attack, particularly one involving nerve agents, can cause immediate nervous system failure. Consequently, response time is critical. Thus, in addition to the Special Events Packages, CHEMPACKs will also be available. The

CHEMPACK Project, a voluntary program launched in September 2002, has been

designed to provide State and local governments with pre-positioned repositories of

nerve agent antidotes that would greatly enhance the ability of first responders to

react quickly to treat victims of a large-scale nerve agent attack. By January of

2006, we hope to have forward deployed 2,300 of these CHEMPACKs across the

country.

To ensure that the contents of the Stockpile match the medical needs of the Nation in the event of a terrorist incident involving mass casualties, HHS has underway an ambitious program to develop medical countermeasures—the diagnostics,

drugs, vaccines, antitoxins and other pharmaceuticals—that are essential to our preparedness. For instance, we have embarked on a project to develop a safer smallpox

vaccine that can be used with immunocompromised individuals. While we are working to acquire quantities of the currently licensed anthrax vaccine for delivery to

the Stockpile under an agreement between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, HHS will also be acquiring, under the Project BioShield program, a significant amount of the next-generation anthrax vaccine.

In addition to all these preparedness efforts, I will also be sending the Secretary’s

Emergency Response Team (SERT) to Boston and New York City. The SERT Team

was created soon after the events of September 11, 2001 so that HHS can rapidly

deploy a group of specially trained professionals to any locale in the country to assess the consequences of a disaster, whether naturally occurring or terrorist-triggered, and coordinate public health and medical services between the local or State

incident management authorities and our department. Representatives of various

agencies within HHS serve on the SERT Team, depending on the types and array

of technical expertise required. For example, the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) is able to provide food safety inspectors, and CDC can provide epidemiologists

to investigate an infectious disease outbreak caused by the intentional release of a

deadly pathogen.

During any high profile event, including the recent State funeral for President

Reagan and the G–8 Summit on Sea Island, the HHS Secretary’s Command Center,

which operates on a 24/7 basis, serves as the primary vehicle for communicating and

coordinating with not only HHS personnel in the field but also relevant staff from

the Department of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and key State, local

and event officials. HHS CONOPS plans for the political conventions identify specific coordination responsibilities with personnel from FEMA, the State’s emergency

management agency, the city’s emergency management agency, the city health department, the State public health laboratory, the FBI, EPA and DOD, just to mention a few. During an NSSE, the Command Center’s staff is augmented by additional personnel as well as incident management staff. Furthermore, ten members

of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Readiness Force will also be on

stand-by.

The activities that I have described represent some, but certainly not all, of the

efforts that HHS has made to prepare for the high profile events that will take place

in Boston and New York City in the next several weeks. We have made every effort

to plan and be prepared for a broad range of contingencies. We have invested staff,

resources and energy to coordinate with our Federal, State and local partners and

with the event planners to ensure, to the extent feasible, a rapid and effective response to any public health emergency that may occur. We will also take into consideration the needs of unique groups in our emergency planning efforts, including

the needs of people with disabilities, people who are elderly, and children. All of us

hope fervently that these two political conventions will be uneventful but, if they

are not, we are prepared to respond.

10

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I appreciate that

quick summary of the progress which has been made, which is dramatic. There is no question about that, and do not take my questions to be criticism. They are just to try to get at issues which I

do not know that we have yet resolved. Ever since 9–11, we have

been playing catch-up, and we know we have got a long way to go.

Secretary THOMPSON. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we just have to be up front about the fact

that there are some areas we have not gone as far as we need to

go in. What I want to talk about is some of those areas that I am

concerned about primarily.

I guess I would start with this question, and I would like to ask

it to all three of you in your different areas of responsibility. I

would like you to list the three areas where you think we have not

gone far enough yet, where we do not really have our house in

order yet, where we really need to do more, and what should we

do. I will start with you, Mr. Secretary, and then go to Dr.

Gerberding and Dr. Fauci.

Secretary THOMPSON. Number one that immediately comes to

mind is food inspections, food technology. That has been a concern

of mine ever since I started. We were investing very little resources

in it when I came in as Secretary. We are doing a lot better job,

but we still have got a long ways to go.

The second one we are working on, but it is one that I am still

very concerned about, is surge capacity for hospitals. This is one

in which we have serious problems yet. I would not classify them

as problems. We have got a long ways to go to make sure that we

have surge capacity in any particular area. We have plans in place.

We are working on them, but I am not satisfied.

The third one, of course, is making sure that we have countermeasures available for things like the hemorrhagic fever viruses

and tularemia, the plague, and botulinum toxins that are necessary, and we are working on them. Dr. Fauci is doing a great job,

but research takes a long time, and these are three areas that I

think immediately come to mind that we have a lot of work to do

on.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gerberding, you do not have to limit it to

three if there is more.

Dr. GERBERDING. Thank you. The first thing I would say is we

are still very concerned about countermeasures and the adequacy

of the ability to mitigate the adverse consequences of exposure

should one occur. We have made great strides in the development

of countermeasures for the stockpile, but a long way to go before

we have adequate protection against all of the agents that we

would be concerned about.

A second major issue is connectivity, and by that, I am really

speaking of the whole network of communication and information

that would allow us to rapidly detect an emerging health threat,

not just domestically, but increasingly we have concerns about the

global connectivity. You know we are working on that with the support of the committee and the Congress, but we have a long way

to go to assure that we can handle a threat such as an infectious

disease agent that emerges somewhere else in the world and has

been imported, and part of that connectivity includes concerns

11

about our quarantine stations. We currently have only eight quarantine stations at major points of entry in the United States. We

have a plan to scale up to 25. The President’s 2005 budget request

includes support for that, but we have a great deal to do to assure

that we can recognize and contain threats at our borders when

they come in.

The last concern that is probably the biggest one that I face overall is the concern about complacency and the lack of attention and

focus that more and more people are experiencing in this regard.

We need to maintain vigilance. We need to take these threats seriously, and we need to continue to focus on a comprehensive preparedness plan, and as time goes by without experiencing a threat,

there is a tendency for people to lose interest or focus their attentions elsewhere. Complacency is the overarching issue that we are

trying to address through all of these efforts at CDC.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fauci.

Dr. FAUCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the arena of research and development of countermeasures, as

you mentioned, I believe we have come a long way, but without a

doubt in this particular area, we still have a long way to go. My

concern is something that I believe BioShield is going to help us

with, is the inherent slowness of the process of research and getting that research to translate into definable countermeasures, and

the provisions in BioShield, I believe, are going to help us particularly with the expediting of the research itself, with the rapid hiring of individuals that can be involved in issues that we are not

generally involved in, like product development. That has not

moved as quickly as I would like, but I believe it is going to start

catching up.

The second is the delicate balance between trying to do the very

best science at the same time as we provide and clearly pay attention to issues like safety issues in clinical trials, because if you try

and rush research, there is always a danger that we are going to

get into a situation where there may be human safety issues. If you

do not push it, on the other hand, it will go at a pace that I think

is not the pace that I think we need for the emergency nature of

the situation.

The other is human capital. We are doing a good job in getting

individuals interested, the best scientists. We still need to keep the

pressure up without depleting scientists who are involved in other

important arenas of public health, and this, again, is what we call

the delicate balance.

Finally, an issue that we discussed before this committee, but it

is still an issue, and that is that spectrum from basic research and

concept development to the actual advanced development and production of a product that is, indeed, a usable countermeasure and

trying to push the process with research at the same time as we

provide the incentives for industry to get involved with us in making the product, and there is a range in that which has been unaccounted for in previous situations where the research endeavor has

to get pushed to the point where the industry feels comfortable

enough to take over and make the product. Again, this is something that BioShield hopefully is addressing by providing the apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
12

propriate incentives, but this is still an issue that we are not doing

as well as I believe we can, but hopefully it will improve.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

I think we will take 10 minutes. You can take as much time as

you want, obviously. Since there are only the two of us here, I

think we can just take as much time as we want.

Okay. Following up on that concern, let us start with the surge

issue. We are hearing from our hospitals two concerns—and I have

the same concerns that Senator Kennedy, I suspect, has because

our health care systems are very much integrated in New England.

The first is that the dollars are going out in such a formula way

that it is essentially sprinkling the money across hospitals at such

a low level that hospitals which are most likely to need the surge,

some of Senator Kennedy’s hospitals being the primary ones, get so

little dollars that they cannot cover the costs—he just cited some—

and that the average amount that has been going out or the most

amount, maybe, is approximately $80,000 per hospital, something

like that, some ridiculously small amount of money. It is being

spread pretty thin rather than going out on threat-based formula

where you essentially give the hospitals which are clearly going to

be the ones that pick up the biggest amount of the surge the most

amount of money so that they can handle it.

Second, we are hearing that the way that the surge dollars are

being proposed provides no credit for beds which are already there

which would immediately be cleared out by taking patients out who

were elective or who were in a position where you could move them

out quickly, but instead, we are basically creating new beds, trying

to create new beds, warehoused with backup facilities which will

inevitably create huge overhead costs which may not ever be executed or used, and as a result, misallocation of resources within the

hospitals for surge.

And third—and there are three things—third, the lack of integration between States and regions where you have regions that are

community hospitals—right here in the Washington area, for example, there appears to be, and the GAO says, there is no integration

between the hospital structures in Virginia and Maryland and the

District. I know in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire hospitals

are concerned, what happens if there is an evacuation in Boston.

They cannot get into the Boston plans. The Boston plans cannot get

into the New Hampshire plans. The fact is that we have a territorial problem here, which is basically jurisdictional by States and

the District of Columbia.

I would like you to address those three concerns relative to surge

and whatever other concerns you have relative to surge.

Secretary THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start

out by telling you that all of the things that you have indicated are

things that we are working on and trying to reach some type of

agreement. First of all, let me tell you that all the hospitals would

just like to have the money sent to them. There is no question

about that, and we are trying to develop a plan that is more regionally centered.

The CHAIRMAN. Is your plan based on some hospitals having a

higher likelihood to carry the threat than others?

13

Secretary THOMPSON. We are trying to work with the local hospitals to find out which ones have the capabilities as well as the

expertise to do that, and we have an overall plan to do that, but

we are also trying to work with—we do not have the power to dictate, and so we are trying to coordinate it. The money, as you probably know, a good portion of the money, two-thirds of the money

goes to CDC for States and one-third of the money, $525 million

approximately for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for all the hospitals

across America, and that has been appropriated to HRSA. The second thing is we have decided to reallocate this year $55

million which is going to go into what we call city readiness initiative, and this is for fiscal year 2004, and we are working on that

right now. The Appropriations Committee has given us authority

to do so. The first $27 million of that is going to be going into cities

in order to be able to do a better job of deploying the medicines and

the drugs that will be coming in as well as deploying the personnel.

$12 million would be going to the Postal Department for backups.

In fact, if we have a huge catastrophe in a particular community,

we have reached agreement with the postal authorities that they

will deliver the medicines to every particular house. If there was

a catastrophe in Boston, so to speak, and there was such a huge

number of casualties that could not get into the hospital, such as

anthrax and the spores were out there, we would want to be able

to get an antibiotic into the particular homes. We would use the

Postal Department. We set that up and we are taking $12 million

to do that.

Then we put $12 million in CDC for a new program called

BioSense. We have bio detectors. We are now starting BioSense

which is going to give CDC a better opportunity to see what medicines are being purchased, what kind of people and what kind of

diseases are going to the emergency hospital, and this is BioSense,

and this is also going to be helpful. We have reallocated $55 million

of that.

All of these type of things are towards trying to create an opportunity for surge capacity. We have also got an interdepartmental

program set up which is headed up by a new general that we have

just hired that is working with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and so on to make a complete inventory

of all the bed spaces that are available in the Department of Defense so that we can move and be able to use. We have also got

a program set up to take a look at convention centers as well as

National Guard armories to move in if we have to have immediate

surge capacity that could not be placed into a hospital.

The CHAIRMAN. The first part of your answer is where I want to

focus, and that is do we have—does each State have a State plan.

Secretary THOMPSON. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. That State plan theoretically identifies the hospitals which will be having to carry the burden. Do we have the

capacity as the Federal Government to come and review those

State plans——

Secretary THOMPSON. Yes

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. And say, ‘‘We are sorry, you are

spending too much money on the hospital in Laconia, NH and not

enough on the hospital in Nashua, NH’’, which is where it is more

14

likely to have the issues and so that you can override and reorient

depending on what you determine, what CDC determines, is the

threat, No. 1? No. 2, do you have the capacity to direct the different

States to function together as a region, specifically here in the

Washington, DC area and New York City area where you have

multi-jurisdiction events going on?

Secretary THOMPSON. We do if there was an emergency.

The CHAIRMAN. But you do not have it in the planning stages?

Secretary THOMPSON. We have it in the planning stages. We are

working with the States and local officials, and we are doing it on

a national basis as well. We are trying to develop it, but do we

have the authority to tell the States after we give them the money

that the money should have gone to Hospital A instead of Hospital

B? We can suggest it, but we do not have the authority to tell

them.

The CHAIRMAN. Shouldn’t you have that authority? Shouldn’t you

have the authority to be able to review in a threat-based way based

on the public health issues, the State plans and the regional plans

to determine whether or not they reflect what is the best case scenario?

Secretary THOMPSON. I think we should, Senator Gregg, but

what we are trying to do is, we are trying to work locally with the

State health departments, the municipality health departments,

the first responders, and the hospital associations to be able to do

that. We are trying to look at what the expertise in the hospitals

are and be able to cover as many contingencies as possible, but I

do think we should have the authority to be able to direct exactly

where that money should go.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you should. I think the buck should stop

somewhere. It should stop at your office or Tom Ridge’s office, and

there should be a final decision made as to which hospital needs

higher capacity capability than the next hospital, and if the States

made a bad decision, you should do it.

Secretary THOMPSON. Lacking that, Senator, we have been working very closely with the hospitals and with the local health departments and the State health departments to develop a good State

plan, and we are working with them with our input. We have experts out meeting with them. We have called them into the office.

We are working with them, but the direct exact amount of money

is a little problematic.

Senator KENNEDY. I think the point that has been made by the

Chairman, a number of points, are enormously important. There

are provisions in legislation, but they have never been funded, that

permit the department to make direct grants to communities and

hospitals and also to regional groups, but this part has never been

funded. It has never been funded. I think that is something that

is certainly worthy of giving some thought, particularly as the

Chairman has pointed out, in light of what I think is really the

most significant aspect of the GAO study, and that is the surge capacity. No State met the third benchmark of the plan. The first two

benchmarks are relatively easy, but no State reported meeting the

benchmark plan for the hospitals in the State to respond to an epidemic involving at least 500 patients.

15

That is a very serious challenge. I think, as the Secretary has

pointed out, the States have, in many respects, been dilatory in

terms of giving bioterrorism preparedness that sense of urgency

and getting those resources out. We can at least try and see—and

I think, in listening to the exchange, I would be glad to work with

the chairman and see what can be done as he is a member of the

Appropriations Committee, to see what can be done in the future

on these community hospitals and giving greater focus and attention where there is the greatest need. We should also encourage regionalization, which I think is enormously important.

I do not know whether you want to make a brief comment on

what you are doing to deal with the whole surge capacity, just generally. I mean, this is a challenge. It is a problem. We have not got

States that are able to deal with 500 additional patients or whatever we are going to be facing. We obviously do not want to exaggerate any kind of threat, but, I mean, it might certainly reach

more than 500 that may be directly impacted. I do not know what

you are doing to try and deal with that particular observation from

the GAO report.

Secretary THOMPSON. Senator, we are trying to do a lot of things,

as I tried to reply to Senator Gregg.

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. This was a very good one that you are

talking about. Of course, what you are using is re-program money.

That was not new money.

Secretary THOMPSON. That was not new money. That was re-program money.

Senator KENNEDY. From health agencies to fund it. I think the

points that you make, I thought were enormously interesting. I was

unaware about how you are using the Postal Service. That is very

creative, and that certainly sounds enormously worthwhile and valuable, but we have to try and look globally about what is happening, I think too. You have got the surge capacity. You have also the

cuts in CDC that are taking place, which is the agency which has

enormous responsibilities in this as well. You have got the real cuts

that are coming up that have been recommended in the CDC. As

I understand, this budget funding cuts are by $350 million, a reduction of 8 percent, and obviously the CDC has some of the

world’s best scientists, and many of them have to work in some

substandard facilities that are enormously challenging. As we say,

the money is not going to solve everything, but there are very, very

important areas, particularly I think in these areas which have

been identified here in the hospital, surge capacity, which need additional kinds of attention and priorities and funding.

I thank the Chair. This is an important undertaking, and this

has been very, very helpful in terms of getting a better picture. Ms.

Gerberding, I want to join in welcoming you as the Chairman has.

We have got a very outstanding health team here, and is there a

comment that you want to make about how you are getting this out

in terms of the CDC, particularly since you have such responsibility, I guess two-thirds of the money going through the State? What

can you do to get the States to be more responsive?

Dr. GERBERDING. Thank you. As you know, we are starting from

a very deep hole in rebuilding our State public health infrastructure and the local public health infrastructure. We would like to be

16

appreciative of the tremendous progress, but we agree completely

that we still have important tasks that are being accomplished yet.

In the existing cooperative agreement program that CDC is accountable for, we had performance metrics based on the capacity

of States to fulfill certain criteria, 16 of them. Those were relatively

broad categories of capacity with very little specificity, and we had

difficulty quantifying the level of preparedness.

As we are preparing the next cycle of funding for the next 5-year

grant program, we are working with our partners to develop some

very specific performance indicators. For example, it is highly likely

we will have a performance indicator that addresses regional integration of the planning process, a performance indicator that specifically addresses a quantitative surge capability within the medical care system, and we think by making the expectations explicit,

we will have much better information to recognize where a State

or region is not measuring up, and then we can go in with our technical support and with Secretary Thompson’s resources from the

other departments at HHS to try to help people be successful.

The goal is to achieve the stated functionalities, and I think by

being explicit about what is necessary, measuring the progress toward getting that done, and then supporting improvements with

whatever we need to do to overcome the barriers, we will be able

to sit in front of you with a lot more specificity in the future.

Senator KENNEDY. It sounds very promising.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Following up on that, are you doing

that nationwide or are you picking places? Are you picking like

New York, Washington?

Secretary THOMPSON. Before Senator Kennedy leaves, I am sorry,

Senator Gregg, but I wanted to—Senator Kennedy, you wanted to

know about the Democratic convention. We are putting a lot of

medical personnel, a lot of equipment up there. We are moving the

push packages and things necessary. We already have deployed a

lot of medical equipment and doctors to the Boston area, and we

are also doing a lot of things that the convention has requested of

us, and we have already complied.

We have some sensitive things that we are doing that I would

have my staff come up and brief you or your staff, if you wanted

to. I would rather not do it in an open meeting.

Senator KENNEDY. That is very encouraging, and I think people

in Boston will be very much relieved and appreciative of those efforts.

I see Dr. Fauci——

Dr. FAUCI. Senator, I just wanted to point out when you talk

about regions, we have the research endeavor which is related in

many ways to the delivery of care, but not directly, but when we

put our regional centers of excellence in bio defense and emerging

diseases, it was with the thought of having the best scientific

minds, capabilities, and resources to be available to the delivery of

health care so that when something happens, at least you have the

scientists geared. One of our best regional centers is in the New

England area, located in Boston.

Senator KENNEDY. Yes.

17

Dr. FAUCI. We serve that regional area and cooperate and collaborate not only with the CDC, but with the State and local health

departments.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it should be in Hanover, but that is

all right.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for mentioning

that. I think that is enormously important and very reassuring.

Secretary Ridge was up there this past weekend with our Mayor.

There has obviously been increased anxiety because of the recent

kinds of announcements. This is very, very constructive and very

important, and we are grateful to you for your leadership.

I thank the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator.

Returning to your question, your point that you are setting up

these new basically benchmarks and procedures for getting to those

benchmarks, are you sort of doing demonstration efforts so that we

pick up the real critical areas that we know are critical, New York

City, Washington, Los Angeles, first or are we doing this nationwide?

Dr. GERBERDING. The cooperative agreement starts in 2005, and

so right now we are preparing the grant guidance for that next

5-year cycle of funding, and that applies to the entire set of jurisdictions that we are responsible for. It is the 50 States and the cities and territories that are directly funded by CDC.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think we should just get started in

a few places to test the exercise?

Dr. GERBERDING. Well, we actually have been doing that, and

specifically, there are some lessons learned from good performers

who are already looking at their state of readiness from this direction. What we are trying to do is learn from the experience that

we have had already over the last 5 years and figure out what is

working and what is the capacity of the States that are particularly

excelling in certain areas and transfer that experience to the other

locations. It is actually very difficult to define preparedness, as you

can imagine, and so there is no place to go to look to identify what

constitutes a highly prepared State.

For one thing, it is a process, and you can always imagine a scenario one step beyond your level of preparedness. We have taken

some stretch indicators, and we are working them on a pilot basis

to see whether or not they are feasible and make sense in some of

the most critical jurisdictions.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would just like to suggest you start with

the Capital area, because the GAO report was devastating relative

to this area, and obviously New York is a priority target.

Can we get back to this antibody issue? Where do we stand with

the vaccines and specifically the smallpox vaccine which has been

represented may never get through FDA approval, although we

have a single purchaser? The anthrax, I know you mentioned you

were going out with an RFP, but is that a vaccine that prevents

it, or is it just an antidote if you have been exposed to it?

