[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] HOW EFFECTIVELY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN PREPARING FOR A BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL OR NUCLEAR ATTACK? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ AUGUST 23, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-226 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ 87-890 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------ JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DOUG OSE, California MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Bonnie Heald, Deputy Staff Director Chris Barkley, Assistant C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on August 23, 2002.................................. 1 Statement of: Bakersky, Peter, executive officer, National Preparedness Division, Region VIII, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 31 Carballido, Raul E., Acting Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................... 18 Hoffner, Lieutenant Roger E., Arapahoe County officer of emergency management....................................... 69 Mencer, Suzanne, executive director, Department of Public Safety, and director, Homeland Security, State of Colorado. 13 Miller, Dr. Lisa A., State epidemiologist for bioterrorism, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment....... 40 Posner, Paul L., Managing Director, Federal Budget Issues, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office........... 81 Sullivan, David B., acting director, Office of Emergency Management, city of Denver................................. 63 Wall, Larry H., president, Colorado Health and Hospital Association................................................ 60 Whitney, Major General Mason C., Adjutant General, Colorado National Guard, and executive director, Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs........................... 8 Wicks, Lieutenant Byron D., Office of Safety Services, Police Division, city of Englewood................................ 79 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Bakersky, Peter, executive officer, National Preparedness Division, Region VIII, Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared statement of...................................... 33 Carballido, Raul E., Acting Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared statement of............. 21 Hoffner, Lieutenant Roger E., Arapahoe County officer of emergency management, information concerning emergencies in Colorado................................................... 73 Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 3 Mencer, Suzanne, executive director, Department of Public Safety, and director, Homeland Security, State of Colorado, prepared statement of...................................... 16 Miller, Dr. Lisa A., State epidemiologist for bioterrorism, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, prepared statement of...................................... 42 Posner, Paul L., Managing Director, Federal Budget Issues, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of............................................... 86 Sullivan, David B., acting director, Office of Emergency Management, city of Denver, prepared statement of.......... 65 Tancredo, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, prepared statement of................... 5 Udall, Mr. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, prepared statement of......................... 6 Wall, Larry H., president, Colorado Health and Hospital Association, prepared statement of......................... 61 Whitney, Major General Mason C., Adjutant General, Colorado National Guard, and executive director, Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, prepared statement of.... 11 HOW EFFECTIVELY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN PREPARING FOR A BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL OR NUCLEAR ATTACK? ---------- FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2002 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Denver, CO. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at the Jefferson County Municipal Building, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Horn and Tancredo. Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director, chief counsel; Dave Bartel, chief of staff; Bonnie Heald, deputy staff director; Chris Barkley, assistant to the subcommittee; and Michael Sazonov, staff assistant. Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations will come to order. On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the most devastating attacks ever committed on U.S. soil. Despite the damage and enormous loss of life, the attacks failed to cripple this Nation. To the contrary, Americans have never been more united in their fundamental belief in freedom and their willingness to protect that freedom. The diabolical nature of those attacks and then the deadly release of anthrax sent a loud and clear message to all Americans: We must be prepared for the unexpected. We must have the mechanisms in place to protect this Nation and its people from further attempts to cause massive destruction. The aftermath of September 11th clearly demonstrated the need for adequate communications systems and rapid deployment of well-trained emergency personnel. Yet despite billions of dollars in spending on Federal emergency programs, there remain serious doubts as to whether the Nation is equipped to handle a massive chemical, biological or nuclear attack. Today, the subcommittee will examine how effectively Federal, State, and local agencies are working together to prepare for such emergencies. We want those who live in the great State of Colorado and the good people of cities such as Golden and Denver to know that they can rely on these systems should the need arise. We are fortunate to have witnesses today whose valuable experience and insight will help the subcommittee better understand the needs of those on the front lines. We want to hear about their capabilities and their challenges. And we want to know what the Federal Government can do to help. We welcome all of our witnesses and we look forward to their testimony. We are very pleased to have with us today as a member of this subcommittee, and without objection, he will have full rights to question and also to have his rights, and that's your own representative, Tom Tancredo. We would like to have an opening statement from him. [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.001 Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, for--and