Dr. FAUCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me address the issue

that you just brought up as well as yesterday when we had the discussion, and that has to do with the licensability or not of the canvass product that is in clinical trial for which we have already put

18

the product into the stockpile. That is the cell culture-based vaccine

that uses the same seed virus in many respects that the New York

Public Health has used in the dry vacs, which is the classic one

that we have used for decades and decades. That, because of the

detection of adverse events of an inflammation of the heart, which

we call myopericarditis, in what appear to be, even though numbers were small, a rate that might have been greater than the rate

that we saw with the previous observations, it was put on clinical

hold. It has not been declared unlicensable. This is not an uncommon event when you see adverse events. The FDA, because this is

clinical trial directed towards licensure, the degree of intensity

with which you follow individuals for adverse side effects is much

greater than when you just distribute a vaccine, as was done with

the military when they distributed over a half a million dose—not

doses. A half a million people were vaccinated.

The answer to your question is that, indeed, it has not been declared not licensable. The data are being reviewed by the Data and

Safety Monitoring Board as well as by the FDA and they will then

either proceed or not. If they do, it is likely that they will modify

the consent form to make these most recent findings aware. The

answer to your question is it has not been deemed unlicensable.

With regard to the next generation smallpox, that the one that

we know from considerable experience in the field, not only internationally, but with patients who have cancer and HIV, that particular candidate is being researched right now, and it looks pretty

good not only from a safety standpoint, but from the fact that we

have applied in the direction of the two-animal model that the FDA

holds. I am not saying this will be used by them, but we have done

the experiments in the monkey model with money pox and in a

mouse model with a lethal vaccinia challenge using the attenuated

vaccinia, and it has shown to protect in both of those species. That

is pretty good news as we go along with the clinical trial.

With regard to the recomitant protective antigen vaccine that we

have contracts out for, as you know, that is a contract with Vaxgen

and Evecia, and in that arena, we have now been in phase one

trials in both of those contracts, and we have gone into phase two

trial with the Vaxgen product, and right now, we are getting good

immunigenicity and safety looks good. We are well on the road towards the landmarks and benchmarks that we discussed with this

committee before with the RPA.

The last one, to just give you some follow-up, we are still on

track with the ebola vaccine. I had mentioned the protected moneys, and we are now in clinical trials in a human. For the three

big ones that we spoke about, smallpox, anthrax, and ebola, I believe we are on track.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Senator Alexander.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me for

being late to the hearing. We had an opportunity at 10 o’clock to

have a briefing by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton about the 9–11

Commission, and I wanted to hear the first part of that before I

came here. I do not want to go over material you have already gone

19

over, but I would like to ask one question, if I may, based on what

I just heard.

In the first place, the 9–11 Commission, I look forward to reading

it over the next 2 or 3 months, but I will say I am impressed with

the way the report has been presented, with the quality of the leadership by Chairman Kean, and Lee Hamilton, with the unanimous

recommendations and with what they presented to us. I think it

deserves enormous attention by those of us in Congress and by the

American people.

Mr. Hamilton, who said he had worked with every leader of the

Central Intelligence Agency since the Lyndon Johnson Presidency,

said there were four major failures that the Commission found, and

I want to ask you a question about one of them. The first one he

said was the failure of imagination, that we did not imagine that

people would do to us what the 9–11 terrorists did. Two was a failure of policy. Three was a failure of capabilities. And four was a

failure of management.

In your testimony, you talk about policy, capabilities, management, and the things you are working on. I want to ask Secretary

Thompson, because he, like I, has been around a while in different

jobs, about the failure of imagination. I have thought many times

back to the middle of the 1990s, for example, when I was the candidate for the President of United States—not too many people

knew that, but I was at the time. It never once occurred to me in

1994, 1995, and 1996, never once occurred to me that if I were to

be elected, that I might be faced with the proposition of a group

of people flying an airplane into the World Trade Center and that

I might have to make a decision within 5 minutes about whether

to shoot down a commercial airline filled with Americans, never occurred to me.

I thought maybe that was because I just was not as sophisticated

as some others. I have asked everybody else who ran that year, including Dick Luger, chairman now of our Foreign Relations committee. He was even talking in 1995 and 1996 about terrorism. It

never occurred to him. My question would be what are we doing,

what are you doing to help our country deal with this failure of

imagination? Because if we do not imagine the possibility to begin

with, all the policy, all the capabilities, all the management will

not make that much difference. I am not sure that we can imagine

the most awful thing and then relate it every day to the American

people. I imagine in 1995 and in 1996, if I would have stood up in

Cedar Rapids, Iowa or Plymouth, New Hampshire and said, ‘‘I am

prepared as President to deal with the possibility that someone will

fly an airplane or two or into the World Trade Center, into the Pentagon, maybe into the U.S. Capitol, and I will shoot down U.S. airliners’’, they might have just carted me off to the loony bin. They

certainly would not have put me in the White House based on

something like that.

I am not talking about going around and scaring the American

people about every possibility, but what can we imagine and do

that would keep us from having a failure of imagination about all

the possibilities that are presented to us as we deal with what Mr.

Hamilton and Governor Kean said is the overriding threat to our

20

Nation for the rest of our lifetimes and probably for a time thereafter?

Secretary THOMPSON. Well, first off, thank you for the question,

Senator Alexander, and thank you very much for your imaginative

question. First off, what we have done, I have asked you to come

over and I really would like to have you come over and see it. I

could show it up on the screen, but it does not do it justice, come

over and see our war room, our information room. We have developed, I think the best—Senator Gregg has been over there—the

best visionary war room to track in diseases in storms and bioterrorism kinds of attacks in America and the world, and we have

set up simulated exercises which we do constantly, simulated exercises on food poisoning, simulated exercises on an anthrax attack,

simulated exercise on smallpox, all of these type of things which

are absolutely important, and I think it would be a very good education for you to come over and see it. I think you would walk out

of there very impressed by what we have been able to build and

what we are able to accomplish and what we are able to follow.

Anyway, everybody that has been through it, and there have

been thousands, have indicated the same conclusion, that it is visionary.

The second thing is that what we try and do, we try to take a

look at, Dr. Fauci’s expertise, try and say what sort of a counterterrorism agent do you have to have, what sort of way could they

mutate or change that smallpox virus and how would we be able

to respond to that if they did that, what would be the way we could

respond if a new type of anthrax or any kind of a virus that has

been genetically changed, how would we be able to do that, and Dr.

Fauci has put together a great team that is looking at all of the

potential possibilities and is doing research on that. That is what

BioShield is all about, is to be able to get us prepared, to be able

to push and pull for new research against threats that may take

place.

The 19th Century diseases that we never thought could be

weaponized now can be weaponized and can be used as a tool of

terrorism, and Dr. Fauci is doing a great job. Dr. Gerberding, on

the other hand, in CDC, we are taking a look. What we are doing

is we are putting biosensors—we have got biosensors in several

communities, which is highly sensitive, but they are biosensing,

and they will be able to pick up agents, and then we are developing

a new program called BioSensitive which is going to allow for that

information to be sent down to CDC in a particular area, what are

the medicines people are buying, is there a real run on Doxycycline

or Cipro, and that would be a real quick alert and we would be able

to get that information.

We are hooked up now to 121 laboratories throughout America

and 90 percent of all the health departments. We will be able to

get that information out immediately, saying in this particular area

there is a huge increase on the purchase of Cipro, what is going

on in the emergency wards in that particular hospital or that region to give us an idea.

The third thing we are trying to do is trying to determine as regards to food that is coming in, which is my biggest concern as the

Secretary, to be able to stop any kind of threats to our food supply

21

that is coming in. We have a lot of food that is imported from

around the world, and this has always been my biggest concern,

what would happen if some kind of food stock was poisoned, how

would we be able to detect that, how would we be able to prevent

that, and we have set up a lot of different kinds of teams in order

to respond to that. We put together, I think, a great group of experts on bioterrorism that are planning and trying to come up with

ways to do it.

I think we are doing a good thing. We are not going to be able

to determine everything that the terrorists could hit, but we are

trying to put up plume modelings and any kinds of floor exercises,

table top exercises, dealing with food poisoning, and we are trying

to find ways how we are able to respond. Milk, for instance, we are

asking to be able to increase the temperature of the pasteurization

of milk, because that could be something the terrorists could hit on

the farm, and so we are trying to think ahead as to where they

might be able to hit us and how we would be able to respond.

Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you, and I will look forward to the

visit.

Secretary THOMPSON. I would hope you would. Thank you.

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DODD

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and like Senator Alexander, we were both in the same meeting trying to make decisions

to be here and be there simultaneously, and this report has just

come out, and I think all of us are very impressed with the work

of Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton. I had the pleasure of serving with

Lee Hamilton for a number of years in the House of Representatives, and they and their fellow commissioners, I think did a very

fine job.

It is a sad tale, indeed, as Tom Kean laid out at the initiation

of his remarks, that if you go back and if someone had just presented in one or two pages, just a litany of the things that had occurred, all of which were highly publicized events, and laid them

out, in retrospect looking back, the question is why did not all of

us in society take more note of this? It seems quite obvious in retrospect that there was a very determined group of people that hate

us, and that is a hard thing for Americans to come to terms with,

that there are people who hate us and are going to use whatever

means available to them to do as much damage to innocent people

as possible; and, in fact, with a little less than $500,000 on 9–11

they killed 3,000 people within an hour.

As Senator Alexander has pointed out, the failure of imagination

is, I think, one of the problems.

Let me come back to earth a little bit. Certainly Senator Alexander and I work on children and family issues, and the Chairman

does. When we adopted the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act in 2002,

I asked to be written into that proposal to create a National Advisory Committee on children and families, NACCT as it is called,

which required the committee to report to you, Mr. Secretary, within a year of the bill’s passage, the preparedness of our health care

system to respond to terrorist attacks as they specifically relate to

22

children and what changes might be needed to our health care and

emergency medical response systems to meet the special needs of

children.

There are 70 million people in this country under the age of 18,

22 million under the age of 5 in the United States, and obviously

we talk about protecting bridges and highways and roads and

things, but children have special needs, unique needs, I think we

have all come to recognize. Certainly as we develop prescription

drugs and the like, we begin to understand that the needs of children, physiologically and so forth, are different than adults.

This report was made available to the Department in June of

last year, June 2003. What I would like to know is to what extent

the Federal Government has worked to implement the recommendations included in the report. There are five of them specifically in this report. I will not go over all of them, but in the letter dated June 12, 2003 and the summary of the report, they talk

very specifically here about a review of current Department of

Health and Human Services programs and guidance to require that

a specific focus be placed on meeting the needs of children and families; decisions of terrorism-related programs and initiatives should

be linked to confirmation that children’s needs have been specifically accounted for; structures within the Department should be

created to ensure continued oversight and adequate response to

needs of children and families; significant new pediatric and physiological initiatives are needed to address the needs of the Nation’s

children and families in light of their continued threat to terror

events; and, number five, addressing the needs of children and

families in the face of terrorism should be recognized as an essential part of America’s security response.

Added to this, and I will just add the second question for you

here, another aspect of the preparedness, in fact, is to ensure that

health and safety of our children in the event a terrorist attack occurs with regard to vaccines and the formulations and dosages different from adults, what is the status of stockpiles, the ability to

fill these needs of children?

I know States have done a lot. My own State in Connecticut has

taken certain steps, but I am not clear that we have really done

much at the national level a year after this report was submitted

to the Department.

Secretary THOMPSON. Senator, we have done a lot. As you know,

we issued the report on time, and we had certain conclusions

drawn and suggestions. We are in the process of implementing the

work on each one of the things that you have mentioned as well

as many other things. Our stockpile does have things set up just

for children, for doses and for ventilators and so on in each one of

the 12 stockpiles across America that are strategically located. We

have actually put in medicines and vaccines strictly for children

under the age of 18 and for infants, and that is already in place

and has already been completed. It does not mean that we are not

looking for many other ways and other suggestions on how we

might be able to honor the request of Congress, and I think we are

doing that.

Julie, did you have anything further that you wanted to add?

23

Dr. GERBERDING. In addition to the stockpile issues, CDC is in

the process of developing life stage goals, and so for children, there

are some very specific opportunities to define the preparedness

goals for that population as there are for infants, but part of the

preparation and planning efforts ongoing include preparation of

families and households and specific advice about, for example,

what should you do if your child is in your school and you are at

work and there is terrorism attack or what family mechanisms and

routines are available to ensure that even our children, of people

who work at CDC, what is the plan if the parent has to stay at

CDC to responsibly respond to terrorism threat, is there a plan for

child care.

The specific elements and recommendations about how families

can prepare for themselves and the safety of their children are

something that the department has been working on in conjunction

with Homeland Security and the Red Cross, and I think we can

provide you with some very specific examples of the attention that

has been given to this issue over the last year.

Senator DODD. I would like to see those if I could.

Secretary THOMPSON. Senator Dodd, and also 9–11, we had to do

a lot of counseling of SAMHSA up in New York, a lot with children,

and we have taken that experience and built it into future protocols, if that would take place in SAMHSA, because children really

need some intense counseling immediately after a terrorism attack

and also a continuation of counseling thereafter. We are building

plans for that.

Senator DODD. Am I to understand that we already do have

stockpiles of vaccines specifically designed to accommodate children’s needs?

Secretary THOMPSON. Yes.

Dr. GERBERDING. Can I just add one thing?

Senator DODD. Yes.

Dr. GERBERDING. We have a registry of people who were affected

by the World Trade Center events in New York. We have already

almost 50,000 people in that registry now, and we have noticed

that we do not have the number of children that we were anticipating. Specific efforts are underway as we speak to try to encourage

children’s participation in the registry so we can understand better

what their needs really are.

Senator DODD. Dr. Fauci, any point on this at all?

Dr. FAUCI. The only point I can make with regard to children is

that we are very sensitive to the idea that when we are testing

drugs, that we need to make sure that we include children in the

umbrella of particularly paying particular attention to the extra

safety issues you have with children, because we are going to have

to administer drugs and vaccines to children as well as to adults.

That is an important part of the research endeavor.

Senator DODD. On this committee and others over the last several years, we have worked very hard, Senator DeWine and I having authored the initial legislation that set up the program that

would encourage private sector development of drugs designed specifically for children and then, of course, more recently the requirement that the FDA move in this area, and I think we all recognize

there are have been real advantages. What has been amazing is

24

how much has been developed in a relatively short amount of time,

although you are talking about an audience population, while it is

large, relatively small numbers of the population based on illnesses

on and so forth, it is a real rather small constituency, if you will,

patient group; but, nonetheless, in the area of terror, we are talking about just innocence being automatically affected, and having

the ability to provide those vaccines should not be beyond our

imagination—is that you end up with a bio attack, that children

are going to be affected very directly, and our ability to respond to

their health care needs is something we should not look back on

and wonder why we did not get it right. That is why we insisted

upon that report at the time.

As I say, I have very great respect for the protecting of our

bridges and highways, but I really hope we keep focused on these

kids.

Secretary THOMPSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Dodd.

We have a vote on. There are three votes in a row. What I would

like to suggest is first I want to thank Secretary Thompson, Dr.

Gerberding, and Dr. Fauci. We appreciate your time. We appreciate

the job you have, which is a very difficult one, and you are certainly doing yeomen’s work, and we thank for it. You have great

successes, which I do not think should go unnoticed, which is of

course the SARS, reaction to SARS, reaction to West Nile, the

movement in the area of getting the vaccines up and running, and

the many things that you outlined, Secretary, but we do have a

long way to go and we want to help you.

If you have language which you think we need to consider relative to making sure that these funds go out on a threat-based purpose and that there is a regional awareness and a regional management and that you can step in and make sure that occurs, we

would be interested. I would be interested in looking at it, anyway.

Senator DODD. Can I say, Mr. Chairman, too, with regard to children issues, if you think we need stronger language and other

things regarding children, I would really like to know that. I think

our colleagues would as well. If there are gaps someplace in here,

I would like to know that.

The CHAIRMAN. I think what we are going to do is we are going

to adjourn the hearing until about a quarter of twelve. Hopefully

all the votes will be completed then. We thank this panel for participating.

Then we are going to hear from members of the Homeland Security team and then some folks who are on the front lines. We will

be back at a quarter to twelve.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to start the hearing again. I appreciate the forbearance of the witnesses relative to the Senatorial

schedule. Unfortunately these votes were scheduled after this hearing was scheduled.

We are going to begin this panel with hearing from the Homeland Security Agency, which obviously has primarily responsibility

in a variety of areas relative to an attack, a terrorist attack involvVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
25

ing public health or biologic agents, that affects public health and

obviously would be driven by biologic agents.

We are going to hear from Eric Tolbert, who is the Director of

the Response Division of Emergency Preparedness and Response

Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, and Andy

Mitchell, who is Deputy Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security.

Why don’t we start right off, and which of you folks want to testify or are you both testifying? Who has a statement?

Mr. TOLBERT. I think we both have a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Great.

STATEMENT OF ERIC TOLBERT, DIRECTOR, RESPONSE DIVISION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. TOLBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Eric Tolbert. I am the Director of the Response Division for FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security. I am

pleased to be here today on behalf of Secretary Ridge and Under

Secretary Mike Brown to discuss our Nation’s readiness for dealing

with the public health response to a terrorist attack during high

profile events.

The Department of Homeland Security has been charged with

ensuring the safety and security of all national special security

events, such as the Group of 8 Summit earlier this year, the State

of the Union Address, the State funeral of President Ronald

Reagan, and the upcoming Democratic and Republic National conventions. The Secret Service is in charge of the overall design and

implementation of the NSSC planning, and FEMA’s role is to coordinate the emergency management activities associated with

these events and provide any needed response and recovery assets.

It is important to note, however, that our efforts are in support

of the State and local governments. We do not supplant, rather we

supplement their resources and their activities and their assets. In

the case of the upcoming political conventions, the department has

assembled numerous Federal, State, and local agencies to put in

place an unprecedented level of security and response assets.

FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute conducts specially tailored training programs for the Federal, State, and local agencies

involved in national special security events, and recently we conducted two of these integrated emergency management courses in

preparations for our upcoming NSSEs, including the Super Bowl.

For the past Olympics, we conducted seven integrated emergency

management courses in Utah, Georgia, and California related to

the Olympics, and we have done the same for World Cup Soccer,

Pan Am games. The list goes on, including the four major cities for

the last political conventions.

We have a long history of assisting State and local governments

and working collaboratively and developing capability to prevent

and respond to events that may occur in those venues. I would reiterate that we work in partnership with State and local organizations, and the department has invested substantial resources and

numerous personnel over the past several months to ensure a safe

26

and secure event for both the Boston and New York communities

and all delegates attending the conventions.

Regarding the department support for the conventions, we have

overall activities in support of Boston and New York for the conventions, and I can provide additional detailed information as you

would desire to give you a snapshot of the types of capabilities that

we are bringing to bear on the two conventions. We have been involved for many months in the planning and coordination in the

areas of venue protection, air space security, communications,

emergency equipment, credentials, and training. We are in the

process of deploying specialized teams to detect explosives and

weapons of mass destruction and hazardous materials. We have in

place comprehensive waterside coverage and surveillance on and

over the water. We have assistance for security personnel and

x-ray equipment for examining suspicious packages entering a convention facility and scanning commercial vehicles and delivery

trucks, such as food service providers, as they enter the convention

sites. We conduct security and vulnerability assessments at the affected commercial and general aviation and private airports and

enhancements to aviation security near convention sites.

We have also distributed radiation detection units to State and

local law enforcement with operational responsibilities for the convention, and we have deployed air monitoring equipment. In addition to the standing BioWatch program, we have deployed additional portable units to the venues to detect airborne biological

pathogens during the duration of the conventions.

Regarding FEMA support for the conventions, we are responsible

for coordinating the emergency management activities and providing needed response and recovery assets. We do that from the

interagency community. Specifically in preparation for the DNC,

the Boston Emergency Medical Service system evaluated their

available resources and threat information in order to be prepared

to adequately respond to a mass casualty incident, including an incident involving weapons of mass destruction occurring during the

convention. The city of Boston has requested supplemental assistance for responding to the medical aspects of a mass casualty incident, and FEMA maintains resources and capabilities that can be

activated and deployed to support a mass casualty incident.

Resources that will or can be deployed or placed on a standby

status to support these include our national disaster medical system, a network of specialized teams that provide the gamut of medical assistance, everything from medical support to humans to animals. We will even be providing some protection for security dogs

and other types of animals involved in ensuring and preventing

events from occurring in these venues. We will have an array of

medical personnel from both Homeland Security and HHS, prepositioned disaster supplies.

The list really goes on and on as to the types of capabilities. We

are literally spending millions of dollars preparing for and having

the right resources in place to support these operations.

Again, it is all about collaborative effort. We work months in advance for these planned events with the local emergency personnel.

We look creatively at what the requirements may be. We look at

the capabilities that they have both locally and regionally, and

27

then when there is a gap, our mission is to provide those additional

resources.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to

answering any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tolbert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC TOLBERT

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Eric Tolbert and I am

the Response Division Director for the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am pleased to be here

today on behalf of Secretary Tom Ridge of DHS to discuss the Nation’s readiness

for dealing with public health response to a terrorist attack during high profile

events.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

The Department of Homeland Security consolidated 22 previously disparate agencies under one unified organization. Eighteen months ago, no single Federal department had homeland security as its primary objective. DHS now fills that role and

is integrating its resources to meet a common goal. Our most important job is to

protect the American people and our way of life, and we now have a single, clear

line of authority to get the job done. Through our extensive partnerships with State,

local and tribal governments and the private sector, as well as other Federal departments, we are working to ensure the highest level of protection, preparedness and

response for the country and the citizens we serve, including people with disabilities.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5) state that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

is the ‘‘principal Federal official for domestic incident management’’ with responsibility for ‘‘coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for,

respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.’’

DHS has been charged with ensuring the safety and security of all National Special Security Events (NSSEs). The Group of Eight Summit, the State of the Union

Address, and the activities surrounding former President Ronald Reagan’s Memorial

Services were all designated as National Special Security Events, as are the upcoming Democratic and Republican National Conventions. The U.S. Secret Service, also

part of DHS, is in charge of the design and implementation of NSSE planning, and

FEMA is responsible for incident management, and will be in charge of coordinating

emergency management activities and providing any needed response and recovery

assets. Planning and coordination for these events begin at least a year in advance,

and FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute conducts a course specifically geared

to those persons and agencies—Federal, State and local—involved in an upcoming

NSSE.

In the case of the upcoming political conventions, the Department of Homeland

Security has assembled numerous Federal, State and local agencies to put in place

an unprecedented level of security and response assets. Working in partnership with

these State and local organizations, the Department has invested substantial resources and numerous personnel to ensure a safe and secure event for the Boston

and New York communities, and all delegates attending the conventions.

Among the preparedness activities of DHS agencies:

• The U.S. Secret Service has conducted comprehensive security assessments of

all primary convention venues as well as hotels, hospitals, airports and other sites

related to the convention. It has also coordinated multiple interagency training exercises and tested operational security plans to verify command and control protocols

and procedures.

• The U.S. Secret Service has performed a tremendous amount of advance planning and coordination in the areas of venue protection, airspace security, communication, emergency equipment, credentialing and training, and began in June 2003

to develop the security plan for the Democratic National Convention to be held in

July of 2004.

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement Border and Transportation Security

(BTS) will deploy Explosive Detector Dog teams, Weapons of Mass Destruction

(WMD)/HAZMAT technicians, intelligence and undercover agents, uniformed officers, bicycle and motorcycle officers, emergency response teams and a sizable numVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
28

ber of Special Agents. It will also provide Mobile Command Vehicles (MCV) to serve

as highly advanced communication centers for multiple law enforcement agencies.

ICE BTS has significantly increased Federal Air Marshal coverage on scheduled airline flights to and from the greater Boston area.

• As the primary Federal maritime law enforcement agency, U.S. Coast Guard

personnel will provide comprehensive waterside coverage on and over the water, coordinating closely with State, local and other Federal maritime law enforcement assets. Numerous Coast Guard units and personnel will be involved in this event including boat crews, law enforcement boarding teams, pilots and aircrew, support

personnel and a wide variety of Coast Guard assets. Coast Guard helicopters will

assist in security zone surveillance and enforcement as well as air interdiction efforts. The U.S. Coast Guard will establish a Waterside Security Unified Command

Center to manage waterside security operations.

• Customs and Border Protection will provide inspectors officers to assist security

personnel as well as operate a mobile x-ray unit to examine suspicious packages entering a Convention facility. It will also provide x-ray equipment to scan commercial

vehicles and delivery trucks such as food service providers as they enter the convention sites.

• The Transportation Security Administration has conducted security and vulnerability assessments at affected commercial, general aviation and private airports as

well as additional actions to enhance aviation security near convention sites.

• During the conventions, the Department’s Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) will provide timely sharing of any threat information, intelligence, situational awareness and operational information pertinent to the security of the event

through the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). HSIN provides realtime connectivity and information sharing among all DHS components and State

and local partners.

• For the Democratic National Convention, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate is working with the State of Massachusetts

Office of Public Safety to distribute radiation detection pagers to State and local law

enforcement personnel with operational responsibilities for the Convention.

• In coordination with the U.S. Secret Service, the Department’s Science and

Technology Directorate is deploying air-monitoring equipment to detect airborne biological pathogens during the duration of the Democratic National Convention.

• The Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Analysis Center (IMAAC) provides

a single point for the coordination and dissemination of Federal dispersion modeling

and hazard prediction products that represent the Federal position during an incident of national significance. The IMAAC is operational and prepared to provide

support if it is required.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

DHS/FEMA is the lead agency responsible for coordinating emergency management activities and providing any needed response and recovery assets for the upcoming political conventions. Like numerous DHS and other Federal agencies,

FEMA has been working closely with the city of Boston and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts for quite some time in preparation for the Democratic National Convention. FEMA has also been planning for the upcoming Republican National Convention.

In preparation for the Democratic National Convention, the Boston Emergency

Medical System evaluated available resources and threat information in order to be

prepared to adequately respond to a mass casualty incident, including a WMD incident, occurring during the Convention, which will occur July 26–29, 2004.

FEMA maintains resources and capabilities that can be activated and deployed

to support a mass-casualty incident. Due to the sensitive nature of releasing specific

details for such events we are unable to do so. Resources that will be either forward

deployed or standing by to respond are:

• Disaster Medical Assistance Teams;

• National Medical Response Teams;

• Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams;

• Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams;

• Burn Specialty Teams;

• Medical/Surgical Response Team;

• Numerous additional specialized medical personnel;

• Pre-Positioned Disaster Supplies to support mass care operations;

• Urban Search & Rescue task forces to support rescue operations; and

• Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) capabilities to support command/

control/communications.

29

DHS agencies are cooperating closely to be ready for the upcoming conventions,

just as they have for past NSSEs. Beyond this, they are coordinating assets with

other Federal departments, including the Department of Health and Human Services, but most importantly, with State and local government agencies, such as police, emergency management, emergency medical services, public health, public and

private hospitals, National Guard, and so on—those on the front line of emergencies.

CONCLUSION

The mission of DHS is very clear—helping people in need, be it a response to a

terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction such as a biological or chemical agent, natural disaster or any other catastrophic event. DHS provides the leadership and capabilities required to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from

disasters or emergencies of any kind. National Special Security Events present the

Department an opportunity to integrate its assets and capabilities in a ‘‘real world’’

situation, and bring together other Federal agencies, as well as our State and local

partners, who will always be the first to respond, whether the event is large or

small. The complete integration of so many agencies and capabilities into one department has been a huge undertaking, but the result is a Department that is much

more effective than the sum of its parts.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Tolbert.

Mr. Mitchell.

STATEMENT OF ANDY MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE

FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND

PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Chairman Gregg. I am pleased to

have this opportunity to discuss today the role of the Department

of Homeland Security Office of Domestic Preparedness and the role

we play in our Nation’s efforts to prevent and respond to threats

and incidents of terrorism domestically.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, with your significant support ODP

was created long before the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and

our agency’s singular mission is to help State and local first response agencies and personnel prepare for, prevent, and respond to

incidents involving weapons of mass destruction and other terrorism-related public safety emergencies. ODP was transferred from

the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security

under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in which ODP was assigned the primary responsibility within the Executive Branch of

Government for preparedness of the United States for acts of terrorism.

To further improve the delivery of Federal assistance to first responders, Secretary Ridge consolidated two DHS agencies with the

compatible missions, the Office of Domestic Preparedness and the

Office for State and Local Government Coordination. With this consolidation, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary created the one-stop shop

for Federal Homeland Security assistance that State and local

stakeholders that have called for since 1998. Through these programs and activities, ODP provides funding, equipment, training,

technical assistance, and exercise support for State and local enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other response personnel. ODP focuses on the entire spectrum of Homeland

Security, but emphasizes public safety preparedness, both prevention and response, and through the statewide and regional Homeland Security strategies, States and localities define their strategic

goals and prioritize their activities to be funded to achieve those

goals.

30

Regarding public health, ODP has historically worked closely

with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to coordinate public health

and domestic preparedness initiatives. Our State Homeland Security and area security initiative grants can be used for personal

protective equipment for hospital providers, decontamination equipment for hospitals, medical supplies, and pharmaceuticals needed

to respond to the WMD event for force protection. To ensure that

public health preparedness is a critical component of any comprehensive homeland security program, the CDC under the HHS

agencies reviewed the program activities and the template that we

developed to guide the States in the development of their statement strategy that the States must submit to receive grant funding.

ODP has also supported the launch of CDC’s cities readiness initiative which Secretary Thompson referenced in his testimony. We

have worked with them and participated in executive business to

the two pilot sites in Chicago and the National Capital area region

who provided overviews of the programs and activities that we

have in those jurisdictions under the urban area security initiative,

and we are helping to identify those interactive collaborative processes that are already in place to ensure there is better coordination of a variety of Federal programs to meet the needs of local jurisdictions. Because of ODP’s lead role in working with State and

local governments to address their homeland security needs, we do

participate as members of the interagency planning group for national special security events.

In support of the Democratic and Republican National conventions, ODP worked closely with the U.S. Secret Service, our partners at FEMA, and a wide host of other Federal and State local

officials in the planning for these events. In Boston, ODP planned

to conduct three exercises: A senior leaders seminar, table-top exercise, and command post exercise. Subsequent to those exercises, the

Secret Service requested that we conduct a principal Federal officials exercise, which will be held in Boston tomorrow.

In New York, ODP has already planned and conducted a senior

leaders seminar and table-top exercise, and a command post exercise is scheduled for early in August.

Mr. Chairman, since 1999, ODP has provided significant funding

to enhance State and local preparedness nationally. Specifically,

New York State has received over $525 million of which approximately $362 million has been allocated to New York City. Massachusetts for that same period of time has received over $138 million of which approximately $42 million has been allocated to the

city of Boston. This financial support and other resources provided

has enhanced both those jurisdictions’ capabilities to prevent and

respond to incidents of terrorism and has provided significant support to allow them to achieve the capabilities they need to host

these two major events.

ODP has also been given responsibility for leading the effort to

implement the Homeland Security Presidential directive. Under

HSPDA, President Bush directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop a strategic preparedness measurement system for

assessing our Nation’s overall preparedness to respond to major inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
31

cidents including those involving acts of terrorism, and ODP is currently working with input from Federal, State, and local agencies

to develop this system. Obviously, part of that coordination involves our close collaboration with our partners at HHS to address

the bio preparedness issues element of the national strategy and

preparedness goals.

Through these and other efforts, ODP is employing its broad

range of resources to ensure that State and local governments and

first responders are as prepared as possible to protect the public

from any emergency, and we look forward to continuing to work

with you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee and the Congress to

do anything else that needs to be done. That concludes my statement, and I would be more than happy to answer some questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW T. MITCHELL

Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Kennedy and Members of the Committee, my

name is Andy Mitchell, and I serve as the Deputy Director of the Department of

Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As you know,

the Secretary recently consolidated the Office for Domestic Preparedness and the

Office for State and Local Government Coordination in order to move toward the

‘‘one stop shop’’ that stakeholders have called for. On behalf of SLGCP Executive

Director Sue Mencer and Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to appear before you

today to discuss the current status of SLGCP and other issues of critical importance.

On behalf of all of us at DHS, I want to thank all the Members of the Committee

for your ongoing support for the Department and for SLGCP. You and your colleagues have entrusted us with a great responsibility, and we are meeting that responsibility with the utmost diligence. I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

your foresight and leadership in supporting and developing many of the programs

that comprised SLGCP long before the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

As you are all aware, ODP within SLGCP is responsible for preparing our Nation

against terrorism by assisting States, local jurisdictions, regional authorities, and

tribal governments with building their capacity to prepare for, prevent, and respond

to acts of terrorism. Through its programs and activities, ODP equips, trains, exercises, and supports State and local homeland security personnel—our Nation’s first

responders—who may be called upon to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. We

also will work with these entities to take into consideration the needs of unique

groups in our emergency planning efforts, including those of people with disabilities.

Mr. Chairman, ODP has established an outstanding track record of capacity

building at the State, local, territorial, and tribal levels, by combining subject matter expertise, grant-making know-how, and establishing strong and long-standing

ties to the Nation’s public safety community. Since its creation in 1998, ODP has

provided assistance to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Through its programs and initiatives ODP

has trained over 550,000 emergency responders from more than 5,000 jurisdictions

and conducted nearly 400 exercises. And, by the end of Fiscal Year 2004, ODP will

have provided States and localities with more than $8.1 billion in assistance and

direct support.

Our core mission is to address homeland security and terrorism preparedness

issues on a very broad scale. This focus is on the Nation, on regions, on States, cities

and specific events such as the upcoming political conventions. Our programs are

designed to provide a framework through which officials at the local and State levels

of government may work together to identify their current capabilities, gaps and

shortfalls. This approach allows jurisdictions to prioritize and to set goals.

ODP has a number of assistance programs. Two key programs include the State

Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiatives (UASI) Program.

Through its Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program, ODP requires

States to work with communities selected according to classified criteria that include threat and risk, presence of critical infrastructure and population density. We

require UASI participants to form inter-jurisdictional working groups who undertake assessments of local capabilities that are used to craft plans, or strategies, for

that area’s preparedness efforts. It is our goal to provide program participants with

an over-arching strategy that may be used to advance their level of preparedness.

32

These working groups have been used by other Federal agencies, including the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to ‘‘access’’ these communities so that their specific area of expertise may be applied. We are pleased with

this result and feel that we are well on our way to establishing a framework that

is useful to States, localities and the Federal Government.

Our programs focus on the provision of planning tools, training, equipment acquisition and exercises. As you know Mr. Chairman, at your direction, we executed the

congressionally mandated Top Officials (TOPOFF) exercise program in the year

2000 and again in 2003. These exercises were designed to include all levels of government in simulated crisis through which best practices and lessons learned could

be gleaned. These exercises included biological, chemical and radiological scenarios

and have provided all levels of government with useful insight as we prepare for

occasions such as the recent G–8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia, and the upcoming

Democratic and Republican National Conventions in Boston and New York, respectively.

These National Special Security Events (NSSE), as designated by the U.S. Secret

Service, are high-profile events that would result in both symbolic and practical consequences should they be disrupted by terrorists. As such, these events require a

greater than usual degree of support and participation from Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.

ODP provides targeted assistance for designated NSSEs, to include training, technical assistance, and exercises. Our Training Division offers courses that are specifically targeted for an NSSE. ODP also provides technical assistance to facilitate the

sharing of lessons learned and training from previous NSSEs. For example, during

the planning for the G-8 Summit in Georgia, representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were flown in to share lessons learned from the G-8 Summit

hosted in Canada. ODP’s Exercise and Evaluation Division provides a series of exercises that increase in scope and complexity. The first two exercises in this series,

a Senior Leaders Seminar and Tabletop Exercise, are discussion-based activities.

The exercise series culminates with the conduct of an operational Command Post

Exercise which is a final test and check of communications and interoperability between the command centers (i.e, FBI’s Joint Operations Center, Secret Service’s

Multi-Agency Coordination Center, etc.) before the actual NSSE. ODP is currently

working with the DHS Integration Staff (as part of the Security Planning Initiative)

to develop an annex that outlines the capabilities ODP can provide for special

events that are not designated as NSSEs.

Throughout its history ODP has worked to improve how it serves its State and

local constituents. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003, application materials for the

Department’s State Homeland Security Grant Program—under both the Fiscal Year

2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill—were made available to the States within 2 weeks of those bills becoming law. Further, over 90 percent of the grants made under that program were

awarded within 14 days of ODP receiving the grant applications.

During Fiscal Year 2004, ODP’s record of service to the Nation’s first responders

continues. All of the 56 States and territories have received their Fiscal Year 2004

funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program. This includes funds to support state-wide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the Citizen Corps

Program. These awards represent over $2.1 billion in direct assistance.

Further, 50 urban areas designated under the Fiscal Year 2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative have been awarded funding. This represents $671 million in support to high-density population centers with identifiable threats and critical infrastructure. In addition, the Department has identified 30 of the Nation’s most used

urban transit systems and has provided $49 million to enhance the overall security

of these systems. All 30 of these transit systems have received their Fiscal Year

2004 funds.

Much of how the States and territories distribute and utilize Homeland Security

Grant Program funds is influenced by the results of the State Homeland Security

Assessments and Strategies. As you know, each State, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories were required to submit their assessments and strategies by January 31, 2004.

These assessments and strategies, Mr. Chairman, are critically important to both

the States and the Federal Government. They provide a wealth of information regarding each State’s vulnerabilities, capabilities, and future requirements, as well

as each State’s preparedness goals and objectives. They provide each State with a

roadmap as to how current and future funding, exercise, training, and other preparedness resources should be directed and targeted, and they provide the Federal

Government with a better understanding of needs and capabilities. I am happy to

33

report that all assessments and strategies have been received and reviewed by an

intra-DHS review board comprised of representatives from major Department components and accepted by ODP.

During Fiscal Year 2005, ODP will continue to provide States and localities with

the resources they require to ensure the safety of the American public. The funds

requested by the President for Fiscal Year 2005 will allow ODP to continue to provide the training, equipment, exercises, technical assistance, and other support necessary to better prepare our communities.

DHS’s mission is critical, its responsibilities are great, and its programs and activities impact communities across the Nation. We will strive to fulfill our mission

and meet our responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. And we will, to

the best of our abilities, continue to identify where and how we can improve. Part

of our responsibility, part of the Department’s responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is the

recognition that we can always improve what we do and how we do it. And we can

never be too safe or too secure.

This critical mission was recognized by the Congress with the passage of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the creation of the Department of Homeland

Security. And since the Department’s creation, we have worked continuously with

the Congress to determine how better to fulfill our common goal of a more secure

America.

Close coordination between States, localities, and regions, is critical to an effective

and rational distribution of homeland security resources, and is consistent with currently existing ODP funding initiatives, such as the Urban Areas Security Initiative

or UASI Program.

ODP is also continuing its efforts to develop preparedness standards and to establish clear methods for assessing State and local preparedness levels and progress.

As you will recall Mr. Chairman, on December 17, 2003, the President issued

‘‘Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8.’’ Through HSPD-8, the President tasked Secretary Ridge, in coordination with other Federal departments and

State and local jurisdictions, to develop national preparedness goals, improve delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local jurisdictions, and strengthen the preparedness capabilities of Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments. HSPD-8 is consistent with the broader goals and objectives established

in the President’s National Strategy for Homeland Security issued in July, 2002,

which discussed the creation of a fully integrated national emergency response capability. Inherent to the successful implementation of HSPD-8 is the development of

clear and measurable standards for State and local preparedness capabilities.

The standards that will result from HSPD-8 implementation build on an existing

body of standards and guidelines developed by ODP and other Federal agencies to

guide and inform State and local preparedness efforts. Since its inception ODP has

worked with Federal agencies and State and local jurisdictions to develop and disseminate information to State and local agencies to assist them in making more informed preparedness decisions, including capability assessments, preparedness planning and strategies, and choices relating to training, equipment, and exercises.

Earlier this year, the Secretary delegated to ODP the responsibility for the implementation of HSPD-8. This designation by the Secretary is consistent with ODP

mission, as provided under the provisions of the Homeland Security Act, to be the

primary Federal agency responsible for the preparedness of the United States for

acts of terrorism. And ODP, together with Secretary Ridge, other Department components, Federal agencies, and State and local governments, firmly believe that the

successful implementation of HSPD-8 is essential and critical to our Nation’s ability

to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. In March, the Secretary

approved these key items: first, a strategy for a better prepared America based on

the requirements of HSPD-8; second, an integrated, intra- and inter-governmental

structure to implement HSPD-8; and third, an aggressive timeline for achieving

HSPD-8’s goals and objectives. Implementation of HSPD-8 involves the participation

of Federal, State, and local agencies, and, among other things, will result in the development and dissemination of clear, precise, and measurable preparedness standards and goals addressing State, local, and Federal prevention and response capabilities.

In closing Mr. Chairman, let me re-state Secretary Ridge’s commitment to support

the Nation’s State and local emergency response community, and to ensure that

America’s first responders receive the resources and support they require to do their

jobs. This concludes my statement. I am happy to respond to any questions that you

and the Members of the Committee may have. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

34

I guess my first question is there is a lot of concern out in the

community of the first responders that the dollars are not coming

out fast enough, and according to the statistics which were cited

earlier, they do not appear to be coming out fast enough. No 2004

dollars have come out—this might have been appropriate to the

Secretary of HHS. Sixty-two percent of the 2003 dollars are not

out. This is in public health. Fourteen percent of the 2002 dollars

are not out. Why is this happening and where is the hang-up, and

are those dollars, when they are coming out, going out to the States

on a threat-based assessment or are they going out on formula that

allows towns with less of a threat to be receiving dollars that might

better be used for towns that have a higher threat?

Mr. MITCHELL. For the two primary grant funds that ODP administers, the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which is

the based grant program that provides funds to the States, and

those funds currently go out under the Patriot Act authorized formula which provides a base for each State, and the balance of

those funds are currently distributed on a population basis. Under

the Urban Area Security Initiative, which provides a range of funds

that are targeted based on a variety of threats and other criteria

that the department develops, those are discretionary funds that

are allocated to large urban areas based on threat, presence of critical infrastructure, and population density.

There is a combination of the two grant program funds that do

provide, we think, funding to meet the large jurisdictions’ needs

based on a threat and risk basis. We have also proposed in the

2005 budget that all funds that we administer, including the State

Homeland Security grant program, that we use up a variety of criteria to include threat, risk, and other things to allow us to allocate

those funds as well. It is an evolutionary process, but we think we

have made significant progress to date on helping or providing the

Secretary and Department the authorities we need to allocate

funds to those jurisdictions that do have the highest risk and have

the greatest need.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the flow? There is some concern that

States are not getting the money down to the communities, communities are not asking for the money in time. Where are the places

where the process is being slowed?

Mr. MITCHELL. It varies, Mr. Chairman. We deal with 56 States,

territorial governments, and the District, and there are probably 56

various reasons as to why. In some cases, it is existing rules and

regulations on procurement. In some cases, the States are required

to have the funds appropriated by their legislature before they can

obligate them. In some cases, the local governments have the same

requirement for city councils or county commissioners to approve or

authorize fund expenditures. There are a variety of reasons. There

are no simple, easy solutions, but Secretary Ridge did appoint a

committee to look at this, a working group, and that report was

submitted to our office on issues that affect or impede State and

local government ability to expeditiously and effectively receive and

allocate these funds.