thanks to the committee for coming to Colorado to discuss these issues. I am pleased because of what I have seen up to this point in time in terms of the way that the State has responded. I am very interested in knowing in more detail exactly how that coordination and cooperation has taken shape in Colorado, as are you and is the Nation. I hope that the Federal Government is going to be able to provide a certain model for this kind of cooperation through the creation of the homeland defense agency where we, in fact, are attempting to take those agencies that have a responsibility for homeland defense and not just have them cooperating on an interagency basis, but having them part of a single agency with a single purpose, one director, so that everybody seems to be, hopefully, on the same page. This is, of course--The proposal has passed the house, and I am certainly looking forward to it passing in the Senate. I know that the President has proposed it and is enthusiastically supporting it. So I think it is, in a way, a good model, at least in terms of the way he describes it, the way people can work together. We are not looking for a similar legislatively directed creation of cooperation here in the State, but I think that we can look at what has happened here and, hopefully, around the country and take some hope away from this. We are going to be asking people here who think about the unthinkable, to help us through this process, and give everyone, I suppose, a feeling of security; not a false sense of security, but a real sense of security because they know that good people put their minds together to come up with programs that will work and be effective. And so I certainly look forward to the testimony today. And I again want to express my sincere appreciation for you and the committee to come out here and prepare for this. [The prepared statements of Hon. Tom Tancredo and Hon. Mark Udall follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.004 Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. Let me now say how we use witnesses. We are delighted that you've put your heart in providing us advance statements before the actual hearing, and they have been very fine. We've looked at all of them, and our staff is here with us. That will become part of a major report with the House of Representatives. And so the way we operate is, we have an agenda, you see, we start here with the adjutant general. We will be swearing all the witnesses to affirm the oath on the testimony and that will be amended. But when we call on each, automatically the reporter of debates puts that statement in the hearing, and so you don't have to read it. You can get your own thoughts on it in a summary that gets to the essence of your written document. So don't feel you have to read 10 or 15 minutes. We like it more in the 5-minute range, and then that's good for you and us. So we thank you all for coming and spending your time. And we will now have you stand and raise your right hand. And if you have any staff behind you that will also talk in answering questions, please have them take the oath too. And the clerk will note and get the names of those, so keep standing back there. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Horn. Thank you. And the clerk will note that all of them were in the back there and so forth. Just mark the names. And we are delighted to open, as we have in other hearings, we have Major General Mason C. Whitney, Adjutant General of the Colorado National Guard, a very important portion of how we deal with preventing and solving the terrorism problem. So, General, thank you for coming. STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MASON C. WHITNEY, ADJUTANT GENERAL, COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS General Whitney. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to your committee about the Colorado National Guard and our participation in homeland security. As you are aware, the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs is the State organization that I am responsible for, and that consists of the Colorado National Guard, which is about 5,000 soldiers and airmen consisting of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, as well as the Civil Air Patrol, which is also an important part of our homeland security mission. Now, that consists of 2,000 volunteers throughout the State of Colorado in 17 different locations, as well as the Veterans Affairs, which consists of over 400,000 veterans within the State of Colorado. Basically, we have two missions within the Colorado National Guard and, as well, the Civil Air Patrol identifies with those two missions as well, and they include the State mission of emergency response and the Federal mission for national defense. Now, in preparation for those Federal missions, we receive about $135 million per year for the Colorado National Guard from Federal funds to train and participate in those Federal missions of national defense. The State mission response, we receive about $4.2 million of State funds to prepare for State emergency response missions. When September 11th arrived, and the terrorist events that took place then, we immediately recalled our Air National Guard units so that they would be prepared to launch F16s and maintain air supremacy or take care of any kinds of activities that still may be or may have been prevalent during the missions that we saw that were accomplished by the terrorists. So we had, within 15 minutes, two F16s prepared to launch after the terrorist events on September 11th. And within 30 minutes of those terrorist events, we had both F16s airborne, and we had all 16 of our F16s at Buckley Air Force Base prepared in case they were needed. Along with that, we also had our Army National Guard units recalled that would be providing any kind of security reinforcements for law enforcement agencies throughout the State. All in all, we had over 1500 of our air National Guard and Army National Guard personnel that were at their duty stations within approximately 45 minutes of those terrorist activities. As you know, we also were called upon to provide airport security in support of the law enforcement organizations that were responsible for the airport security throughout the State of Colorado. We had over 220 of our soldiers that were on active duty, that were on State duty with Federal pay, for over 8 months during that period. They provided airport security to over 13 airports throughout the State of Colorado. During the time that we have