We are looking at the recommendation on that, and we think

there will be some significant improvements we can make based on

the recommendations from that committee.

35

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent are the problems at our level?

Mr. MITCHELL. I am happy to say that on our end, from the Federal end, we have very tight time lines in which to allocate our

funds, and we have obligated all of our funds for 2004 under the

Urban Area Security Program, and there is one remaining State

under the State Homeland Security Program that we are still

awaiting some information, but we have obligated all of our funds,

and we generally can do that within a week to two weeks of the

submission of the application as long as the State’s application is

complete. We are providing technical assistance and trying to identify areas where we can go out and assist the States.

I think one of the challenges that we face is this is an enormous

amount of money going through a system that is in its infancy at

best. The ability to plan and analyze and prioritize requirements

for homeland security is an extraordinarily complex challenge, and

I think we are seeing improvements at the State and local level in

their abilities to do that, but I still think that is one of the challenges we do face—helping build that infrastructure at the State

and local level, to help them make better informed decisions and

to more expeditiously allocate and disburse these funds.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that, and having observed it

in anecdotal ways, it does seem to me that some of these funds are

ending up with an LEA situation where the dollars are being spent

for blue lights instead of on an orchestrated process, and I suspect

that is the formula funds that are going out on the basis of population.

Mr. MITCHELL. Obviously, equipment is a major area where the

State and locals allocate their funds, but the States are required

to develop strategic plans that have multiple year priorities, and

we encourage them—although we cannot mandate, we strongly encourage them to build, to design their strategies on regional basis,

building on existing mutual aid and response systems that are already in place and to not just try to provide a certain level of funding to every jurisdiction so that every jurisdiction gets a grant. We

hear a lot of that. We hear from a lot of Mayors that their cities

have never gotten a grant, and our position is if the States are

doing this properly and they are developing regional response capabilities, a lot of jurisdictions never will get a grant, but they will

certainly benefit from enhanced response capabilities that are

being created that will allow more robust and sustainable response

within the regions that the States have established.

Again, there are always two sides at least to every story. We are

trying to work with both the localities and the Governors to reach

some agreement and find out how we can make this process even

more effective.

The CHAIRMAN. Good, and I hope that we can get legislation in

the appropriations bill to make it more threat-based in my opinion.

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Which may work against New Hampshire, for example, but that is the way it should be distributed.

Mr. Tolbert, so we have an event. It is a public health event. It

is in a subway system, say here in Washington. How do we get the

people from the subway to the hospital? The traffic situation is a

disaster. It was proved after 9–11 it is a disaster, and almost on

36

any evening, you can expect it to be a disaster. Have we structured

a process for the physical event of moving people and have we tested it in a real world real-time situation?

Mr. TOLBERT. There are numerous mass casualty plans being developed around the country down to the specific cities. The continuum of care begins, though, at the patient, wherever the patient

is. A lot of the capacity being built utilizing homeland security

funds are actually in building mobile capabilities that can be deployed to the victim, and from that point where you have executed

initial stabilization, at that point then they are stabilized for transportation.

Transportation is only one of the areas of concern. Certainly that

is local specific as to the capabilities for transportation, but we are

looking at more innovative ways on a more strategic basis as to

how we can provide medical casualty transportation, which is one

of the components of the national disaster medical system that I

referred to earlier. We are not only looking at the local area casualty movement capabilities, but we are looking strategically at

how we can move them from the impacted area where we have a

large scale mass casualty incident with saturation of medical facilities out to outlying hospitals. That is one of the priorities the Department is focusing on now.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that and I understand we are doing

paper practices. I guess my concern is it is more than the casualties. It is just human nature of wanting to get out of the area, the

jamming of the phone systems, the overwhelming of the cell phone

capability which occurred in the 9–11 scenario.

Say there with was another 9–11 type of scenario in Washington.

Would we be in any better position today to move the traffic out,

to have people communicate by telephone, and have the different

jurisdictions, Maryland and Virginia, cooperate with the District of

Columbia? According to the GAO, we are not in a whole lot better

position. Do you think we are?

Mr. TOLBERT. I think from a coordination and communication

standpoint, the region is far better prepared than it was in 2001.

There are redundant communication systems that tie the entire

network together, the entire region, the local governments, the

State agencies, the Federal agencies, and that system is tested on

a very routine basis. We collaboratively work with the District and

the surrounding region of the National Capital region to develop

more robust capabilities, planning. In fact, Secretary Thompson referred earlier to the cities readiness initiative, and have already

begun preliminary discussions.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you respond to the GAO report which essentially said that the Capital region—and I do not think it is probably unique. New York may actually have things in a better management structure, but I suspect there are not too many places who

are much better off. I am not picking on the Capital region because

it is unique. In fact, my concern is that it is not unique. How do

you respond to the GAO report which essentially said that the coordination is not there, that the interoperability of systems is not

there, and that the ability to handle a massive movement of people,

either because they are injured or because they are trying to get

out of the way or get away, we cannot do it, and the communicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
37

tion systems would essentially break down for the average person

who was trying to get out of town and trying to figure out where

his kids are or her kids are and communicate?

Mr. TOLBERT. Disasters by their nature tend to be chaotic, and

certainly we have a lot of room for improvement. It will require

continuing dedication on the part of all levels of government nationally and especially within the National Capital Region to develop better capabilities, but I do know that we have made significant strides in not only evacuation planning and communication

with the public, but we have also made greater strides in looking

at alternatives to immediate evacuation. One of the findings that

we know from a science and technology standpoint is that evacuation is not necessarily the best answer or the best protective action to execute.

The CHAIRMAN. But it is the natural human reaction.

Mr. TOLBERT. It is, but a lot of investment is being made, especially in the Federal agencies and the local agencies, in developing

better plans for in-place sheltering and developing better capacity.

In fact, FEMA has recently completed enhancements within our

own building with better plans, better training, better equipment

in place to ensure that we can in-place shelter until it is appropriate to go into the environment.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess I would like to get a written response, if possible, from the Department to the GAO report. Maybe

you have already done that and I have not seen it, but that is what

I would like to get, because they were pretty negative on where we

are, and then I would like to take it to the next step. Is the Capital

Region unique? Are the GAO points unique to the Capital Region,

or is this something that we have got to worry about in other areas

and what is the process, the systemization, that is being put in

place to address these concerns? Is that possible?

Mr. TOLBERT. It is a national problem where we have high density population in all of the major urban areas, and I believe that

the effort, especially related to the urban area security initiative is

significantly complementing the local regional capability and planning. It certainly requires collaboration. You have to have early coordination, early warning, and specifically in the NCR and I know

in other areas around the country, there are great strides being

made in the communications capability to ensure that when we

have an event, that there is timely sharing of information and coordination on the emergency actions. Certainly, it will be a multiyear activity to ensure that we have robust capabilities nationally,

but they are very complex problems and there are not very easy

solutions where we have literally tens of millions of people congregated in high-density population centers.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we all understand that. We all understand that we are never going to get this perfect and probably will

not get it to a position where it is even close to perfect, but there

are some things we can correct or at least try to correct. For example, it is startling to me that 21⁄2 years, almost 3 years after 9–11,

we still have in the Capital area an incompatibility of communications and basically willingness to be cooperative between Virginia,

Maryland, and District of Columbia in the case of a crisis of significant proportion. I mean, that is just startling.

38

Now, maybe it is time for HSA, since it has now been set up and

you are in position to do something like this, to ask for the legislative authority to—basically when that type of cooperation is not occurring between States or districts—to come in and bang heads together and say this is the way it is going to be and you are going

to do it and I have the legislative authority to do. Whatever the

process is, we have got to resolve that. I mean, that is a resolvable

event. Clearly, we are not going to be able to handle the fact that

10,000 people suddenly want to leave the city or a hundred thousand people want to leave the city and there are only three bridges

going west.

That is not resolvable, but other things are. I guess my concern

is how are we handling the ones that might be resolvable when we

know they are there, when we have reports saying they are there

today. If you have got ideas on that, we are interested in them.

I thank you for your time and I appreciate your participation in

this hearing. I appreciate the work you are doing, by the way. I do

not want to understate the fact that you folks have gotten up to

speed in a very difficult climate very quickly and that you are

working hard and what you are doing is so important and we appreciate it. We appreciate the hours you put in.

Mr. TOLBERT. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I do want to stress that my concerns are

meant as concerns and that I very much admire the efforts made

by the Homeland Security Agency and HHS in these areas.

If we could have the next panel join us, we are going to have four

witnesses who are on the front lines, first responder situations to

a large degree: Ms. Susan Waltman, who is the Senior Vice president and General Counsel of Greater New York Hospital Association, which obviously has a huge role in any event; Mr. Mike

Sellitto, who is Deputy Fire Chief in charge of special operations

here in Washington, DC., who again is right out there on the front

lines; Dr. Ricardo Martinez, a board-certified emergency physician

and is chairman and the founder of the Medical Sports Group. He

is basically responsible for the NFL’s ability to handle events, especially the Super Bowl. Their experience is unique and we want to

hear about it; and Dr. George Thibault, who is serving as Vice

President of Clinical Affairs at Partners Healthcare Systems since

1999, and he is a professor of medicine at Harvard and a specialist

in this area. His input will be very helpful to us.

Why don’t we just start with Chief Sellitto and move down the

panel, if you would give us your thoughts.

STATEMENT OF MIKE SELLITTO, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF,

WASHINGTON, DC.

Mr. SELLITTO. Good afternoon, Chairman Gregg and Members of

the Subcommittee. I am Michael Sellitto, Deputy Fire Chief in

charge of special operations for the District of Columbia Fire and

EMS. I am pleased to be here today to offer testimony on how D.C.

Fire and EMS prepares to keep the citizens and visitors to the District of Columbia safe during special events.

The Special Operations Division has planning responsibilities for

all special events in which fire, EMS, or special support is required.

39

As Deputy Chief of Special Operations, I oversee our hazardous

materials response and technical rescue units, and I am responsible for preparations to a WMD event.

Planning for special events in the District is a constant activity.

There are hundreds of events in the District each year, ranging

from the festivals and celebrations held in every community nationwide to the specialized events such as the Presidential Inaugural

that is held only in the Nation’s capital. D.C. Fire and EMS was

a key partner for the World War II Memorial dedication and the

recent funeral of former President Ronald Reagan. We regularly

share in the planning of the State of the Union addresses, and we

are currently preparing for the upcoming Presidential Inauguration.

D.C. Fire and EMS uses an all-hazards approach to planning for

major special events. Each event is unique and has its own special

set of circumstances. Some of the factors we consider include the

VIP attendance, the level of security screening for attendees, the

crowd size, threat intelligence, the nature of the event, weather,

and event-specific hazards such as fireworks. A unified command

presence is established at all major special events to ensure command and control of assets is a coordinated effort. In this way, we

can be sure that the appropriate assets are already in place for unplanned events should they occur. The ultimate goal, of course, is

that everyone goes home safely at the end of the day.

The Department sits on the Mayor’s special events task group

which meets regularly to review proposals for events. This group

of representatives from local and Federal agencies has responsibility for ensuring that special events are conducted in a safe and secure environment. This task group and D.C. Fire and EMS have

been planning successfully for special events in the District for

years. Since September 11th, that level of planning, cooperation,

and coordination has improved and expanded.

Often Federal agencies are the lead agency responsible for security or for property hosting the event. Events on U.S. park land are

coordinated with the National Park Service, and we provide support as requested by the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret

Service. We work closely with the FBI, FEMA, DOD, DOE, and

HHS. The relationships developed through these planning groups

have greatly benefited D.C. Fire and EMS. We know the players

involved from each participating agency, Federal and local. This is

extremely important in the event of any unplanned incidents. In

such an event, these players would need to work together quickly

to determine appropriate incident response. The strong relationships developed prior to unplanned events makes this possible.

We also have very strong relationships with other Fire and EMS

Departments in the National Capital region. The Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments Fire Chiefs Committee and subcommittees are invaluable for developing regional coordination and

response. A standardized incident command system has been

adopted. There are standing mutual aid plans, mutual aid operations plans, and field operations guides.

Many additional regional concerns are being addressed and supported by the urban area security initiative grant moneys. A regional incident management team has been developed which allows

40

specially trained members from area departments to provide incident support to any jurisdiction in need. The region has an 800

megahertz radio system that is shared by most surrounding jurisdictions. This allows for direct communications between mutual aid

partners.

In response to the attacks of September 11th, the District Government focused great efforts on assessing and revising city emergency plans. The result is a new and always improving District response plan that sets out the framework for District Government

response to public emergencies in the Metropolitan Washington

area. The District has identified 15 emergency support functions

within the plan. Washington, DC Fire and EMS has lead responsibilities for three functions: fire fighting, urban search and rescue,

and hazardous materials. We have substantial support roles in two

others: mass care and health and medical services.

Prior to September 11th, certain response capabilities in the department were already being improved. Since then, with the assistance of Federal funding, capabilities have been further enhanced in

apparatus, technical equipment, and training.

The Department of Homeland Security funding has allowed

much of this to be accomplished, freeing up local funds to be used

for other enhancements such as staffing not permitted under DHS

guidelines. D.C. Fire and EMS has added many medical and response vehicles to our fleet since September 11th. This increased

fleet is available for emergency response to and support of special

events. Some other equipment placed in service and upgrade since

September 11th includes enhanced medical equipment on all EMS

units, stockpiles of medical equipment for use during early stages

of a biological incident, mark one kits and front line response units,

and the placement of detection and screening equipment on units

across the District. We have increased our decontamination capabilities in response to WMD through equipment and training.

Training is essential to D.C. Fire and EMS. Since September 11th,

we have undertaken training of additional personnel in all technical areas, including hazardous materials, operations, WMD incident response, and advanced medical procedures.

This brief overview highlights some of the areas of the department’s readiness for major special events in the District and any

potential unplanned WMD events and other emergencies. Our capabilities and readiness are always in practice and always improving.

This completes my oral testimony. Thank you again for this opportunity to be here today, and I am happy to answer any questions from the committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sellitto follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SELLITTO

Good morning Chairman Gregg and Members of the Committee. I am Michael

Sellitto, Deputy Fire Chief in charge of Special Operations for the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department. I am pleased to be here

today to offer testimony on how DC Fire/EMS prepares to keep citizens and visitors

to the District of Columbia safe during special events.

The Special Operations Division has planning responsibilities for all special

events for which fire, emergency medical services and/or specialized support is requested or required. As Deputy Chief, Special Operations, I oversee planning, training, and response of the DC Fire/EMS hazardous materials and technical rescue

41

teams including urban search and rescue, high angle, trench collapse, structural collapse, confined space, and water rescue. I am also responsible for DC Fire/EMS

preparations for response to any WMD incident.

SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Planning for special events in the District of Columbia is a regular activity for

many agencies in DC Government. There are always special events happening in

the District ranging from the festivals, athletic events, and block parties of every

community in the Nation to specialized events, such as Presidential inaugurals or

the recent WWII Memorial Dedication, that are held only in the Nation’s capitol.

DC Fire/EMS was involved in planning for the recent funeral for former President

Ronald Regan, and regularly participates in planning for State of the Union Addresses. We are currently planning for the upcoming 2005 Presidential inaugural,

with representation on twenty-five (25) planning committees, a number that will

grow as the event draws closer.

DC Fire/EMS uses an all hazards approach to planning for major special events.

Each event is unique and has its own special set of circumstances to be considered.

The level of protection provided for each event has many variables. The factors that

are considered include, but are not limited to, VIP attendance, the level of security

screening provided for attendees, the number of attendees, threat intelligence directed at the event, the nature and/or sponsor of the event, projected weather extremes, and event specific hazards such as fireworks. A Unified Command presence

is established at all major special events to ensure the command and control of assets is a coordinated effort. In this way, we can be sure that the appropriate assets

are already in place for unplanned events, should they occur. The ultimate goal, of

course, is that everyone goes home safely at the end of the day.

COORDINATION AND INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN AGENCIES AND JURISDICTIONS

In the District, the Mayor’s Special Events Task Group meets regularly to review

proposals for events. This group of representatives from local and Federal agencies

has responsibility for ensuring that special events are conducted in a safe and secure environment. This Task Group and DC Fire/EMS have been planning for special events in the District for many years. Since September 11, the level of planning,

cooperation, and coordination has improved and expanded.

In the District, Federal agencies very often are the lead agency responsible for security or are the lead agency on whose property the event occurs. Events on U.S.

parkland are coordinated with the National Park Service Special Events Office, and

we provide support as requested by the U.S. Capitol Police Special Events Office,

and to the U.S. Secret Service Planning Committee for any National Special Security Events or those that require coverage for Secret Service protectees. DC Fire/

EMS regularly works closely with the FBI, FEMA, DOD, DOE, and HHS. The planning meetings have the goal of developing action plans, which are utilized to plan

and direct operations during an event.

The relationships developed through these planning groups greatly benefits DC

Fire/EMS. We know very well the players involved from each participating agency,

Federal and local. This is extremely important in the event of any unplanned incidents, independent of or associated with major special events. In such an event,

these ‘‘players’’ would need to come together quickly to determine an appropriate incident response. The strong relationships developed prior to unplanned events

makes this possible.

We also have very strong relationships with other Fire/EMS departments in the

National Capital Region (NCR). The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Fire Chiefs Committee and subcommittees are invaluable for developing regional coordination and response. A Standardized Incident Command System has

been adopted in the region; there are standing Mutual Aid Plans, a Mutual Aid Operations Plan and Field Operation Guide.

Additional regional issues are being addressed and are supported by Urban Area

Security Initiative monies. In conjunction with the National Fire Academy, a regional Incident Management Team (IMT) has been developed, which allows specially

trained members from the NCR to provide incident support in the planning, command, operation, logistics and finance areas to any jurisdiction in need—whether for

a planned, or unplanned event. The NCR has an 800 MHz radio system that is

shared by most of the surrounding jurisdictions. This allows direct communications

between the mutual aid partners.

42

SOME LESSONS LEARNED

DC Fire/EMS is always assessing our response to incidents and our plans for special events. Past experience shows us that including increased Incident Command

and use of an Incident Management Team from the early planning stages of special

events is valuable. As noted earlier, this allows for needed assets and command

structures to be in place prior to any unplanned incident that could emerge during

a major special event. Another important lesson is the value of working with health

agencies to provide nurses and physicians onsite during major special events. This

decreases the need for transport to hospitals, increases the level of pre-hospital care

available to special event attendees, and stages nurses and physicians closer to potential casualties of an unplanned incident.

DC FIRE/EMS RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE DISTRICT RESPONSE PLAN

In response to the attacks of September 11, the District of Columbia government

focused great effort to assess and revise city emergency plans. A Domestic Preparedness Task Force was formed with representatives including, among others, heads of

District agencies with public safety and emergency functions. The Task Force and

the District’s Emergency Management Agency developed the new District Response

Plan. This Plan sets out the framework for District government response to public

emergencies in the metropolitan Washington area. The District has identified 15

Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) that supplement the Basic Response Plan.

Each ESF has it’s own purpose and scope with operating responsibilities and identified lead and support agencies. DC Fire/EMS has lead responsibilities for three

ESFs: ESF #4—Firefighting, ESF #9—Urban Search and Rescue, and ESF #10—Hazardous Materials. The Department has a substantial support role for two other

ESFs: ESF #6—Mass Care, and ESF #8—Health and Medical Services.

SOME ENHANCEMENTS AT DC FIRE/EMS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Prior to September 11, certain response capabilities were already being enhanced

with the growing threat of the possibility of a terrorist attack. Since September 11,

with the assistance of Federal funding, capabilities have been further enhanced in

areas of response apparatus, technical equipment, response training and staffing.

Department of Homeland Security funding has been received in a timely fashion,

allowing many of these enhancements to be accomplished. This has freed up local

funding to be used for other enhancements, such as staffing, which have not been

permitted under DHS funding guidelines.

Specifically for increased response capabilities, the following assets have been

added to DC Fire/EMS apparatus fleet since September 11:

• 12 Ready Reserve Ambulances (ALS capable)—placed in service with certified

administrative or recalled personnel when needed,

• 2 Mass Casualty Trucks—each equipped to handle fifty patients,

• 2 Ambusses—capable of transporting ambulatory & non-ambulatory patients,

• 1 WMD Response Truck—to provide support equipment for WMD events,

• 1 Radiation Response Truck—to provide additional monitoring screening and

decontamination at a radiological event,

• 10 Ready Reserve Engines—placed in service with recalled personnel, and

• 3 Ready Reserve Ladder Trucks—placed in service with recalled personnel.

DC Fire/EMS rewrote its ‘‘Mobilization Plan’’ after September 11, to address concerns for additional personnel recall procedures, staffing guidelines, and the use of

decentralized ‘‘Area Commands.’’

The increased fleet is also utilized to support special events as needed, which allows DC Fire/EMS to maintain our normal level of service to District residents as

a whole, while also providing the necessary enhanced coverage to special event sites.

Other equipment placed in service and upgraded since September 11 includes:

• State-of-the-art chemical detection equipment on various units,

• Biological screening equipment on our Hazardous Materials Unit,

• Radiation detection equipment citywide,

• Enhanced medical equipment on all of our EMS units,

• Stockpiles of necessary medical equipment are on-hand for sustained response

during the early stages of a potential biological incident, and

• Mark 1 kits (nerve agent antidote) have been placed in front line response

units.

Additional decontamination capabilities include:

• Decontamination tents,

• Tent heaters,

• Water heaters,

43

• Redress, and

• Necessary support equipment.

All members of DC Fire/EMS have been trained in gross decontamination techniques, which are utilized in the event of a WMD incident.

Training is essential to DC Fire/EMS’s ability to carry out our mission. Since September 11, DC Fire/EMS has undertaken an enhancement program that has trained

additional numbers of personnel in all technical areas, including training for:

• all uniformed members to the hazardous materials operations level, NFPA 472

Standard,

• all EMS personnel to NFPA 473 Standard, * 200 hazardous materials technicians,

• 120 rescue technicians,

• Specialist training programs, such as those offered by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic Preparedness, including:

• COBRA live agent training,

• Incident Response to Terrorist Bombings live explosives course, and

• Nevada Test Site WMD Radiological/Nuclear Course,

• Advanced EMT training for EMS personnel, which enables all EMS personnel

to administer seven (7) medications and use advanced airway techniques.

Included, as attachments to this prepared testimony, are documents that help to

illustrate the type of response, special event planning, and incident command structure in place in the DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department. The attachments are focused on EMS Special Operations, WMD response, and EMS Incident Command.

DC Fire/EMS takes very seriously the mission to protect life and property through

fire suppression, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, fire prevention and

education, and pre-hospital care and transportation services to people within the

District of Columbia. The Department’s readiness for major special events in the

District, any potential unplanned WMD events, and other emergencies are always

in practice and always improving.

This completes my prepared testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to

be here today. I am happy to answer any questions from the committee.

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief.

Dr. Thibault.

GEORGE E. THIBAULT, M.D., VICE PRESIDENT,

CLINICAL AFFAIRS, PARTNERS HEALTHCARE

Dr. THIBAULT. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is George

Thibault. I am the Vice President of Clinical Affairs at Partners

Healthcare and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Partners is a not-for-profit integrated health care system in eastern Massachusetts that includes two major teaching hospitals of

Harvard Medical School, the Massachusetts General Hospital and

the Brigham & Women’s Hospital, four community hospitals, a psychiatric teaching hospital, three rehabilitation hospitals, several

nursing homes, a non-acute care service, community health centers,

and over a thousand community primary care physicians. I am also

representing the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals. On behalf of all our physicians, nurses, care givers, and the patients that

we serve every day, I want to thank Senator Gregg and Senator

Kennedy, who I got to speak to earlier, and the Members of the

Committee for the opportunity to testify and for their interest in

this very important issue.

I will briefly summarize the testimony that I have submitted,

touching on three areas. First is our general commitment to emergency preparedness, specifically what have been done at Partners

since September 11, 2001, and then make some concluding remarks

about what some of our needs and concerns are.

We and the other Boston teaching hospitals have been fortunate

to build on a long history of effective collaboration with each other

and with other first responder agencies in our area. Emergency

preparedness for catastrophic events such as infectious disease outbreaks, mass casualty accidents, storms, and chemical disasters

has always been an essential part of our medical readiness. Since

September 11, 2001, however, hospitals preparing for potential incidents and emergencies that are unprecedented in their magnitude and potentially impacting a much greater number of victims. The threat of terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction like chemical and biological weapons and even nuclear

disasters require hospitals to be prepared and to manage previously unthinkable scenarios which have impacted every aspect of

emergency planning and hospital operations, and I can say it truly

has become part of our day-to-day existence in a way that it never

was before.

Our hospitals have responded. On September 11, 2001, Massachusetts hospitals cleared hundreds of beds in anticipation of receiving victims, which of course we never received. Since September 11th, Partner as a health care system has organized itself to

be better prepared. We have worked together as a system to be

able to effectively respond to challenges ahead. We have invested

significant resources in every aspect of our hospital operations and

infrastructure. Since September 11th, we estimate we have conservatively estimated an investment of over $6 million above and

beyond what we would have done for normal operations. Against

that investment of $6 million, we have received $230,000 of HRSA

funding. I can say, having done an informal poll of the other BosVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
99

ton teaching hospital, the ratio of investment to return has been

about the same.

Areas in which we have invested include the following, and these

are all very important: communication systems, including the development of alternative communication systems in the event of

failure or overload; disease surveillance efforts, including systems

to facilitate disease reporting and access to experts, improved patient tracking systems, radiation detection, tests for detection of

chemical agents, and identification of biological agents; protective

equipment for medical staff; hospital facility infrastructure for lock

down and protection of patients and staff; drug and pharmaceutical

supplies for protection against biological, chemical, and nuclear attacks; training and drills for our medical personnel. We have invested enormously in training for all of our medical personnel, physicians, nurses, administrative staff, support staff; vaccination efforts for smallpox; and, very importantly, managing the mental

health needs of patients and staff during a crisis.

These are ongoing and continuing investments. I can say in

many ways, they have made us better health care facilities. We are

better prepared to respond to ordinary emergencies as well, and

the education and the investment has positioned us to serve our

public well, but, nonetheless, these are additional investments

above and beyond our normal expenditures.

Our hospitals and medical staff remain deeply committed to

maintaining and enhancing our preparedness efforts as events dictate. We estimate that we will continue to make as a system an

investment of $2 million to $3 million a year to keep ourselves current and to continue to upgrade our facilities in every one of these

areas. Our local public health agency, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, has played an important role in setting up

regional planning structures for the State, and the Boston Health

Commission has been an indispensable partner in working with the

Boston teaching hospitals to design a dependable disaster response

that meets the needs of our situations in our community.

We are very grateful for the work that has been done at the Federal level, and I have enjoyed hearing the testimony today and appreciate the great efforts that have gone in, the great efforts of this

committee and of our Senator Kennedy our own congressional delegation; however, we can say that additional resources are needed.

I have already alluded to the ratio between investment and the return at this time.

We continue to carry out our fundamental missions of training

the next generation of physicians and identifying and implementing new medical treatments and making new discoveries and, of

course, caring for all patients who come to our doors or emergency

rooms regardless of their ability to pay. All of our hospitals are facing enormous fiscal challenges. We continue to need to make significant investments in information technology and other patientrelated technologies in order to provide the safest and most efficient care for all of our patients. These additional investments in

emergency preparedness compete with those necessary investments

for patient care that we need to make on a daily basis.

We must remember that hospitals are, in fact, first responders

to any attack or any biological threat. We will plan an essential

100

role in any disaster, and I want to assure you we are ready to do

that and welcome that responsibility, but maintaining or enhancing

our ability to care for emergency victims will be critically dependant on having adequate financial resources to maintain the state

of preparedness that we must achieve and sustain for our future.

I thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. We look

forward to working closely with you, and I look forward to answering any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Thibault follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. THIBAULT, M.D.

Good morning. My name is Dr. George Thibault and I am the Vice President of

Clinical Affairs for Partners HealthCare, which is a non-profit, integrated system

of health care providers in Massachusetts that includes two major Harvard teaching

hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital

in Boston; four community hospitals; a psychiatric teaching hospital; a rehabilitation teaching hospital; non-acute services; and several community health centers. I

am also representing the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals.

On behalf of our physicians, nurses and other caregivers, and the patients we

serve each day, I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Judd

Gregg (R-NH), the ranking member, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and the Members of this Committee for inviting us to testify today on our Emergency Preparedness efforts and our readiness to respond to a terrorist event in Massachusetts.

I appreciate the opportunity to inform you of the kinds of efforts our medical and

other staff have undertaken throughout our hospitals since September 11, 2001, and

to illustrate the ongoing resource needs of our hospitals.

HOSPITAL COMMITMENT TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Partners founding hospitals, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and

Women’s Hospital in Boston, as well as our community and specialty hospitals have

undertaken significant emergency planning initiatives since September 11, 2001. Indeed, we and the other Boston teaching hospitals have been fortunate to build on

a long history of effective collaboration with Boston’s other first responder agencies.

Emergency preparedness for catastrophic events such as infectious disease outbreaks, mass-casualty accidents, storms and chemical disasters have always been an

essential aspect of Boston’s hospital readiness planning.

Since September 11, 2001, however, hospitals have been preparing for potential

incidents and emergencies that are unprecedented in their magnitude and potentially impacting much greater numbers of victims. The threat of terrorism and the

use of weapons of mass destruction like chemical and biological weapons and nuclear disasters require hospitals to be prepared to manage previously unthinkable

scenarios which have impacted every aspect of emergency planning and hospital operations.

Our hospitals have responded.

Back on September 11th, Massachusetts hospitals cleared hundreds of beds in anticipation of receiving victims from the September 11th disaster. In the aftermath

of the devastating Rhode Island fire in February of 2003, the Emergency Departments and the physicians and nurses of Massachusetts General Hospital and

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, along with Shriner’s Hospital in Boston, provided

essential support to the relief effort of Rhode Island’s hospitals and we provided

burn care to victims as the only verified burn centers in Massachusetts.

Our medical staff was privileged to care for these patients and to work with them

and their families in the face of extraordinary challenges.

PARTNERS INVESTMENTS

Since September 11, 2001, we have reformed and enhanced our management and

operational responses to emergency planning and responded effectively to a new set

of challenges.

We have invested significant resources in every facet of our hospital operations

and infrastructure. Since September 11, 2001, we have invested over $6 million in

preparing for an expanded array of catastrophic public health emergencies. In 2004,

we received our first and, to date, our only award of Federal HRSA funding for

emergency preparedness—approximately $230 thousand dollars across all of our

hospitals.

101

Areas in which we have invested include:

1. Communication Systems (including development of alternative communications

systems in the event of failure or overload);

2. Disease Surveillance Efforts (including systems to facilitate disease reporting

and access to experts; improved patient tracking systems; radiation detection; and

tests for detection of chemical agents and identification of biologic agents);

3. Protective Equipment for medical staff;

4. Hospital facility infrastructure for lockdown and protection of patients and

staff;

5. Drug and Pharmaceutical supplies for protection against biologic, chemical and

nuclear attacks;

6. Training and Drills for our Medical personnel;

7. Vaccination Efforts against Smallpox; and

8. Managing the mental health needs of patients and staff during a crisis.

Examples of our efforts include:

• Completely revamping our emergency preparedness management infrastructure

across all of our hospitals;

• Extensively training and drilling thousands of staff under an all-hazards emergency command system designed to link closely with the command structure of Police, Fire, and EMS organizations in each community;

• Retooling our hospital and supporting facilities’ infrastructure, such as:

• Bolstering lockdown and security to protect patients and staff and shelterin-place until other Federal or State resources arrive;

• Improving access control and security screening at our hospitals;

• Improving our power supplies and storage of fossil fuels for uninterrupted

power in the event of a disaster;

• Building and equipping specialized rooms for patient isolation;

• Installing specialized filters and ventilation systems to manage biological

disasters;

• Increasing large water volume capability through water purification equipment in order to protect our water supply;

• Additional pharmaceuticals for biological, chemical and nuclear response;

• Preparing a smallpox vaccination program across the network that established

a core group of vaccinated staff committed to rapid post-event response;

• Participating in and leading region-wide emergency preparedness efforts in organizations across eastern Massachusetts.

PREPARING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

In recent months, the Boston teaching hospitals have been particularly focused on

preparedness for the Democratic National Convention, the increase in visitors to

Massachusetts during that time, and the possibility of a large-scale emergency. Our

medical and professional staffs have been training and drilling for every type of

emergency response, and have undertaken two full surge capacity drills involving

all of our hospitals as well as other providers whose facilities would be used for offloading patients in the event of large-scale need.

CONCLUSION

Our hospitals and medical staff remain deeply committed to maintaining and enhancing our preparedness efforts as events dictate. In hospital fiscal year 2005 and

beyond, Partners hospitals alone expect to spend approximately $3 million a year

to maintain our response capabilities.

Our local public health agency (Massachusetts DPH) has played an important role

in setting up a regional planning structure for the State, and the Boston Public

Health Commission has been an indispensable partner in working with the Boston

teaching hospitals to design a dependable disaster response system that meets the

needs of our institutions and our community.

While we are grateful for the work they have done and the tremendous support

we’ve received from Senator Kennedy and our Congressional delegation, greater resource support is needed to maintain and enhance our ability to care for the victims

of chemical, biological and other potential terrorist attacks and to train and protect

our own staffs to meet the demands of this post-9/11 world.

An informal survey of the Boston area teaching hospitals determined that we

have invested, conservatively speaking, more than $10 million in Emergency Preparedness since 2001. To date, those responding to the survey have received approximately $300 thousand ($287K) toward those investments.

102

In the meantime, our fundamental responsibilities to train the next generation of

physicians, to identify and implement new medical treatments and cures, and to

care for patients continues.

Hospitals are first responders and will play an essential role in any disaster.

Maintaining or enhancing our ability to care for emergency victims will be critically

dependent on having adequate financial resources to maintain the State of preparedness that we must achieve and sustain for our future.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with

you in the future.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Thibault.

Ms. Waltman.

SUSAN WALTMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

COUNSEL, GREATER NEW YORK HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION

Ms. WALTMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting

us to appear here today. I am Susan Waltman. I am Senior Vice

President and General Counsel at the Greater New York Hospital

Association which represents the interests of over 250 hospitals

and nursing homes, primarily concentrated in the New York region, but located throughout New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,

and Rhode Island. Together they provide a vast array of services

from the very state-of-the-art tertiary care to the very basic primary care services, because we act as the safety net providers for

our communities.

Since September 11th, we have taken on an even greater role

service, perhaps a more serious role than that, and that is as the

front line defense, I believe front line defense, of the Nation’s public health system and disaster response system in an area of the

world and an area of the country that is truly one of the highest

risk areas together with the Capital Region and some other cities.

We undertake that role with all seriousness. We have put in a lot

of effort to enhancing our preparedness in the events of September

11th, and the ensuing anthrax attacks which we experienced as

well have made us very committed to expanding our imagination

and planning for otherwise unimaginable events.

I will try to answer the question that is asked by the hearing,

which is, are we prepared, and I think it is answered in part by

saying it depends. It truly depends on how, what, and where an

event may occur, and I do appreciate that we will understandably

always be judged in terms of our preparedness with the hindsight

that comes from actual knowledge of the how and the when and

the where. The other part of that answer is that we are very well

prepared for a wide variety of types of events and certainly better

prepared than we were 3 years ago and even more than 1 month

ago, and I dare say that we will be even better prepared even so

in 1 month for the Republican National Convention, and that is because preparedness is a process. I think you have heard that before

today, and we have made it our business to try to learn from every

alert, every advisory, and every piece of intelligence, and tried to

internalize that in our planning.

The subsidiary question is: Are we prepared for the major events

that we are facing, the Republican National Convention and other

types of activities? We have worked intensively in preparing for

that particular event and other events as well. I think it is perhaps

more important to focus on what we do to prepare for the ordinary

103

day, the day where we do not really anticipate an event, because

that is exactly the way September 11th started for us, which was—

it was an otherwise ordinary day, and particularly in New York

City, we anticipate that something could happen at any time and

at any place.

In order to provide a brief overview of how we are preparing, I

will go a little bit into how we were prepared before 9–11 and how

that was demonstrated on September 11th and what we have done

since then. I think you will see that the general theme is that preparedness is a process that must be reviewed and enhanced and

practiced every single day. It is also, as you have recognized, an extraordinarily expensive process and one that I think falls very

much on the backs of hospitals as the front line of the public health

defense system and particularly in an area such as New York

where we have that truly extraordinary role that we have assumed.

Before 9–11, we spent a lot of time on preparedness. Our hospitals obviously had already experienced a World Trade Center

bombing in 1993. We are host to a lot of major events and we experience a lot of emergencies and disasters. In recognition of the role

and the experience, we are viewed as a part of the response system

in New York City and always have been. Greater New York has

a desk at the New York City Office of Emergency Management,

which we staff as though we are a public agency. Whenever they

activate, we are there 24–7 to facilitate the health care response

on behalf of the city.

We also put in place a very collaborative effort, interestingly, as

part of the Y2K preparations, where we met literally every other

week to test a variety of scenarios, to work through things that

could occur, and it really did, I think, prove to be a very valuable

series of relationships that we put in place so that on the morning

of September 11th, our hospitals were very well prepared for what

they faced that day. You may have seen the pictures in the newspapers. They created triage centers on the street. They cancelled

elective procedures. They really made room. They made surge capacity for a large number of patients, and all the while, they were

going through their own internal disruptions with respect to loss

of electricity, communications, water, steam; and they also faced

another phenomenal with large numbers, thousands of individuals

walking from hospital to hospital looking for family members, and

thus they created counseling centers and family centers in order to

accommodate those needs.

The biggest lesson we learned, we were surprised ourselves when

we realized that there were over 7,300 different patients who escaped the World Trade Center area, 7,300 people jumping on boats,

crossing bridges, and going to over 100 different hospitals. Now,

there was not any release contemporaneously of a nuclear biological or chemical agent, something that people were concerned about,

but had there been, every single one of those 7,300 patients going

to 100 different hospitals would have been potentially exposed or

contaminated, and we realized very seriously that we all had to

have some basic capability in order to identify and contain those

types of events should they occur again in the future, and that has

really fashioned the way we have prepared.

104

Since 9–11, we have created an Emergency Preparedness Coordinating Council, a very descriptive term for a group that gets together very regularly that involves all hospitals, all types of providers, local, State, and Federal agencies who come together very regularly to engage in collaborative planning and collaborative response. In our testimony, we outline the way we approach preparedness from this point forward. We know we are in a high risk

area. We know something can happen any time at any place, and

that is how we have prepared, and we have literally met every single time since November 2001 to work through a variety of different scenarios, plans, and systems that we can have in place. It

is a three-way partnership. It is a partnership among providers,

emergency managers, and the public health system that has to go

on in every single community because we need each other. We

enjoy very good relationships with local, State, and the Federal

agencies and get a lot of support from HHS and the Department

of Homeland Security.

We pursue an all-hazards approach. We started out studying anthrax and smallpox for the same reasons everyone else did, but we

took a step back and we really recognized we need an all-hazards

approach and we all need to have good incident command systems

because disasters can present in a variety of different ways, and

what we really need are the tools to be able to respond to a variety

of different scenarios.

We have definitely placed emphasis on enhancing communication

two ways: first, knowing exactly who to contact, how to contact

them, and for what purposes before a disaster so we can do it well

during a disaster and putting in place redundant and effective communication mechanisms. One thing that you have asked about is

surge capacity. We developed as a result of our needs during 9–11

a health emergency response data system that is now housed on

the State’s internet, their web-based system for providers. It collects during an emergency. Of course, we do use it outside of an

emergency, but it is absolutely created to gather information with

respect to supplies, staff, and bed availability, event-related visits

to hospitals, and the patient locator system should we need it

again. Now, in order to practice, they collect very regular bed availability data, vaccine supplies, inventories of isolation rooms, so that

we have that in advance, but it is now a very effective system that

can be used if we have another disaster.

We have 800 megahertz radios. We have redundant means of

communicating with each other. We have directories, and we have

an excellent syndromic surveillance system that the city health department has created which allows us to identify or allows them

to identify, get early warnings with respect to infectious diseases,

clusters of diseases, getting emergency department data, virtually

seeing 75 percent of all emergency department visits every single

day.

You can go through those same issues that we have put in place,

all of that, the training, the drills, the collaborative planning, and

we are drilling down and we are enhancing them and working

through them for preparing for the Republican National Convention as well. We have been involved in meetings and have had

meetings with the Secret Service, with FEMA, with Homeland SeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
105

curity, and other local authorities to make sure all of these are in

place, threat alert guidelines, etc., and we guarantee they will be

in place for the Republican National Convention.

The issues of expenses, we have a chart in there that indicates that on average, our hospitals have spent about $5.5 million apiece

on average in New York City on preparedness. We also indicate in

that chart that the total amount they got during the time frame

over a 2-year period was $75,000. Each have spent on average $5.5

million and getting $75,000 from the HRSA program, which we appreciate, but it barely scratches the surface. We also have in there

that we have unbudgeted but needed projects that probably

amount to $12 million per hospital.

There are very scarce resources for this purpose. I would suggest

that in a city such as New York City, we assume a very significant

responsibility not just on behalf of our community, but on behalf

of the entire country and its 800 million residents in New York

City, the 40 million people who visit us every year and as the

world’s financial center. We really do hope that we are able to get

more resources to enhance our preparedness.

I am very appreciative of the comments that you have made so

far, and I thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waltman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN C. WALTMAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Good morning, and thank you for

the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Susan C. Waltman, Senior Vice

President and General Counsel of the Greater New York Hospital Association,

which represents the interests of over 250 hospitals and continuing care facilities

that are concentrated in the New York City region but that are also located

throughout New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. All of GNYHA’s

members are either not-for-profit, charitable organizations or publicly sponsored institutions. Together, they provide services that range from state-of-the-art, tertiary

care to the most basic primary care, given their roles as safety net providers for

many of the communities they serve.

GNYHA’s members also serve an additional role, one that has become much more

important and much more demanding since September 11, 2001: they are the front

line of the public health defense and disaster response systems for one of the highest risk areas in the United States. Unquestionably, GNYHA’s members performed

admirably on September 11 and during the subsequent anthrax attacks, a reflection

of their years of preparedness planning. Those events and the subsequent and growing number of terrorist alerts and warnings have demonstrated how vulnerable we

are as a society and how much more we need to do to be fully prepared.

Are We Ready?—The principal question that today’s hearing asks is: are we

ready for future terrorist attacks? The question must be answered in part by saying

that it depends. It depends of course on how, when, and where the attacks may

occur, and should an event take place, we will always, understandably, be judged

with the hindsight of actual knowledge as to those three factors. The other part of

the answer is that we are very well prepared for a wide array of possible attacks

and certainly better prepared today than we were 3 years ago or even 1 month ago.