responded to this homeland security mission, we have performed over 4,000 days of State active duty in response to other State emergencies, such as forest fires that have been prevalent in the State of Colorado this year. So, as you can see, it's been a very busy year so far for the Colorado National Guard. Now, of course, the Civil Air Patrol has capabilities as well to respond to homeland security missions. Visual reconnaissance throughout the State, coupled with their search and rescue capabilities, is one of their main missions that they perform within the State of Colorado. We have some unique capabilities within the National Guard also that aid in our homeland security mission, and one of those unique missions that we have is a Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team that consists of 22 full-time, 100 percent federally funded employees of the Colorado Army and Air National Guard that respond to nuclear, biological, and chemical events throughout the State, as well as a geographical area that used to be defined as FEMA Region VIII, but now they've redefined those regions to more accurately--or more adequately deploy other civil support teams throughout the United States so we have 100 percent coverage with every State. That team and the teams also, the other 26 teams throughout the United States, have been extremely busy over the last several months. They have responded to anthrax precautions that were taken by local agencies or by the FBI. We've also responded to events that could be considered a chemical liability within the State. We've supported other law enforcement and local responders with that team in terms of exercises, making sure that we are compatible with their operational procedures. All units of the Colorado Army and Air National Guard are also trained in every possibility of warfare, and one of those obviously is chemical warfare, biological warfare, and nuclear warfare. That's a matter of their readiness training, so it's something that comes second nature to them. So there is response capability within the entire organization for those type of events. Sir, that basically summarizes what we've done over the last several months in terms of homeland security, in terms of what our capabilities are. We also have some challenges ahead, and one of the challenges we face, I think, is: Is the National Guard properly equipped and trained to be able to respond to those types of terrorist events that could happen in the future? That's something I think that will be on a major agenda item for our new commander of Northern Command, U.S. Northern Command down at Colorado Springs, General Ed Eberhart. Mr. Horn. You might want to spell that. General Whitney. Yes, sir. E-b-e-r-h-a-r-t. And General Eberhart, obviously, has been in discussions with the National Guard already about what our role will be with the homeland security mission within the military, realizing that General Eberhart operates in a Title 10 world, the Title 10 Federal statutes, and the National Guard operates in the Title 32 world, which is essentially the State part of the Federal statutes. Subject to your questions, that's all I have, sir. [The prepared statement of General Whitney follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.006 Mr. Horn. And we will now go to Ms. Mencer. Ms. Mencer is the executive director, Department of Public Safety, director of Homeland Security, State of Colorado. I assume that is the Governor's sort of operation? Ms. Mencer. That's correct. Mr. Horn. Put it all together? Ms. Mencer. Yes. STATEMENT OF SUZANNE MENCER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF COLORADO Ms. Mencer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to speak here today. I think we realized in 1993, after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and then after the bombing of the Murrah Building in 1995, that we needed to refocus our efforts on this issue of terrorism, particularly domestic terrorism, which we, I don't think, gave much attention to at all until 1995. I think what we learned on September 11, 2001, is that our efforts still were not sufficient to combat this threat, either internationally or domestically. I have the unique advantage, I guess, of having been in the FBI for 20 years; 13 of those years I was a counterterrorism and foreign counterintelligence supervisor, both at FBI headquarters and here in Denver. So I have that in my background as well, which serves me well now that I try to look at how to protect the State with not only sharing intelligence with law enforcement agencies, but also with looking at plans, preparedness, and response issues as well. On November 7, the Governor, by executive order, created the Office of Preparedness and Security in the State. Given our tight fiscal problems that we are having now, he created this office using existing resources that the State already had, and focused our efforts in the area of terrorism. To do this, we used my personnel from the Department of Public Safety, we used--we borrowed one person from the Department of Health and Environment that specialized in bioterrorism, and we used two people from the Office of Emergency Management, who have always done a good job at protecting the State in all kinds of all- hazards approaches to disasters. But their specific tasking has been to look at focusing the State on preparedness issues of weapons of mass destruction. To do that, we have divided this office into two areas of focus. One is preparedness, plans, and response. To do that--and this office, by the way, was signed into law by the Governor after passing the legislature in this last legislative session in the Colorado legislature, so it became an office permanently in June. The focus of this office then is twofold. One is for plans, preparedness, and response. To do that, the Governor announced 2 weeks ago that we were dividing the State into seven districts. Six of those districts are the existing State Patrol districts with one exception, and that is, we carved out the five counties of the metro area to create the seventh district. We didn't want the six districts to be overwhelmed by the key assets that we have up and down the front range. So we decided to create this seventh district of the metro area, which we did. These districts will then be coordinated by three individuals: A major of the State Patrol of that district, an OEM regional planner that is assigned to that area, and a CBI investigator, agent-in-charge. Their responsibility will be to bring to the table everyone from that district