And, we become better prepared with each passing day because we have made it

our business to learn from each and every event, alert, and piece of intelligence. Indeed, since September 11, GNYHA’s members have been working intensively, on

their own and more importantly, in close collaboration with each other as well as

with local, State, and Federal agencies, to enhance their preparedness. Through

these efforts, GNYHA’s and its members have forged strong working relationships

with each other and with key agencies at all levels of government, relationships that

we believe are mutually beneficial and invaluable to our ability to protect our country and its communities.

Are We Prepared for Our Nation’s Major Events?—The subsidiary question

raised by today’s hearing is whether we are prepared for the many major events

that our country holds that represent the essence of democracy, our freedoms, and

our liberties. The answer is that we are devoting intensive efforts toward preparing

106

for those specific events, given their significance and the large numbers of individuals who will gather there. But what is perhaps more important to know is what

we do each and every day to prepare for an unplanned event, the otherwise ordinary

day, such as was the case with September 11, at least up until 8:46 am. It is upon

those efforts that we build in order to prepare for events such as the Republican

and Democratic National Conventions, our Nation’s elections, as well as other major

events.

Overview of Testimony—To answer your questions in more detail, I will review

the New York City region’s preparedness from a health care provider perspective

before September 11, how that level of preparedness was demonstrated on September 11, and how preparedness has been enhanced significantly since then. We will

then provide information on how we are building upon those efforts to prepare specifically for the Republican National Convention. The consistent message is that preparedness is a continual process that must be constantly reviewed, enhanced, and

practiced.

What is also clear is that preparedness is an extraordinarily expensive process,

one that is causing GNYHA members to expend scarce resources during a time of

severe financial pressures without significant reimbursement in sight. We are hopeful that our hospitals’ extraordinary efforts, undertaken because of both their location and their commitment to protecting their communities, will be recognized

through increased funding. It is the least our country can do to ensure protection

of the Nation’s financial center and its 8 million residents, a region that has already

been the target of two World Trade Center attacks and four anthrax attacks.

I. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

GNYHA and its members have long been committed to ensuring that the health

care system is prepared to respond to a broad range of emergencies, disasters, and

attacks that might occur in the New York City region. For years, area hospitals

have worked on and improved upon their disaster plans and programs, engaged in

regular drills, and constantly reviewed their readiness for many events. Indeed, it

is the mission of hospitals to respond to the needs of their communities, and, in a

‘‘community’’ such as New York, we have recognized that any number of disasters

and emergencies can occur. GNYHA has in turn supported its members’ activities

by providing training programs, educational materials, and workgroups for improving preparedness.

Hospitals as an Integral Part of the Region’s Response System—GNYHA

and its members have also worked closely with area emergency management and

public health officials over the years and are considered an integral part of the region’s emergency/disaster response system. In recognition of this role, GNYHA has

had a desk at the New York City Office of Emergency Management’s (OEM’s) Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for many years, which GNYHA staffs during major

area events, actual emergencies, or anticipated possible emergencies, e.g., heat

emergencies. Grouped with local, State, and Federal health and environmental

agencies at the EOC, GNYHA is able to address members’ needs quickly as well as

facilitate the region’s health care response to disasters.

The health care sector’s preparations for the Y2K transition also helped foster regional collaboration that was helpful to the health care system’s response on September 11. During the year 1999, GNYHA brought together its members and area

agencies literally every other week for the purpose of developing communication

mechanisms, contingency plans, and a framework for inter-hospital/inter-agency coordination. That process proved invaluable on September 11.

II. THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM’S RESPONSE TO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER

The Hospital’s Response—On September 11, GNYHA’s members demonstrated

that they were prepared for the particular disaster that we all faced that day. Area

hospitals instantly activated their disaster plans, canceled all elective procedures,

freed up thousands of beds in anticipation of large numbers of casualties, reconfigured areas internally to make room for additional patients, and established triage

centers on their streets. At the same time, many hospitals found themselves without

functioning communication systems, while some also found themselves without electricity and were forced to rely upon emergency generators. Some also experienced

drops in water pressure and steam and were forced to seek alternative means to

sterilize equipment.

As the day wore on, hospitals were faced with another, perhaps more devastating

phenomenon—thousands of family members were walking from hospital to hospital

looking for their loved ones. Hospitals therefore established family centers to care

for and counsel those individuals and ultimately requested that a patient locator

107

hotline be established. And, throughout the ordeal, hospitals also acted as safe havens for individuals fleeing from the World Trade Center and even sent employees

into neighboring buildings to make sure the elderly were safe. In short, the area’s

hospitals rose to all of the challenges they faced as a result of the events of September 11.

GNYHA’s Response and Coordination on Behalf of Its Members—GNYHA,

on behalf of its members, also played a key role on September 11. On the morning

of the disaster, GNYHA was called by OEM within minutes of the initial plane

crash and was requested to report to New York City’s EOC. GNYHA was also in

immediate contact with the New York State Department of Health, which directed

hospitals to activate their disaster plans and expect mass casualties, a directive that

GNYHA immediately communicated to its members by both e-mail and facsimile.

Within moments of OEM’s call to GNYHA, however, New York City’s EOC, which

was located at 7 World Trade Center, was evacuated.

Given this situation and the scope of the disaster, GNYHA established a command center at its offices to assist members and to act as a liaison to emergency

managers, public health officials, and the public. Within hours, OEM established a

replacement EOC at the New York City Police Academy, and GNYHA was able to

continue its role of facilitating its members’ response efforts from there as well. For

weeks thereafter, GNYHA staffed both its desk at OEM and its command center at

GNYHA’s offices around the clock as the area undertook its recovery from the attacks.

Anticipating possible additional attacks, GNYHA also began to provide members

with briefings on identifying and responding to biological and chemical events and

to expand GNYHA’s e-mail lists. Thus, by the time the first case of anthrax was

reported in Florida, GNYHA was able to immediately transmit to members health

alerts prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

that contained key information needed to diagnose and treat anthrax.

The Cost of Responding to the World Trade Center Disaster—The cost of

responding to the World Trade Center disaster was significant for hospitals.

GNYHA collected cost information from area hospitals and calculated that their

total initial costs of responding (or preparing to respond) reached $140 million, a

figure that included lost vehicles, such as ambulances; increased overtime, supplies,

and staffing; damage to facilities; and stand-by costs associated with creating surge

capacity. Hospitals also suffered additional lost revenues in excess of $100 million

in the long term as a result of the events of September 11, due in part to the fact

that many patients did not want to venture into the city for care. Thus, the total

cost of responding—or standing ready to respond—to the events of September 11

was in excess of $240 million for New York City area hospitals alone. We are very

appreciative that the Federal Government, with the strong support of Senators Clinton and Schumer, subsequently provided area hospitals with $140 million to reimburse them for a significant portion of these costs, but we believe it is important

to underscore the high costs associated with responding to such events from a provider perspective.

The Biggest Lesson Learned: The Need for Every Hospital to Be Prepared—I point out one fact about what happened on September 11 that has materially affected how GNYHA and its members have been preparing for future emergencies. Individuals caught in the disaster ran, they jumped on boats, and they

jumped on trains and subways to escape the horror. As a result, over 100 hospitals

in the region saw more than 7,300 patients in their emergency departments for World

Trade Center disaster injuries. Although there was no evidence of a release of biological, chemical, or radiological agents in connection with the attacks, many hospitals chose to decontaminate or wash down patients to protect both patients as well

as health care workers. But if there had been a contemporaneous release of some

agent, every one of those over 100 hospitals would have received potentially exposed

or contaminated patients.

What is the lesson to be learned from this? Every single hospital must have some

degree of capability to respond to disasters of all types. We cannot, as a system, depend on an orderly distribution of patients to one or more regional disaster centers.

It is essential that every hospital have the ability to identify and respond, at least

initially, to biological, chemical, and radiological events, which in turn means that

significant resources must be devoted to ensuring wide-spread readiness.

III. POST-SEPTEMBER 11 PREPAREDNESS—FOCUS ON INTENSIVE REGIONAL

COLLABORATION

Establishment of Emergency Preparedness Coordinating Council—In recognition of the need for broad-based preparedness, GNYHA and its members have

108

focused intensively on regional collaboration and planning since September 11. To

this end, GNYHA created its Emergency Preparedness Coordinating Council in November 2001. The Council brings together representatives of GNYHA members,

other provider groups, and local, State, and Federal public health, emergency management, and law enforcement agencies for the purposes of promoting collaboration

and communication across the region and providing a more integrated response to

any future attacks or events. Through this collaborative planning process, the Council is also facilitating readiness through the sharing of expertise, experiences, templates, and other information.

Guiding Principles of Preparedness—As the Council has moved forward, it

has subscribed to the following principles: • High-Risk Area—The New York City region is a high-risk area for emergencies in general and terrorist attacks in particular. Therefore, providers must

anticipate the possibility that an event could occur at any time. • Strong Three-Way Partnership—Preparedness in the health care sector requires a strong, continuous three-way partnership among providers, health/public health agencies, and emergency management and public security agencies. • All-Hazards Approach—Provider preparedness should be undertaken using

an all-hazards approach. • Incident Command Systems—Providers should implement an incident command system in order to have a common framework for communicating internally and externally during disasters. • Enhancing Communications—Providers must develop effective mechanisms

for communicating. This involves knowing in advance of a disaster with whom,

how, and for what purposes to communicate during disasters. It also means developing effective and redundant means of communicating during disasters. • Understanding Each Others’ Systems—We must ensure that we understand

each other’s systems, roles, and responsibilities. • Planning and Drilling Together Regularly—In order to further the foregoing goals, it is essential that we plan and drill together regularly. • Training and Education—Knowledge is the key to ensuring the rapid identification, treatment, and containment of all types of terrorist agents and naturally occurring events.

The following summarizes how we have moved to implement the foregoing principles. • Operating Within a High-Risk Area—In recognition of the high-risk area in

which we are located, GNYHA and its members appreciate that an event could

occur at any time and at any place and that we must enhance our preparedness

with all due speed and deliberation. As a result, since the Council was established

in November 2001, it has met almost weekly through either full Council meetings,

workgroup meetings, or membership briefings on topics identified through the Council. The Council has also become the framework for communicating rapidly and effectively regarding emergencies, alerts, and protocols.

• Development of Strong Three-Way Partnership—We have undertaken extraordinary efforts to work collaboratively and in a coordinated manner with the

public health, emergency management, and public security agencies who will need

our services and whose services we will need. Our preparedness and any future responses will be superior for that effort.

From a local standpoint, we work closely with New York City’s Office of Emergency Management, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYCDOHMH),

Fire Department, and Police Department. Because we prepare as a region, we have

established similar working relationships with the public health and emergency

management agencies in the counties surrounding New York City.

On the State level, we have excellent relationships with the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), Office of Public Security, and Emergency Management Office, and have incorporated New Jersey’s Department of Health and Senior

Services and emergency management agencies in our process as well.

On the Federal level, we are fortunate to have not only strong relationships with

key Federal agencies, but truly extraordinary individuals assigned to work with us.

That is the case with respect to both the Department of Health and Human Services

and the Department of Homeland Security, through its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), both of which support and enhance our activities on a regular

basis. Indeed, our communications with and support from both agencies are models

for public-private partnerships.

• Developing an All-Hazards Framework and Implementing Incident

Command Systems—GNYHA and its members have placed a strong emphasis on

developing and implementing an all-hazards response framework on the theory that

one can never anticipate precisely how or when an event might occur and indeed

109

an event might present with multiple features. We therefore believe that planning

under an all-hazards approach will make us better able to respond to multiple variations of possible attacks and natural events.

As a result, GNYHA and its members have devoted extensive efforts toward implementing strong incident command systems, which can be activated in response

to a variety of emergencies. Using the incident command approach also permits hospitals to employ a common response framework with similar roles and responsibilities across organizations. Most hospital incident command systems are modeled

after the Hospital Emergency Incident Command System or HEICS, and thus,

GNYHA has offered numerous training sessions on implementing HEICS. Special

sessions have been offered for individuals working on the evening, night, and weekend shifts in order to ensure the availability of staff familiar with incident command

principles during all hours of operation. Many of these training modules are available on the Emergency Preparedness Resource Center located on GNYHA’s Web site

at www.gnyha.org/eprc so that members can download and use them in their own

institutions.

• Enhancing and Ensuring Effective Communications—We have placed an

extraordinary emphasis on communications because the ability to communicate with

one’s partners during an emergency is key to an effective and rapid response. We

have tackled this issue from two perspectives. First, we have focused on the issue

of ensuring that we know with whom, how, and for what purposes to communicate

during a disaster. Second, we have focused on ensuring that we have rapid, effective, and redundant means to communicate during a disaster. The following outlines

some of the specific systems and mechanisms put in place to address this critical

component of preparedness:

• GNYHA Emergency Contact Directory—To improve communications

during an emergency, GNYHA has developed a directory of key contact information regarding local, State, and Federal agencies. GNYHA has also

created a member directory that contains extensive contact information

about members’ emergency operations centers, chairs of disaster committees, and other key contacts in the event of emergencies. The directory also

contains basic information about each members’ capabilities—for example,

trauma center designation, decontamination capabilities, and the number of

negative pressure isolation rooms. Members are encouraged to update their

information regularly, and revised directories are made available quarterly

or as needed. The directory proved to be invaluable during the August 2003

Blackout when communication systems were disrupted throughout the region.

• Health Emergency Response Data System—NYSDOH, working collaboratively with the Council, has developed an emergency data collection system called the Health Emergency Response Data System or HERDS. The

system, which is an internet-based system located on a secure area of

NYSDOH’s Health Provider Network, is designed to be activated during an

emergency to collect information that may be needed to assess and respond

to the emergency and to enhance and protect surge capacity. Although the

system is located on NYSDOH’s Health Provider Network, local public

health and emergency management agencies also have access to the system

so that they can better respond to any emergencies affecting their region.

The categories of data that can be collected include the following:

• Bed, staffing, and supply needs and availability;

• Event-related data, including the number of patients seen and waiting

to be seen, admissions, unidentified patients, and mortalities; and

• Information required to establish a patient locator system, if needed.

NYSDOH also uses the system to collect weekly bed availability data from hospitals, to survey them on such information as vaccine supplies and negative pressure isolation rooms, and to communicate regarding preparations for events such as

possible weather emergencies. We have also held a number of drills designed to test

both the system itself and the ability of hospitals to use it successfully. Workarounds in anticipation of possible disruptions in the system have also been established.

• Ensuring Rapid Communications—GNYHA provides extensive information to its members through immediate distribution via e-mail of health and

security-related alerts, advisories, and directives. To ensure broad distribution of the alerts, GNYHA sends the materials to many different types of

individuals in each member institution such as chairs of disaster committees, infection control directors, directors of emergency departments, and directors of security.

110

• Assessing Communications Risks and Minimizing Disruptions— GNYHA has prepared a matrix of communication options that describes

each option’s functionality and limitations. In addition, GNYHA has prepared a checklist of considerations regarding possible disruptions to communication systems in order to assist members plan for and thus avoid or

work around possible disruptions to their systems. Finally, the Council has

discussed how to undertake effective risk assessments to identify

vulnerabilities and solutions for avoiding disruptions. • Building in Redundancies—Although a vulnerability assessment might

minimize disruptions in communication systems, GNYHA and its members have

sought to build in as many redundancies in communication systems as possible.

This is evidenced by the multiple ways that members can be reached as set

forth in GNYHA’s emergency contact directory mentioned above. In addition,

GNYHA members have established and rely on the following systems: • 800 Megahertz Radios—GNYHA worked with New York City OEM

to establish a health care channel on the city’s 800 Megahertz radio

system. This channel permits New York City health care facilities to

communicate among each other and with OEM during emergencies.

The city conducts roll calls on this system on a daily basis. This system

was used extensively during the 2003 Blackout to communicate member needs for generators, fuel, and other supplies. • Two-way Emergency Response Radios—GNYHA has also developed a two-way radio emergency response network to enable GNYHA

to communicate with its members both inside and outside of New York

City. • GNYHA Web Site—GNYHA provides extensive information on the issue

of preparedness through its Emergency Preparedness Resource Center located on its Web site at www.gnyha.org/eprc. This information is updated

regularly and is made available on the public area of GNYHA’s Web site

so that the public and providers can have access to the information day and

night. In order to address the concerns of the community, the Web site includes a section with materials on preparing for and responding to disasters

from a community perspective. • Syndromic Surveillance—GNYHA has supported the efforts of

NYCDOHMH as it has built its impressive syndromic surveillance system,

which is designed to identify clusters of suspicious symptoms, such as gastrointestinal or respiratory problems, that might signal a bioterrorism event

or other serious public health problem. Currently, NYCDOHMH collects

daily emergency department logs from area hospitals, emergency medical

services call data, certain employee absenteeism rates, and local pharmacy

purchases, all toward the goal of identifying and containing possible infectious disease outbreaks or other events as quickly as possible. Should a

cluster be identified, NYCDOHMH would investigate and notify area emergency departments and infection control directors accordingly.

• Understanding Each Other’s Roles, Resources, and Responsibilities:

Planning and Drilling Together Regularly—Understanding each other’s roles,

resources, and responsibilities is essential to a well-coordinated response to an

emergency, and thus, GNYHA and its members have worked hard to understand

precisely what each hospital’s and agency’s capabilities, planned responses, and resources might be under a variety of scenarios. This is accomplished in great part

through our collaborative planning process and the undertaking of many drills and

exercises, all designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the response system and then to of course address any identified gaps. Some of the more notable

examples of these efforts are the following:

• Preparing for Bioterrorism—Since its inception, the Council has focused

its discussions on a number of bioterrorism agents, spending a significant

amount of time on identifying, treating, and containing smallpox in particular. In August 2002, however, a small hospital in Brooklyn experienced a

‘‘smallpox scare,’’ which raised useful questions regarding various elements

of responding to such a situation. As a result, NYCDOHMH and NYSDOH,

working collaboratively with the Council, developed extensive guidelines for

managing a suspect smallpox case. While the guidelines focus on smallpox,

many aspects of the guidelines apply equally to managing other infectious

diseases as well. The guidelines are available on GNYHA’s Web site at

www.gnyha.org/eprc.

• SARS Planning and Response—The work that has been done to prepare

for a possible bioterrorism attack proved to be helpful to the health care

system’s ability to respond quickly to the threat of Severe Acute ResVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
111

piratory Syndrome or SARS in 2003. The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) immediately transmitted health alerts to State and local

health departments, which in turn immediately distributed the alerts to

providers. In order to ensure broad distribution of the alerts within its

members, GNYHA distributed them to its many e-mail lists. GNYHA also

held briefings on SARS, which were given by NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH;

held meetings of its Council to discuss the development of SARS guidelines

and surge capacity plans; and created a SARS page on its Web site.

• Development of Threat Alert Guidelines—To assist members work

within and respond to changes in the Federal color-coded threat alert levels, GNYHA worked with its Council, NYSDOH, and NYCDOHMH to develop Threat Alert Guidelines for health care providers. The Guidelines provide a checklist of measures providers should take by alert level. Each level

is divided into a number of categories of measures, which include such

issues as overall emergency planning, communications, security, staffing,

and supplies. The Guidelines are distributed each time a planned event or

possible anticipated emergency arises.

• 2003 Blackout Response—The 2003 Blackout tested us all and demonstrated the gaps that we still needed to address. But it also highlighted

what worked well: our emphasis on redundant communications paid off; our

collection of emergency contact information regarding members helped us

reach every member; our 800 Megahertz radio system helped address emergency generator and fuel requirements; the HERDS system collected information about available beds in anticipation of the possible evacuation of a

facility; and most importantly, our strong three-way partnership with the

health and emergency management agencies proved invaluable. Following

the Blackout, GNYHA prepared checklists outlining considerations for preparing for future disruptions in power and communications and held a debriefing session attended by members as well as local, State, and Federal

agencies.

• Undertaking Drills and Exercises—Although we meet and work together regularly, we find that drills and exercises are an excellent way to

test our systems and to identify gaps. We thus have placed a heavy emphasis on conducting table-top exercises, communication drills, and other exercises. We have picked up the pace of these drills and exercises as we unroll

more components of our systems and have more to test.

• Training and Education—The Council has placed heavy emphasis on training and education. Thus, GNYHA has offered over 65 briefings and training sessions

to its members and key agencies since September 11. The topics have included programs on various biological, chemical, and radiological events; preparing for and responding to power outages and other disruptions; undertaking evacuations; implementing incident command systems; communication systems; and facility security.

Recognizing that training is a continual process, we often revisit issues already presented. Upcoming programs include:

• Briefing on blast injuries that will be given by the CDC’s National Center

for Injury Prevention and Control on August 4.

• Briefing on utilizing volunteers during emergencies, which is tentatively

scheduled for August 9.

• Briefing on Republican National Convention planning, which is scheduled

for August 17 and which will be presented by multiple local, State, and

Federal agencies.

IV. PREPARING FOR THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

The foregoing outlines our preparedness for both naturally occurring events as

well as possible terrorist attacks, which we assume can occur at any time and at

any place in the New York City region. However, it also provides detailed information about the planning and preparedness that has already taken place and upon

which we build to prepare for major planned events, such as the upcoming Republican National Convention.

The health care sector’s preparations for the RNC have followed the same collaborative process outlined above. GNYHA, on behalf of its members, has been involved

in the preparations being undertaken by the local, State, and Federal Governments,

including participation in the table-top exercise held by the Secret Service and the

New York Police Department in April 2004; participation in numerous meetings

held by NYCDOHMH regarding its preparations; and coordination with New York

City OEM. GNYHA also held an initial briefing for providers on June 18 that permitted local, State, and Federal agencies, including the Secret Service, FEMA, and

112

HHS to address their preparations. Another similar briefing is scheduled for August

17.

At the initial RNC provider briefing, NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH reviewed guidelines that outline what actions the two agencies are taking as well as actions providers should take in order to ensure the preparedness of the health care system for

the RNC. The following outlines the guidelines provided: • Activation of New York City’s Emergency Operations Center and MultiAgency Command Center: Both New York City’s Emergency Operations Center

and a Multi-Agency Command Center that will be established by the New York Police Department will be fully activated round-the-clock before, during, and after the

RNC. GNYHA, NYSDOH, NYCDOHMH, and other health-related agencies will be

staffing one or both of these locations in order to provide assistance and to coordinate any needed responses by the health care system. In addition, key agencies as

well as GNYHA will establish their own command centers and/or operations plans

for the period of the RNC. • Review and Activation of Hospital Disaster Plans—Although NYSDOH

has taken the position that it will not request hospitals to activate their disaster

plans unless an incident occurs, both NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH advise hospitals

to review their disaster plans and to ensure that staff understands the hospital’s

incident command system and their own individual roles and responsibilities. • Review of Threat Alert Guidelines—NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH request

hospitals to review the Threat Alert Guidelines developed by GNYHA, NYSDOH,

and NYCDOHMH as guidance for their internal planning with a specific focus on

the activities that should be undertaken for Level Orange. • Activation of HERDS—NYSDOH will activate its Health Emergency Response Data System prior to the RNC. NYSDOH will request hospitals to input

daily bed availability by type of bed, emergency department activity, and the roster

of their contact persons for each shift throughout the RNC. NYSDOH will be ready

to request and provide more information should the need arise. Hospitals are also

advised to make certain that several people familiar with data entry into the system

are on duty during all shifts. • Availability of Staff—Key administrative staff are advised to be available onsite at the hospital during the RNC. In addition, most key departments in hospitals

have limited vacation and other time off. Hospitals are also advised to review staffing and to ensure their ability to call in extra staff if needed. In order to ensure

the availability of staff, hospitals are advised to recommend to their employees that

they have their own family emergency preparedness plans in place so that they will

feel comfortable reporting to and staying at work during an emergency. • Communications—The guidelines advise hospitals how NYSDOH and

NYCDOHMH plan to communicate with them during the RNC and, in particular,

in the event of an emergency; that hospitals should ensure that they constantly

monitor those means; and that each hospital should provide each agency with accurate contact information for the hospital. In general, communications will take place

using the 800 Megahertz radios, HERDS, the Health Alert Network, e-mail and facsimile, and regular conference calls. Hospitals are also advised to review the checklist for preparing for disruptions in communications that GNYHA prepared as a result of the 2003 Blackout. Finally, hospitals are advised to post key agency contact

information in their emergency departments and other areas throughout the hospital. NYSDOH will be advising health departments in counties outside of New York

City to maintain daily contact with hospitals in their counties during the RNC.

• Planning for Disruptions in Power—Hospitals are advised to review the

checklist for preparing for disruptions in power that GNYHA prepared as a result

of the 2003 Blackout. In particular, hospitals are advised to test their generators,

ensure a sufficient supply of fuel for the generators, and have emergency contact

information for their fuel vendors.

• Emergency Department Preparedness—NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH have

provided specific guidelines for emergency department readiness that include anticipated types of cases and symptoms (including their relative likelihood), recommended supplies, and data that should be collected by emergency department

staff. Emergency department triage and medical staff are being advised to obtain

information on whether patients presenting right before, during, and after the RNC

with certain symptoms are RNC attendees, demonstrators, or in any way associated

with RNC-related events. Unexpected clusters of illness should be reported to

NYCDOHMH. Staff are also advised to drill on various protocols that might be utilized should an event occur.

• General Infection Control Preparedness—NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH advise hospitals to re-enforce respiratory hygiene measures among clinical and triage

staff in emergency departments and other settings. They also advise that fever and

113

rash as well as fever and respiratory symptom triage protocols should be reinforced

to avoid the spread of infectious diseases.

• Syndromic Surveillance—NYCDOHMH will of course be monitoring its

syndromic surveillance system, which, as indicated previously, collects extensive information from emergency departments, EMS, employee absenteeism data, and

pharmacy sales in order to identify particular clusters of suspicious symptoms. For

the purposes of the RNC, the system will be monitored with a lower threshold for

responding to suspicious symptoms than under normal circumstances. NYCDOHMH

advises hospitals participating in the system to be prepared to respond in the event

that a ‘‘signal’’ is detected suggesting a potential illness cluster. In that event,

NYCDOHMH will notify the infection control and emergency department contacts

in the hospitals and more extensive information will be requested. Hospitals may

also be requested to undertake more extensive screening, testing, chart reviews, and

other activities. NYCDOHMH will also be prepared to visit hospitals to assist in

making diagnoses, collect data, and monitor aspects of the event.

• Final Alerts and Advisories—NYSDOH and NYCDOHMH plan on sending

Health Alerts to providers right before the RNC in order to reinforce the foregoing

advice and any new information. GNYHA will in turn distribute the Alerts to its

broad list of hospital staff GNYHA will also be reinforcing the multiple ways members can reach GNYHA at OEM, the MACC, and at GNYHA both during and outside regular business hours.

V. THE PRICE OF PREPAREDNESS

Quite clearly, extensive efforts are in place to be prepared for a vast array of

events, both planned and unplanned, in the New York City region. The collaborative

efforts that have taken place through GNYHA’s Emergency Preparedness Coordinating Council are intended to enhance preparedness in the most efficient, efficacious, and expeditious way.

The Cost of Preparedness—However, the price of preparedness is still high. In

late 2002, GNYHA undertook a survey of its members’ actual and anticipated expenditures associated with their preparedness activities. The survey requested information about their incremental expenditures over and above what they would have

spent on preparedness if the World Trade Center attack had not occurred, and excluding any costs incurred in the immediate response to the September 11 attacks.

The survey requested cost information broken down into three categories:

• Expenditures undertaken during the period September 11, 2001, through December 31, 2002;

• Expenditures planned for the year 2003; and

• Expenditures that would be undertaken in 2003 if additional funds were available.

Fifty-four hospitals responded representing 51 percent of the institutions and 61

percent of the total operating expenses of the potential sample. The survey indicated

that teaching hospitals had invested more heavily in preparedness than non-teaching institutions, a finding that is not surprising given that teaching hospitals are

more likely to serve as regional trauma centers and burn centers, possess advanced

disease surveillance and analytical laboratory capabilities, and tend to have a broader scope of services than community hospitals in general. In addition, hospitals in

New York City not surprisingly spent more on average than did hospitals outside

of the city, presumably because New York City hospitals place a higher priority on

preparedness and have imposed a more aggressive timetable for implementation due

to the higher risk of an attack in New York City.

• Total Expenditures For Preparedness By Downstate Hospitals—In order

to predict regional and Statewide expenditures for preparedness and based upon the

observation that teaching hospitals have made greater investments in these activities, GNYHA extrapolated the survey findings using average expenditures per

staffed bed according to hospitals’ teaching status to all hospitals in the New York

City metropolitan region as well as to all hospitals Statewide. Based on this extrapolation process, GNYHA determined that hospitals in the Downstate region

alone:

• Spent $149.7 million on incremental preparedness activities between 9/11/01

and 12/31/02;

• Planned to spend an additional $183.6 million on incremental preparedness activities during 2003; and

• Identified additional needed but unbudgeted preparedness projects with projected costs totaling $788.6 million.

See Figure 1, which depicts the results of the extrapolation process and which appears in the supplement to this testimony.

114

Average Expenditures For Preparedness Per NYC Hospital—With respect

to individual hospital expenditures for preparedness, hospitals in New York City:

• Spent on average nearly $2.5 million per hospital during the period from 9/11/

01 to 12/31/02;

• Planned to spend on average an additional $2.9 million per hospital during

2003; and

• Identified additional needed but unbudgeted projects with projected costs totaling on average $12 million per hospital.

See Figure 2, which demonstrates the average expenditures per New York City

hospital and which appears in the supplement to this testimony.

Although the costs identified through GNYHA’s survey are significant, they do not

capture the actual cost to our members in terms of the hours upon hours of administrative, clinical, and other personnel time that have been devoted to and will continue to be devoted to training, development of protocols, and reviews that will be

undertaken each time a new threat alert or piece of intelligence is transmitted. In

short, the price of preparedness is great and on-going, and there is no indication

that providers in the New York City region will be able to stand down in terms of

their level of preparedness.

Funding for Preparedness—New York State hospitals have received only relatively small amounts of funding toward their preparedness activities. While

GNYHA and its members are appreciative of the bioterrorism funding that has been

made available and continues to be made available through the Health Resources

and Services Administration (HRSA), the amounts that filter down to individual

hospitals do not begin to address the expenditures that are being made by the New

York City region’s hospitals.

The following details the amounts that have been made available or will be available to hospitals in New York City through the HRSA Bioterrorism program to date:

• FY2002: $40,000 per hospital;

• FY2003: $85,000 per hospital plus $4.2 million total for all New York City hospitals for special projects; and

• FY2004: amounts per hospital not yet determined, but total amount available

is similar to FY2003.

See Figure 3, which demonstrates the cost of preparedness per New York City

hospital juxtaposed with the amount of HRSA funding made available to date. Figure 3 appears in the supplement to this testimony.

The Poor Financial Condition of New York State Hospitals—The need to

increase and maintain preparedness and in turn to increase expenditures for this

purpose could not come at a worse time. Hospitals in New York State suffer from

the worst financial conditions of hospitals anywhere in the country and have experienced 5 years of bottom-line losses. This situation is rooted in the following factors:

• New York’s previously regulated all-payer rate-setting system, which squeezed

any surpluses out of hospitals;

• Declining revenues resulting from private payer negotiations and their practices

of delaying and denying payments;

• The mission of caring for the State’s three million uninsured residents; and

• The imposition of unprecedented Medicare cuts, beginning with the Federal Balanced Budget Act of 1997, continuing with reductions in payments to teaching hospitals, and now pending are cuts in the New York City area wage index, which, if

implemented, will reduce Medicare payments to area hospitals by over $100 million

annually.

Clearly, the financial condition facing New York’s hospitals impedes their ability

to undertake the activities that are essential to both fulfilling their basic mission

of providing health care and their new role as the front line of the public health

defense and emergency response systems.

Securing the Necessary Resources to Ensure Public Health and Health

System Preparedness—It is essential that the New York City region’s hospitals

obtain the resources they need to continue to enhance and maintain their preparedness for the protection of all of us. We therefore request that Congress authorize

additional funding for these purposes. Our hospitals take on additional responsibilities in light of their location in the New York City region due to the region’s role

as the Nation’s financial center, its many national landmarks, and the view of the

world that New York City holds a little bit of everything that is good about America.

Our hospitals take on these additional responsibilities for the benefit of the country

at large, and they in turn deserve to be supported in their efforts.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and am of course available to answer any questions you may have.

115

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES

Figure 1.—Preparedness Expenditures by Time Period Extrapolated to New York City Region and

New York State According to Teaching Hospital Status and Expenditures per Staffed Bed

Total Respondents

($ in millions)

GNYHA

Downstate

Hospitals

($ in millions)

New York

State Hospitals ($ in

millions)

Spent—(9/11/01–12/31/02) .............................................................................................. 90.2 149.7 218.3

Planned Expenditures—(1/1/03–12/31/03) ...................................................................... 110.5 183.6 269.3

Needed but Unbudgeted—Projects (1/1/03–12/31/03) .................................................... 468.6 788.6 1,215.4

Figure 3.—Cost of and Funding for Preparedness Per NYC Hospital

Average Expenditures Per Hospital Funding Made Available Per Hospital

Actual—9/11/01–12/31/02 .................... $2.5 million ........................................... 0

Actual/Projected—1/1/03–12/31/03 ...... $2.9 million ........................................... $75,000 (HRSA FY2002 and expedited

portion of FY2003)

Source: GNYHA survey of incremental expenditures for preparedness over and above what each hospital would have spent but for the World

Trade Center disaster.

Needed but unbudgeted for 2003: $12 million per hospital.

HRSA funding available during 2004: $50,000 per hospital plus additional funding ($4.2 million total for all NYC hospitals) for special

projects

116

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Waltman.

Dr. Martinez.

RICARDO MARTINEZ, M.D., SUPER BOWL SENIOR MEDICAL

ADVISOR, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE CHAIRMAN AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MEDICAL SPORTS GROUP

Dr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, Thank you for the opportunity to

speak to you today on this important issue. I am Dr. Ricardo Martinez, and I am a board-certified emergency physician, but I am

also the senior medical consultant for the National Football League

on emergency and disaster planning and response, and with me

today is Mr. Milt Ahlerich, who is vice president of security for the

National Football League.

The NFL places a premium on fan safety and security, and during the professional football season, the league maintains a national communication center to coordinate and integrate as many

as 16 large-scale events on any given weekend. Each averages

about 65,000 personnel and fans. Now, each event alone represents

the population of a small city and the expected challenges and incidents that accompany that.

In the aftermath of September 11th, the Commissioner’s office

began to identify nationally the best practices in security and created an advisory board of experts in game operations, security, and

emergency planning. As a result, they created a best practices program, and that was recommended to all NFL teams through a series of conferences and on-site reviews of each facility by an independent security firm and training seminaries for team security.

That program has grown over the years, and it is described in

much greater detail in the submitted testimony, but in 2003, the

NFL provided staff from each team with in-depth presentations on

pregame and game day security practices and techniques, basic

emergency procedures, and the trainer course to train local staff in

the facilities.

The NFL firmly believes that complacency can erode well

thought out plans and therefore it is essential to continue to review, upgrade, and assist the member clubs with these issues. The

NFL also subscribes to the belief that security, medical, and operations must be integrated, work in an integrated fashion to maximize their effectiveness and to strengthen and coordinate the response to an emergency. All front line staff are the first link of the

chain of survival for managing all kinds of incidents.

The best practices program was, therefore, expanded this year to

include training on emergency disaster planning and response, the

incident command system, special situations such as biological and

hazardous materials, public health threats, and issues such as full

and partial evacuation procedures. As we speak here today, this

program is being used to train staff around the country and will

continue to evolve with experience.

Now, the Super Bowl provides an opportunity to put these principles into practice in a new city each year. The Super Bowl has

a huge impact on the local community where it is played. While

challenging, it also offers the potential to increase the local emergency preparedness capacity to both routine emergencies of everyday day life and to the new emerging threats. The planning process

117

can provide a forum for improved communications, strengthening

relationships, helping overcome organizational and political barriers, and for fostering of innovative partnerships. The NFL works

in partnership with all levels of government, civic, and private organizations to share its expertise and to create an environment

that fosters team work and integration.

Starting up to a year in advance, the NFL ensures that venue

management, security, emergency medical services, local hospitals,

police, fire, and emergency management, public health, civic organizations, businesses leaders, and the political community come together early, early in the planning discussion. These groups are

also brought together with architectural and transportation planners, an issue you raised, to prepare emergency access routes, staging, triage and treatment areas, decontamination zones, signage

and other needed infrastructure. We love fire for decontamination

because they have hoses and water, and we love them.

Planning and cooperation are not enough. The NFL encourages

broad-based drills and training exercises, and we integrate emergency response information through staff handbooks, orientation

programs, and information tags they hang around their neck. For

game day operations, we have an integrated command post that facilitates information sharing and coordination across a host of

agencies and disciplines.

Now, does all of this make a difference? Well, we called some of

the recent Super Bowl host cities after September 11th, and here

are some of the comments they made: A new recognition of health

care as a first responder, a stronger relationship between public

safety and the health community, a more coordinated detection of

and response to hazardous and biological materials, better cooperation between hospitals for surveillance and data collection, new

models for responding to major emergencies, new training programs at local medical centers, and the transfer of lessons learned

at this city level to statewide planning.

For the last 2 years, the Super Bowl has shown patrons of a stadium an evacuation video, an idea that was started by the San

Francisco 49ers. The Commissioner’s office is now producing a localized version that would be provided to each team for use at their

own facilities.

The NFL recognizes that our success lies in the strength of the

public-private partnerships and wishes to thank the many Federal,

State, and local partners who each day dedicate time, energy, hard

work, and resources to strengthen America’s capabilities. Thank

you for the opportunity to present a brief overview of some of the

NFL’s activities, and I am happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Martinez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICARDO MARTINEZ, M.D.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

speak to you today on this very important issue. I am Dr. Ricardo Martinez, a

board-certified emergency physician and a senior medical consultant to the National

Football League on emergency and disaster planning and response. I have attached

to my statement a brief CV that more fully describes my background and prior public service. I am joined today by Mr. Milt Ahlerich, Vice-President of Security for

the National Football League.

118

The National Football League places a premium on fan safety and security. During the professional football season, the National Football League maintains a national communications center to coordinate and integrate the various events that

take place around the country on game days. On any given weekend, as many as

16 large-scale events may take place, involving an average of 65,000 fans and personnel. In many ways, each event alone represents the population of a small city

and the expected challenges and incidents that accompany such a population.

In the aftermath of September 11th, the Commissioner’s office, under the direction of Mr. Ahlerich and his staff, began to identify the best security practices in

stadiums from around the country and created an advisory board of professionals

with expertise in facilities and game operations, security, and emergency planning.

As a result, the NFL created a Best Practices program that was recommended to

all NFL Teams through a series of conferences around the country. The NFL followed up with onsite reviews of each facility by an independent security firm that

observed and reported the level of compliance with the NFL’s Best Practices and

made recommendations to improve. In the summer of 2002, the NFL held a training

seminar for team security officials on the best practices and offered advice on steps

clubs could take to enhance security without unduly inconveniencing fans.

In 2003, the NFL conducted a training program for up to five people from each

team, and provided them with in-depth presentations on pre-game and game day

security, venue inspections, vehicle inspection, access and credentialing, proper

screening procedures and techniques, basic emergency procedures and much more.

In addition, ‘‘train-the-trainer’’ courses were provided so that local facility staff could

be trained on the basics of this important information. The NFL firmly believes that

complacency can erode well thought-out plans and procedures and therefore it is essential to continue to review, upgrade and assist the NFL member clubs in maintaining their high levels of compliance with the Best Practices.

The NFL subscribes to the firm belief that security, medical and venue operations

must work in an integrated fashion to maximize the effectiveness of event operations and to strengthen and coordinate the response to an emergency. More important perhaps is the recognition that front line staff, be it ushers, parking attendants

or concessioners, are the first contact point in the ‘‘chain of survival’’ for medical

emergencies and for managing security and operations incidents.

Therefore, this year the Commissioner’s office updated and expanded the Best

Practices program to include information on emergency medical and disaster planning and response. Subject matter included in-depth discussion of the planning, prevention, response and recovery phases of emergencies and disasters; an overview of

the Incident Command System used for disaster response; special situations such

as biological, hazardous material and other public health threats; and issues such

as full and partial evacuation principles.

Again this year, the NFL sponsored a training program for senior staff from each

NFL team and their associated facilities, which program was conducted at three locations across the United States. In addition to the presentations, the NFL created

a separate training program module for teams and facilities that can be modified

and used for the training of their front line staff in the local facility. This program

teaches staff how to recognize an emergency, what to do in an emergency; how to

contact help and what information to report; what to do until help arrives; how to

protect themselves and others, how to recognize and respond to special situations

such as hazardous materials; their role in a Multiple Casualty Incident, and how

to evacuate calmly and safely. This current version of the Best Practices program

is being used to train staff around the country as we speak here today.

Like any search for best practices, the information continues to evolve as people

gain experience in this new environment. What is important is that we all continue

to look for ways in which we can all improve our readiness and response to both

the expected emergencies of everyday life and to the new threats that are emerging.

That is why Congressional hearings like that of today are so important. We listen,

and we learn.

Perhaps no single event provides the National Football League an opportunity to

put these principles into practice than the Super Bowl. Each year, the NFL brings

together a large cadre of experts from both inside and outside the NFL and oversees

and manages the Super Bowl and its associated events. It is hard and demanding

work. Having been the senior medical advisor since 1988, I can attest to the enormous changes in complexity and magnitude over time. After September 11, this

complexity increased even more dramatically, both in intensity and in scope. The

unthinkable is no longer unthinkable.

As you know, by its nature, the Super Bowl has a huge impact on the local community where the game is played. This can be very challenging, but it also offers

the opportunity to increase the emergency preparedness and capacity of the commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
119

nity. Because of the terrific support of the local community and surrounding areas

for this event, Super Bowl planning can provide a forum for improved communications, strengthened relationships, and can help overcome organizational and political barriers, and foster innovative and creative partnerships. Cooperation among all

agencies, resources and organizations that could potentially prevent or respond to

a major incident is vital. Preparations and planning include incidents resulting from

causes as diverse as crowd overload, to major trauma, a hazardous exposure, or a

major incident.

The NFL works in partnership with agencies at all levels of government, as well

as private organizations, to share its expertise and to create an environment that

fosters teamwork and integration. Starting up to a year in advance, the NFL ensures that venue management, security, emergency medical services, local hospitals,

police, fire, local emergency management, public health, civic organizations such as

the Red Cross, business leaders and the local political community come together

early in the discussions of emergency and disaster planning and response. Such an

effort provides a better understanding of the complexity, and the reality of responding to and managing the consequences of possible incidents, and focuses attention

on the practical aspects of how a community would actually respond to a given incident. Since 9/11, we do not ask ‘‘what if’’; rather, we ask ‘‘when if’’ and then work

with others to hammer out a solution.

Our physicians spend a great deal of time working with their counterparts in the

State and local medical communities, as well as government officials, to facilitate

the coordination and teamwork required for the Super Bowl. In addition, such emergency and disaster planning requires intimate cooperation between these groups

and Federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the EPA, and the Department of Energy. Of

particular note is that these groups are also brought together with architectural and

transportation planners to plan and prepare ingress and egress paths, emergency

access routes, staging areas, triage and treatment areas, decontamination areas,

blow out gates, signage, and other needed infrastructure.

Planning and cooperation are not enough. Therefore, the NFL encourages broadbased drills and training, incorporating as many providers and resources as possible. In addition, specific medical plans are written for the Super Bowl venue and

the associated events, with orientation and training programs offered for a myriad

of supervisors and front line staff. Emergency medical and disaster response information is integrated into staff handbooks, as well as on lanyard hang tags that

many staff wear around their necks for ready reference.

For game day operations, an integrated operations command post facilitates information sharing and coordination across a host of agencies and disciplines. In the

weeks prior to the event, scenario practices and table top exercises provide an opportunity for teamwork and problem-solving, as well as for improvement of existing

response services.

Does all of this make a difference? Comments and feedback from recent Super

Bowl cities are encouraging. Let me share a few with you from Houston by Dr. Richard Bradley of Houston Fire EMS and the University of Texas Health Science Center. He notes that as a result of Super Bowl’s planning process, there is:

• a closer working relationship between health professionals and law enforcement

and Federal agencies, and better understanding of each others needs and resources;

• stronger organizational and political links exist between EMS and public

health;

• much better cooperation between hospitals for surveillance and data collection;

• a new secure system to facilitate hospital data collection and hospital bed status; and

• development of new models for responding to major emergencies.

Dr. Bradley notes that the benefits are still paying off and that the planning for

Super Bowl was instrumental in Houston’s preparations for the recent MLB All-Star

game.

Dr. James Aiken of LSU School of Medicine shared his insights as well. Super

Bowl planning helped local agencies and organizations to look critically at a number

of issues and to develop new city-wide disaster planning. He notes that, since Super

Bowl XXXVI, there is:

• stronger relationships between public safety and the health community;

• a new recognition of health care as a first responder;

• development of new training programs at the local medical centers

• improved coordination of detection and response for hazardous materials; and

• transfer of lessons learned to a state-wide disaster planning process.

He, too, noted that this new city-wide planning has been useful for other events

such as Sugar Bowl and the Final Four.

120

The work involved, as well as the lessons learned, could be the basis of entire day

of discussion, but more importantly, the National Football League strives to continue to improve each city it visits through Super Bowl and each city it touches

through its teams. As we all learn and move forward, the NFL will continue to look

for, and update, its Best Practices program.

One last comment does deserve mention. Two years ago, the NFL did exactly that,

in noting that the San Francisco 49ers had created an evacuation video for Candlestick Park. Recognizing the opportunity to provide additional guidance and help to

its patrons, the Super Bowl has now incorporated the showing of an evacuation

video several times prior to the event. I have a copy of this video, made by NFL

Films, for you here today. The Commissioner’s office is currently producing a localized version of the San Francisco video that will be provided to each League team

for use at its facility.

The NFL recognizes that our success lies in the strength of public-private partnerships and wishes to thank our many Federal, State, and local partners who, each

day, dedicate time, energy, hard work and resources to strengthen America’s safety

net. Thank you again for the opportunity to present a brief overview of some of the

National Football League’s activities to improve the Nation’s preparedness and capabilities and I am happy to answer your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Just picking up there, why would these cities find that your evacuation and planning was unique? Shouldn’t they have already had

in place this type of an approach?

Dr. MARTINEZ. Well, I have to tell you I think the experience of

my colleagues here is probably the same, but the fact is such a

high profile event actually helps you overcome some of the organizational barriers that exist. I mean, when we go into cities, the biggest things we see are that we are able to change and improve the

linkages between the front end, the emergency response from fire

and police, and then kind of to the back end, the EMS and public

health. We tend to, and this is my physician hat on, we tend to talk

to ourselves a lot and communicate with ourselves, but truly working it through, it takes a big impetus to do that; and the second

area is that it is funny. The public safety side is often municipalbased. The hospital side is actually market competition, and trying

to bring those worlds together is something we are able to do.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I wonder how we replicate that, encouraging communities to do that, without having to have a Super Bowl

in every town. We should be looking and trying to think about that.

The other witnesses are involved in the actual preparation that

would involve Federal funds and Federal participation. I would like

to know independent of the HRSA funding stream, which we all

recognize is incomplete and probably misallocated, can you give us

your top two or three things that you think need to be improved

relative to your relationship with the Federal Government or generally? Starting with you chief, since you are right in the middle

of the Federal Government.

Mr. SELLITTO. Well, I think we are lucky in the District of Columbia that we do not have many layers of government above such

as my colleagues in Maryland and Virginia do. We are receiving

our funding in a timely fashion. That is one obstacle we have overcome. We do not have to go through the county and State levels.

I think we are lucky there.

One of the things that I am concerned with is pre-distribution of

medications. It is an issue that some jurisdictions have accomplished already, I believe Montgomery County to our north. Here

in the District, we were ready to distribute medications to the first

121

responders. My concern is always if there is a biological outbreak

today, who will come to work tomorrow. Okay. They are supposed

to pre-deploy some medications that will cover the employees and

their families. In the District here, there was a legal obstacle to

doing that, and it is going to require some legislation. I do not

know how many other communities across the country will fall into

the same scenario as they try to do things like this, but again, I

think that is a major issue that has to be looked at maybe at a

higher level.

We talked a lot about surge capacity. We increased our capabilities here to transport from the scene to the hospitals, but I think

we see where the numbers at the hospitals still cannot support

7,300 patients that was brought up or something like that.

You mentioned transportation. We are looking at—in fact, we

had an exercise about a month ago where we looked at possible use

of Marc, VRE, along with Metro to take the patients out of the city

to those outlying hospitals. Of course, that can only happen if the

rail system is not compromised as a result of some type of attack.

Those are some of the other things we are looking at, getting beyond the highways I guess we could say.

We have some issues—and, again, this is talking about the regional aspects. We are working on regional response protocols at

different subcommittee levels through the Council of Governments.

Unfortunately, we can agree to a protocol change at committee

level, but when we go beyond the borders, although let us say Alexandria City agrees to the protocol, they still have to run backwards

to their county and State to make sure it is not a conflict with any

other protocol. We are finding those regional operations guidelines

and stuff, development of them, to be a little handicapped because

the local jurisdictions in some cases do not have the power to adopt

them, so it has to go all the way up to their States to allow them

to operate under a different protocol.

One of the things we did using the dirty bomb scenario was

looked at radiation response protocols and found out that every jurisdiction in the area had differing guidelines and none of them

matched. Now, that is one thing that we worked. It took about 6

months to work through it, and we did come up with a new protocol that is adopted in the region so that if there was an event, everyone would be playing off the same sheet of music, and one by

one, we have to go through all the different scenarios and come up

with those guidelines.

Again, it is a little harder in this area, because as soon as we

are talking with mutual aid partners, it is crossing State lines,

whereas I think maybe in New York it might be a little easier because they are all at least in one State.

Another thing is the standards to which we are measured, and

I think it was alluded to earlier there are no set standards in some

areas that we can measure our readiness. I know Homeland Security is working on development of some new scenarios with task

lists that will, I think, really be good guidance into the question are

we prepared, and we will be able to answer it based on those new

standards that are forthcoming.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief.

Doctor.

122

Dr. THIBAULT. Thank you. I would answer at kind of three different levels. The first is direct support for emergency preparedness, the recognition that hospitals need direct support to take on

these added roles and to bring to a level of excellence and that

those funds be distributed in a flexible way, because the needs of

one hospital will be different from that of another in terms of

where are the deficiencies and that we avoid expending money and

energy with mandated standards and programs that do not necessarily serve our goals. The availability of money directly to hospitals, recognizing their first responder role, flexibility in those,

and at least a partnership in deciding what rules and mandates

would either accompany them or be associated with them.

The second level is a recognition that the ability of our hospitals

to respond to even an ordinary emergency, to say nothing about a

sustained or unprecedented emergency, is really dependant upon

the capacity, the flexibility and the capacity of the system as a

whole. How well health care is funded has a direct effect on what

our capacity is going to be. Right now, most of our urban hospitals

are functioning at 90 percent or greater capacity. Their ability to

have the flexible for surge capacity, their ability to even maintain

a stable bottom line is dependant upon the total pot of resources

available for health care. There is a direct relationship between the

ability of our health care system to respond to an emergency and

the general health of our health care system, and we cannot disassociate the two.

The third level is research, and I am very encouraged by the passage of the Bio Shield, but I think we cannot underestimate the importance of the pursuit of new knowledge so that we are ready to

respond to new emerging infections, whether they be used for bioterrorism or whether they be naturally occurring. The support of

fundamental research and then the application of that research in

better treatments, better detection methods is going to benefit society as a whole and is going to be directly—is going to directly support our ability to respond to bioterrorism.

We are very pleased in New England that we have a regional

center to study biological agents, and one of the high security bio

containment laboratories will be placed in Boston. I think continued support for fundamental research and the application of that

research to the health of the public is also going to be important

in keeping us in the highest state of preparedness.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Ms. Waltman, do you have any thoughts on that question?

Ms. WALTMAN. We have the same issue in New York City, obviously, as in other urban areas with respect to the financial health

of hospitals. We happen, just factually, to have experienced 5 years

of bottom line losses. In the last 2 years, we have actually closed

seven hospitals, and we have closed 10 percent of the city’s hospitals because of financial problems, and while in the long run, we

may end up as a system being perhaps financially stronger for

that, it really does minimize our surge capacity as we close more

and more hospitals.

Surge capacity is more than just beds. It is staffing and it is supplies and it is other kinds of equipment, but what we do see is trying to be more efficient and struggling with the financial cirVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
123

cumstances facing hospitals. At the same time, there is a greater

expectation of us in terms of our preparedness with respect to a variety of different kinds of terrorist attacks.

Also, another concern that we have is we can perhaps judge what

our own surge capacity is, but I kind of call this protecting our

surge capacity, and it gets back to this collaborative approach.

There are many things we can do to evaluate how many patients

we can take, but if transportation routes are cut off or certain other

things occur, schools close down and other barriers that get put in

play because of other agencies who might be taking certain actions,

really does impact the surge capacity of hospitals. If our workforce

cannot come to work, they are scared to go to work, it really does

affect our own surge capacity, and what we are doing is constantly

engaging in drills and walking through scenarios and trying to understand better what all the other players do should certain events

occur so we can better judge and evaluate and put in place mechanisms to work around the barriers that are placed there.

I will also say that I think that there are still ways, notwithstanding a lot of the collaboration that goes on, to coordinate the

funding that is given out with respect to preparedness within the

Federal Government, the State and localities, because there are

still different kinds of grants going in different directions, people

working on very well-intended projects, but I do think that there

needs to be more coordination with respect to those different types

of programs because of the seriousness of the issues that they focus

on.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank the panel. Unfortunately, I have

another event I have to go to, another meeting, but I very much

appreciate your testimony. It is extremely useful, and, more importantly, we appreciate the fact that you are on the front lines and

that you are out there trying to make this work whether the Federal Government is helping you or not. Hopefully, it is. Hopefully,

we are all getting better at this, but we have a long way to go and

we all recognize that.

So keep us posted on your thoughts and ideas.

Thank you.

124

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR GREGG FOR SECRETARY TOMMY THOMPSON

REGIONAL COORDINATION

Question 1. Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and

Response Act of 2002, the Department is directed, in awarding hospital preparedness grants, to prioritize applications from entities that focus on regional coordination. GAO studies and reports from the field describe a serious lack of regional coordination in multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas such as Washington, DC, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia and others. Will you be reviewing State plans to

identify inadequate regional coordination? How does the Department plan to correct

these deficiencies in regional planning in the coming grant year?

HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE

Question 2. Since, under the same Act, the Department is awarding these grants

on a formula rather than a competitive basis, what recourse do you have to insist

on certain performance measures being achieved by grantees in States and localities? Do you have the authority to condition funding on performance?

FUNDING FLOW

Question 3. We understand that delays getting funding through State and local

intermediaries have stymied the ability of hospitals to make sufficient plans and

procurements intended by the HRSA hospital grants. Particularly in high-threat

areas, do you have the authority to provide funding directly to hospitals? If so, do

you plan to do so in order to generate the preparedness levels needed to respond

to a mass casualty event?

FUNDING DISTRIBUTION

Question 4. We understand that the funding streams for hospitals are often being

distributed in small portions to every hospital in a State rather than through a strategic, tiered approach where a few hospitals have maximum capacity and others develop varying capacities below the maximum. The current practice leads to key hospitals not getting enough of the funds to buy real capacity and instead are using

the money for small-ticket items like protective gear and pharmaceutical caches.

Will you change HRSA protocols allowing approval of plans that give small amounts

of money to every hospital without a more strategic approach to State-wide or region-wide surge capacity development?

SURGE CAPACITY

Question 5. HRSA requires hospitals to define surge capacity as that capacity

available above and beyond daily operations. Hospitals are not allowed to count toward your benchmark the real-life approach of discharging non-critical patients,

canceling elective surgeries and outpatient clinics to free up providers and space.

Under your definition, how many grantees have achieved this excess capacity? Do

you think that requiring hospitals to build beds and other capacity that sit unused

until an emergency is the best use of the HRSA dollars? Would you consider a

change in your surge capacity definitions?

EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Question 6. As the CDC and HRSA grants enter their 4th year and fourth billion

dollars of funding, when can the HELP Committee expect to see the Department

develop a comprehensive, quantitative evaluation for Congress on the achievement

of the CDC and HRSA benchmarks in every State?

STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE

Question 7. Would you describe what medical countermeasures are available as

part of the Strategic National Stockpile in the event of a radiological or chemical

attack? What additional countermeasures, if any, is the Department considering securing with regard to these two threats?

125

QUESTION OF SENATOR KENNEDY FOR SECRETARY TOMMY THOMPSON

A Massachusetts biotechnology company received the first FDA approval of a

rapid test to detect exposure to anthrax. The test was developed with a $1 million

collaborative contract between CDC and Immunetics of Boston and is a good example of the possibilities of such public/private partnerships.

CDC sought to develop the new test for inclusion in the Bioterrorism Laboratory

Response Network and for effective widespread use in the event of another anthrax

attack. CDC says the test is ‘‘quicker and easier to interpret than previous’’ tests

and can be used by any laboratory without specialized equipment or training.

Unfortunately, CDC has not clarified whether it intends to purchase this test for

the national stockpile. As a result of the current uncertainty, State health agencies

have said they don’t know whether to buy the test. Given CDC’s support for this

new method of detecting anthrax, it is surprising that the most recent bioterrorism

guidelines do not mention the test’s availability.

Please clarify whether CDC or any other agency in the Department intends to

purchase this new test for the national stockpile, and, if so, what the timeline for

that purchase will be, and whether CDC plans any revision in the current bioterrorism response guidelines to reflect the availability of the new test.

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY FOR SECRETARY TOMMY THOMPSON

I would like to ask some questions regarding bioterrorism preparedness and response—questions I asked Dr. Gerberding almost exactly 1 year ago today. Unfortunately, I wasn’t provided with many answers at last year’s hearing and have not

received any written answers since that time—so I’m hoping you can help me with

some answers today.

While the President signed an important piece of legislation yesterday, Project

Bioshield provides many needed tools without training. I am concerned that we

haven’t built the ‘‘surge capacity’’ for public health and the health care communities

to adequately provide mass health care during a major event.

As we all know, the first line of defense in a biological attack or outbreak will

be our health care providers. Yet, prior to the September 11th attacks, fewer than

5 percent of ER doctors were trained in responding to this kind of public health

threat.

Due to the demands of public health, it is unlikely that a significant number of

public health officials and employees within public health departments have taken

advantage of training opportunities. So, it is unlikely that our ER doctors are any

more prepared than they were 3 years ago.

Unfortunately, the response to a biological attack must be rapid and any delay

could mean thousands of lives lost. Mobilization of a highly skilled response team

may not be feasible or possible. And it may take too long.

Question 1. What has the Administration done to encourage greater training of

primary care providers or ER doctors in treating a biological outbreak?

Question 2. If a biological attack were to occur—how have we prepared public

health authorities to rapidly detect a possible biological attack?

We need to continue building the infrastructure for providing better communication between public health and the health care community at the Federal, State and

local levels. And, in the event of a biological attack, our State and local public

health agencies and hospitals will need the laboratory capacity and connectability

to adequately respond to a mass event.

Question 3. What has the Administration done to enhance this communication

and increase our laboratories’ capacity to deal with a large-scale attack?

As you know, Washington State’s Secretary of Health, Mary Selecky is at the forefront of preparing for biological incidents. She began working on these issues prior

to September 11th and is known throughout the country as a leader in preparing

public health agencies and facilities to respond to wide-spread attacks. I have

worked with her extensively on this issue and both of us are well aware that biological threats are not bound by borders.

As the SARS epidemic spread from Asia to Toronto, there were tremendous concerns about how the health care system in neighboring New York would respond

if the disease spread across the border. On the other side of the country in my home

State of Washington, we shared the same concerns, as did our neighbors in British

Columbia.

While the SARS outbreak wasn’t an act of bio-terrorism, it was a clear reminder

that any attack using biologics such as smallpox would not recognize State or national borders. Our neighbors to the North or South could likely be affected. In addiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:37 Apr 12, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\95103.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
126

tion, we may have to turn to those neighbors for help in responding to a massive

domestic attack.

I believe it is essential for border communities in Washington to work with health

care providers in Canada in order to be fully prepared for a bio-terrorist attack.

Question 4. Would you please provide the committee with the Administration’s

progress in reaching bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico in the event of

a bioterrorism attack?

Question 5. What efforts are currently in place to coordinate a bioterrorist preparedness plan between our State agencies, Federal agencies and Canada or Mexico?

Question 6. Are there public health models that we can emulate to build a regional agreement with International partners?

Question 7. We need to ensure that the first priority is providing immediate care

to those threatened—are there mechanisms for providing care without the limitation

of national borders?

We know there are treatments and vaccinations available for protecting individuals in the event of a bio-terrorist attack. And, despite the signing of Project Bioshield, our capacity to manufacture those treatments is still limited.

And, there are real concerns about safety and side effects of current vaccinations.

Today we face new and emerging threats and the proposed changes in research,

drug approval and vaccine safety are concerning. For example, stockpiling Cipro will

do little to protect children or pregnant women from an anthrax attack since this

drug has not been approved for use by children or pregnant women.

Question 8. If we expedite FDA approval, what guarantee are we providing vulnerable populations like pregnant women, children and the elderly?

I am aware that the NIH is working on a next-generation smallpox vaccine.

Question 9. Are additional vaccines or antibiotic treatments being considered for

more vulnerable populations that are safe and effective in responding to a biological

terrorist attack?

Mr. Secretary, it is clear we have made some progress but there are still too many

questions left unanswered.

The bottom line is that uninterrupted planning and sustained education efforts

will allow us to create and maintain a ready response capacity.

That is going to take a significant amount of funding—and I hope you agree that

any decrease in resources will decrease our ability to respond—and will undermine

what we have accomplished to date.

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CLINTON FOR SECRETARY TOMMY THOMPSON

As you know, I have written to you and Secretary Ridge over the last several

months concerning the long-term mental health counseling needs of the FDNY and

NYPD personnel who continue to deal with the aftermath of September 11.

I am very concerned about moving forward into fiscal year 2005 and beyond. The

FDNY Counseling Services Unit and the New York City Police Department informs

me that continued counseling services are needed beyond the end of this year totaling approximately $8–10 million. The latest extension of Project Liberty will only

allow FDNY to take on new cases until September 30 and then will need to phaseout in December.

Congress appropriated $8.8 billion in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks

for FEMA to use in response and recovery including services for FDNY and NYPD.

It is my understanding from the Appropriations Committee that funds remain available within the Disaster Relief Fund that could be allocated for future needs of the

FDNY and NYPD. I believe FEMA and HHS need to provide funding beginning October 1 and continuing so that no firefighter or police officer is turned away if they

are seeking help.

Question 1. Will HHS continue working with us to make sure we are providing

our fire, police, and emergency services personnel with the counseling services they

need?

Question 2. Can I get your assurance that HHS, in conjunction with FEMA, will

provide New York with additional funding and whatever technical advice needed,

for those on the front lines of our city’s defense?

While I recognize that the most recent round of CDC funding for local health department preparedness included the ‘‘City Readiness Initiative’’ to try and address

the issue of threat in the distribution of funding, NYC remained only 29th per capita in funding for 2004.

Question 3. As you begin to think about the 2005 round of grants, what are you

doing to further address questions of threat and risk?

127

Question 4. What about the HRSA hospital preparedness funding? What are you

doing with regard to considering threat for those grants?

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CLINTON FOR ANDY MITCHELL

As you know, the language in the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations law was silent on how the Department could allocate funds to States after a

small-state minimum of .75 percent is applied, which I understand the Department

treats as a base.

The Congressional Research Service has confirmed that it was well within the Department’s discretion for the Department to have allocated State Homeland Security

Grant funds based upon factors such as threat and risk. I’ve met with Secretary

Ridge about this issue and written to him about it a number of times and I believe

that he agrees that these funds should be allocated based on threat and risk, as

every homeland security expert I’ve heard from has said should be done.

Question 1. Why then did the Department choose to allocate fiscal year 2004 State

Homeland Security Grant funds based on population alone?

Question 2. If the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill again

gives Secretary Ridge the discretion to allocate State Homeland Security Grant

funds based on threat and risk, will the Department continue to allocate funds

based on population or will it allocate funds based on threat and risk?

[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