that should have a say in plans and preparedness issues. They will look to fire chiefs, to police chiefs, to sheriffs. They will look to health care professionals in that district. They will look to emergency first responders in that district, and ask for assistance from the National Guard and FEMA to coordinate what should the plans be, are the existing plans sufficient. And, indeed, we already have good plans out there; we don't want to reinvent the wheel. Are they sufficient to handle weapons of mass destruction? If not, what additional responses do they need in that area, and what kind of training and equipment do they need that they don't already have? So we'll be looking at that in each of the districts. Additionally, we'll also be looking at developing an intelligence collection piece. I think when I was in the FBI, sharing of intelligence with local law enforcement agencies consisted of me receiving the information from the sheriffs and chiefs and saying, ``Thank you.'' That was about the end of the sharing. I think what--is there clapping back there? I think what we've learned is that we have to share better. And, indeed, the FBI created joint terrorism task forces all over the United States. Denver was one of the first offices to do that. I'm sure Mr. Carballido will speak more about that. And I'm pleased to say that we have a Colorado State trooper on the domestic side of the joint terrorism task force. So we are very lucky to have a seat at the table. Unfortunately, the task forces, by necessity, are limited as to who can be at the task forces. So we need to have a way to better have the chiefs and the sheriffs and other folks out there that have intelligence or that see things every day to be able to share that. So we are going to act as a clearinghouse for this kind of information so that we can then package it and provide it to the FBI if it rises to the level of an investigative concern. So that's what we hope to do. We do need to break down some barriers among law enforcement agencies. It is difficult, if you work hard to get information, to then give it up and share it with other agencies. That's always been a problem with law enforcement. So we are looking at ways to try to break down those barriers because I think what we've all learned since September 11th is we do need to share better, and we are going to work very hard at doing that. We applaud the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security and of Governor Ridge, and the President's initiative to create this new department, similar to what we have done here in the State, taking existing resources, combining them together to focus on this issue of terrorism. So we very much applaud that. We are in close contact with the Office of Homeland Security. I am in biweekly conference calls with them. I just had one yesterday. We share their concerns. They're divided by FEMA regions. We are with FEMA Region VIII and X on our conference calls. And all the States' homeland security directors are there. So it is an opportunity for us to share our concerns, ask our questions, and get answers at that time, and they've been very responsive to all the questions we've had. So we have a good relationship with them. We also--I go back about every other month to meet with Governor Ridge and his staff. All the homeland security directors do, and this has been very helpful as well, so that we know where they're going, what their direction is, and what kind of information they can provide to us to better make our system here in Colorado more functional in working with them. So we are busy on that. The Governor also created an infrastructure committee 2 weeks ago, and this will be to bring in the private sectors as well in the State. We will have at least 13 people at that table, each representing the 13 critical infrastructures as defined by the national security strategy. We will look at those 13 infrastructures and then add some as well, such as education, to decide things for the State, like the structure of the threat level system. What does it mean for education if we go up from a Level Yellow, which we are at now, to a Level Orange? What does it mean--do you send your kid to school if we go up to a Level Red? Do you ride the light rail if we are at the red level? These are the kinds of questions we will ask this committee to come up with by asking their constituents to come up with the models that we need to use and then disseminate to the public as to how we are going to react to this kind of thing. So that way we will bring in the private sector as well and get input from everyone because this is indeed a problem that has to be solved by everyone, not just law enforcement, not just the National Guard, not just Public Safety, but we have to all work together on this. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Mencer follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.008 Mr. Horn. Thank you. That's very helpful. And in the question period I'm sure we'll have plenty to check. And we are now having Raul Carballido, who is the acting special agent-in- charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Is that in the Denver office? Mr. Carballido. Yes, sir. Mr. Horn. Well, we are delighted you and your other people, starting with Y2K years ago and our jurisdiction over Federal executive computers. And they have been greatly helpful with their hacking and all the rest of it, and on the lootists and the viral this or that and sickness here and there in computers; and they've really been a great help for private industry as well as for government. And so thank you for being here. STATEMENT OF RAUL E. CARBALLIDO, ACTING SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Mr. Carballido. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman, board members of the subcommittee, and distinguished members of the Colorado delegation. I value the opportunity to appear before you and discuss terrorism preparedness, including threats posed by attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, as well as measures being taken by the FBI and law enforcement partners to address these threats. The mission of the FBI's counterterrorism program is to detect, deter, prevent, and swiftly respond to terrorist actions that threaten U.S. interests at home or abroad, and to coordinate those efforts with local, State, Federal, and foreign entities as appropriate. The Denver field office of the FBI is responsible for the States of Colorado and Wyoming. The field office's headquarters is located in Denver with satellite offices throughout the States of Colorado and Wyoming. Enhanced cooperation among law enforcement at all levels is a significant component of the prevention and investigation of terrorism. This cooperation is most evident in the development of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, short JTTF, that now exists in all 56 FBI field offices. These task forces are successful for the integration of resources provided by local, State, and Federal agencies. The Denver field office, JTTF, was formed in 1996. It is composed of numerous Federal, State, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies. The Denver JTTF also coordinates with the recently created Colorado Office of Preparedness, Security and Fire Safety to share information on terrorism-related matters. This cooperation is demonstrated through the anticipated sharing of an analyst who will conduct terrorism-related research and analysis for the FBI and the Colorado Office of Preparedness, Security and Fire Safety. Denver, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is also home to a number of significant military assets located in Colorado and Wyoming. The newly established Northern Command, NORTHCOM, is now located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. On October 1, NORTHCOM, Homeland Security Combatant Command, will become operational. In an effort to facilitate cooperation, coordination, and the sharing of information between the FBI and NORTHCOM, in issues relative to terrorism activities and other activities of joint interest, the FBI will assign a full- time, senior-level special agent to the command. The Denver field office of the FBI has taken a proactive approach in its preparation for terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. In January 1999, Denver field office completed its own Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Contingency Plan. This plan was designed to provide specific guidance for response within the Denver field office. The plan is updated annually and has been utilized numerous times to resolve weapons of mass destruction threats or incidents within Colorado and Wyoming. In addition to the domestic preparedness training that we have received over the years, we have also provided weapons of mass destruction awareness and response training to numerous law enforcement, fire, emergency medical, emergency management, military and infrastructure agencies and organizations. The Denver field office has also participated in numerous local, regional, and national weapons of mass destruction exercise scenarios. We consider our involvement in both training and exercises to be essential to maintaining and enhancing our relationships with our local, State, and Federal partners. In 1996 the FBI established a Hazardous Materials Response Unit, which is based in Quantico, Virginia. Staffed with subject matter experts, the unit has provided national and international assistance in the response to weapons of mass destruction terrorism. In May 2000, the unit certified the Denver field office's hazardous materials response team. This is one of 17 teams throughout the country and a regional asset for the FBI. This team, which is comprised of FBI agents specially trained to operate in a contaminated environment, has the capability to respond to a crime scene where weapons of mass destruction may be present. We have also participated in the development of local weapons of mass destruction response plans. An important example of this is the recent development of a Metropolitan Medical Response Plan for the Denver Metropolitan area and the ongoing development of a similar plan for Colorado Springs. In December 1998, FBI Denver took a leadership role in the establishment of what is known as the Colorado Counterterrorism Advisory Council. This group, which has met monthly since its inception, includes representatives from a variety of State and Federal agencies who have primary responsibility for response to weapons of mass destruction issues within the State of Colorado. The group has also established interagency notification and response protocols which have greatly enhanced our ability to efficiently share information and provide response resources. Since the deliberate distribution of anthrax in the U.S. mail during December and October 2001, FBI Denver has responded to more than 800 telephonic requests for assistance concerning potential weapons of mass destruction terrorism, primarily regarding anthrax. In addition, FBI Denver provided field responses to potential weapons of mass destruction incidents on more than 100 occasions and opened more than 30 criminal investigations. The ability to handle this many incidents is a direct result of the partnerships developed among the Federal, State, and local response community, which included the establishment of efficient operational protocols and agreements for laboratory testing of chemical, biological, and radiological agents. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, terrorism represents a continuing threat to the United States, and as the lead Federal agency for response to a weapons of mass destruction threat or incident, the FBI must remain prepared to tackle this formidable threat--formidable challenge, I should say. In order to effectively and efficiently respond to the threat, the Denver field office of the FBI continues to enhance its counterterrorism program. Chairman Horn, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would like to express my appreciation to this subcommittee's examination of the issue of counterterrorism preparedness, and I look forward to responding to any questions. Thank you, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carballido follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.018 Mr. Horn. Well, I thank you, gentlemen, and thank you again for the good presentation. We now move to Peter Bakersky, Director of the Office of National Preparedness, Region VIII, Federal Emergency Management Agency, otherwise known as FEMA. STATEMENT OF PETER BAKERSKY, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS DIVISION, REGION VIII, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Mr. Bakersky. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure for me to be here to discuss a pressing matter of how FEMA is assisting State and local government to prepare for a potential terrorist attack involving biological, chemical, or nuclear agents. FEMA is the Federal agency responsible for leading the Nation in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters. Our success depends on our ability to organize and lead a community of local, State, and Federal agencies and volunteer organizations. The Federal Response Plan forms the heart of our management framework and lays out the process by which interagency groups work together to respond as a cohesive team to all types of disasters. In response to the terrorist events of 2001, the Federal Response Plan has proven to be an effective and efficient framework for managing all phases of disasters and emergencies. The plan is successful because it builds upon existing professional disciplines, expertise, delivery systems, and relationships among the participating agencies. Much of our success in emergency management can be attributed to our historically strong working relationship with our State and local partners. Through our preparedness programs we provide the financial, technical, planning, training, and exercise support to give State, local, and tribal governments the capabilities they need to protect public health, safety, and property both before and after the disaster strikes. In meeting the challenges ahead for State and local government, FEMA's Office of National Preparedness is becoming more robust. The mission of the Office of National Preparedness is to provide leadership in coordinating and facilitating all Federal efforts to assist State and local first responders, as well as emergency management organizations, with planning, training, equipment, and exercises. FEMA has made the following changes to support this expanded mission. We have realigned preparedness activities from the Readiness, Recovery, and Response Directorate to the Office of National Preparedness. We have realigned all training activities into the U.S. Fire Administration to allow greater coordination between training for emergency managers and training for the first responders. We have moved the authority for credentialing, training, and deploying the urban search and rescue teams from the Readiness, Response, and Recovery Directorate to the U.S. Fire Administration. We continue to work with all 55 States and Territories and federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages to implement our current and other grant programs to assist State, tribal, and local governments to enhance their capabilities to respond to all types of hazards and emergencies, such as chemical incidents, incidents involving radiological substances, and national disasters. We recognize that chemical, biological, and radiological scenarios will present unique challenges to the first responder community. Of these types of attacks, we are, in many ways, better prepared for a chemical attack because such an incident is comparable to a large-scale hazardous materials incident. In such an event, the Environment Protection Agency and the Coast Guard are well connected to local hazardous materials responders, State and Federal agencies, and the chemical industry. There are systems and plans in place for response to hazardous materials, systems that are routinely used for both small and large-scale events. The EPA is also the primary agency for the hazardous materials function of the Federal Response Plan. We are confident that we would be able to engage the relevant players in a chemical attack based on the hazardous materials model. Bioterrorism, however, presents the greater immediate concern. With a covert release of a biological agent, the first responders will be hospital staff, medical examiners, private physicians, or animal control workers instead of the traditional first responders, with whom we have a long-term relationships. The Department of Health and Human Services leads the efforts of the health and medical community to plan and prepare for a national response to a public health emergency and is the critical link between the health and medical community and the larger Federal response. The Department of Health and Human Services is also our primary agency in the Federal Response Plan for health and medical services. The Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan has 17 Federal agency signatories, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the lead Federal agency for coordinating the overall response, and FEMA is responsible for coordinating nonradiological support. Tabletop exercises have been conducted in order to determine Federal agency resources for responding to a terrorist attack with a radiological component. In addition, nuclear or radiological threat posed by improvised nuclear devices and radiological dispersal devices is being evaluated, as well as the preparedness of member departments and agencies to deal with these threats. It is FEMA's responsibility to ensure that the national emergency management system is adequate to respond to the consequences of catastrophic emergencies and disasters regardless of the cause. We rely on our partners at the State and local level. Without question, they need support to further strengthen their capabilities and their operating capacity. FEMA must ensure that the national system has the tools to gather information, set priority, and deploy resources effectively. In recent years we have made tremendous strides in our efforts to increase cooperation between the various response communities and now we need to do more. The creation of the Office of National Preparedness and our emphasis on training, planning, equipment, and exercises, will enable us to better focus our efforts and will help our Nation become better prepared for the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be available for any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bakersky follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.025 Mr. Horn. Thank you. And now we have Dr. Miller, the State epidemiologist for bioterrorism, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. STATEMENT OF DR. LISA A. MILLER, STATE EPIDEMIOLOGIST FOR BIOTERRORISM, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Dr. Miller. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. The previous speaker, I think, gave me a great lead-in to talk about the ways that the Federal Government, and specifically the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is aiding both State and local public health and hospitals to become better prepared to deal with bioterrorism. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is the recipient of two Federal grants recently to help us become better prepared. The first grant I'm going to just touch on briefly is Colorado's hospital preparedness grant. And these grant funds are provided through the Department of Health and Human Services via the Health Resources and Services Administration, and they're intended to upgrade the preparedness of hospitals. This grant was developed by the department, but there is oversight from a committee, and this committee has a broad range of representation. And I think that's a really important point to make. This is obviously a very complicated area, and I think you've gotten the picture just from the few speakers before me that we have a lot of coordination to do. So to help coordinate this grant, we have an advisory committee from Veterans Affairs, Indian health service, from community health agencies, and from private providers, to really give us that additional perspective. The Hospital Preparedness Advisory Committee is led by Mr. Larry Wall, who is going to give you comments later. So I'm not going to go into any more detail about that grant, and I'll let Mr. Wall take that one further. The second grant I want to mention briefly is Colorado's public health bioterrorism preparedness grant. And this grant is intended to build public health infrastructure, both at the State public health level and at the local agency level. This grant is actually about 3 years old. We started receiving Federal funds in public health for bioterrorism preparedness in 1999, but recently the Federal Government has increased those funds dramatically, as I'm sure you're aware. We went from receiving about $1 million a year to, this year, $14.6 million. And I want to point out a couple things about this grant. First of all, although the grant is called a bioterrorism grant, it really is intended to help improve the infrastructure of public health so we can respond not only in the, hopefully, unlikely event of a major bioterrorism event, but we can respond to everyday emergencies which we have in public health all the time. We have an example right now going on. We have a new disease in our country, West Nile virus. So this is intended really to help us respond to both that, ``everyday emergency'' in public health and the other bigger issue of a bioterrorism event. Again, in this grant, we both wrote the grant and have oversight in this grant by a committee. And we wrote the grant with the input of both a broad range of State health department individuals and local health department individuals. And then we have an advisory committee, and that advisory committee is actually made up of several individuals in this room. Ms. Mencer sits on the advisory committee. Major General Whitney, Mr. Wall, Mr. Greer and Agent Airy have been involved in the work of the committee. So, again, we are trying to really get some coordination between our different agencies and make sure that the one knows what the other is doing and has input into those activities. The grant, as you see in my notes, is divided into six focus areas. These focus areas are funded separately. They deal with specific readiness preparations, that is, the writing of the plans, the exercising of those plans, and training. They also deal with surveillance and epidemiology, which is the ability to detect and respond to an event quickly. So if there is a bioterrorism event, we will know about it as soon as possible, and we can control it quickly and prevent spread. There's also a laboratory part of this grant that will go specifically to help us upgrade our laboratory capacity so we can better identify, more quickly identify, agents of bioterrorism at the State level. We also want to upgrade local laboratory capabilities. There's also a section that deals with information technology, obviously an important issue that runs through every part of terrorism prevention and response. And we are dealing not only with actually connecting people and making sure they have good communication technology, but protecting that information and making sure that our information is secure. We found out with the anthrax event, I think, that risk communication or the ability of public officials and public health officials to communicate information quickly and accurately, is very important and can really mean the difference in an event between quick control and not-so-quick control of an event. We need to make sure that we have better training in risk communication in our public health and public official levels so that we can provide information in the best way possible to the public. The last area of focus in our grant is training and education. Obviously we have a huge number of not only public health people but also hospital staff to whom this is a relatively new issue, and we have a lot of training to do about the issue, about how we respond to this issue, importantly, how we work with all our different partners here, which public health staff are not as accustomed to working with as it should be, probably. We are getting better at working with our partners and knowing who those partners are, but that's still an area of need to do some training and education in. My final point that I would make with these funds is that they are intended to increase our infrastructure in public health. And I think in order to do that, a 1-year grant is not going to work. We need to hire personnel and have training that is very long-term. And to do that well, I think these funds, obviously, need to be longer than 1 or 2 years to actually improve our infrastructure in a long-term way. So I thank you for your time and attention, and I'd be happy to take questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.030 Mr. Horn. Well, you've done a good job because we hadn't had a chance to get into these grants since they have been trickling out over the last few months, and that's very helpful. So now let's move to the question and answer. What I'm going to do is have each of us, my colleague and myself, each have 10 minutes for questions and answers. And if there's still questions and answers to be had, we will do it again. So we'll start with my colleague here. You have 10 minutes. Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I've got a couple of things that have come to mind as I listened to the testimony. And I, again, thank you all very much for a clear, concise presentation. Major General Whitney, in terms of the new role, the added role, perhaps I should say it that way, for the Guard and specifically in the areas that you mentioned in terms of airport security and that sort of thing, how has that affected, if at all, the morale of the people involved in terms of a change in what they see, I suppose, as their primary task or role? I mean, you know, other than--I mean, it seems to me that up to this point in time they saw themselves in a much more active role in case of an emergency, getting in and helping people, rescuing people, doing all the things that the Guard has been so good at doing, rather than standing there, you know, for hours and hours and hours and hours looking at people walking past them. And I just wondered how, if anything, that has affected the actual morale. Do you have any indicator of that? General Whitney. Sir, I can answer that fairly specifically as well as generally. No. 1, a general answer to the question is that, of course, we've been providing homeland security since 1636 throughout the Nation, so we are not--this is not a mission that is totally new to us. So we have done these types of things more than just the national defense mission where you have a soldier who is well versed in operating field artillery is all at once asked to come in and provide airport security. A trained military force is a very capable force in many different missions. Of course they're trained in combat arms, and so therefore airport security missions in support of law enforcement organizations would be something that would fit within their skill set. The specific answer to your question, though, how has it affected the morale of the soldiers who are involved in that mission is, it hasn't affected it adversely whatsoever. Actually, it's been a very good thing for most of our soldiers with very few exceptions. All of our soldiers who performed that mission did so with a very, very positive attitude about representing the U.S. military, specifically the Colorado National Guard and the U.S. Army, in a very visible manner in that airport security mission. So they're very proud to do that, very proud to stand in their uniforms providing that added sense of security that would come as a result of their presence. Mr. Tancredo. That's interesting to know. Just as I--Every single week as Mr. Horn, I'm sure, and I are required to do for the job and fly in and out of Denver twice a week and passing them each time, I always just thought to myself, ``I wonder if they just get so damn bored that they can't stand this anymore.'' And ``How do you stay alert?'' And ``How does it''-- that's a challenge, I think, and God bless the Guard for the good job they do. But it just always made me wonder about that. Ms. Mencer, the focus of most of the discussion here today was naturally on the reactive capacity of the State in case of an emergency. But you mentioned something that piqued my curiosity when you started talking about what I would have categorized, I suppose, as a preventive activity or responsibility that you may find in your own--because it's the office of preparedness, you're preparing for something as opposed to trying to prevent it from happening. So when you talk about the information sharing and that sort of thing, I just wonder to what extent do you actually see your role, the role of your agency, in this other capacity of preventive, and how specifically does that play out, if at all? What do you do in that regard? Ms. Mencer. Well, certainly at the State level we are not involved in investigations concerning terrorism. That would be the responsibility and purview of the FBI. But I think what we've learned as a Nation is that we need to have a better mechanism for collecting intelligence and to share it, and we are hoping that at the State level, by working with the local chiefs and sheriffs, we can have a mechanism for doing that, for going out and looking for things that they would have an interest in, and then being able to disseminate that information to the right people. We'd like to go beyond that, though, rather than just law enforcement, because I think, as Dr. Miller said, we have a lot of health workers out there that see things every day. We have a lot of first responders that arrive on the scene first, and they need to have some intelligence as well. So we are trying to develop a system where we can not only disseminate bulletins that come out from the FBI at a law enforcement level, but the Office of Homeland Security is actually looking at trying to have a tear sheet so that information can be scrubbed and disseminated to first responders as well, to the health care workers, to the first emergency responders who come on the scene, to the fire chiefs, so that they have a way of knowing what's going on too. So if there is an explosion, they might know that, gee, we've had pipe bombs discovered in other parts of the State. Maybe it's a criminal act rather than just a gas explosion. So those are the kinds of things we are looking at trying to facilitate. It's something that we haven't done well before, we haven't done at all in some cases, particularly with first responders. So it's a new way of looking at intelligence, and we are hoping to play a part in that to assist the investigators in their role with looking at what do we have in this Nation. Mr. Tancredo. Well, that's still sort of the reactive stage which you've just described, how do we react to the event, how quickly can we get the information to the people that will be there first to know what they're dealing with. But you suggest that this information sharing task that you've been charged with is the primary role of the preventive side of your activity. And so I guess I'm asking you to be even more specific, if you could, and exactly, No. 1, is that happening at all today? You mentioned, I think, that you are looking to ways in which that can occur. Is it happening now? Are you facilitating that and to what extent do you think that we have increased that degree of information sharing as a result of the agency's existence, your agency's existence? How much more do you look forward to doing that in that regard? Ms. Mencer. Indeed we are doing it today, and we started shortly after the office was formed. Right now we are cobbling together several different communications systems to disseminate information. So we now use our CCIC, our criminal system that we have in place, to disseminate bulletins and law enforcement sensitive information. We use the Colorado Law Enforcement Information Network, or CLEIN, to disseminate information as well. We use RISSNET, which is an Internet-based system to disseminate information. We also use an e-mail system that's developed by my Director of Fire Safety that disseminates information that isn't law enforcement sensitive to fire chiefs and emergency first responders. So we indeed send this out, and we haven't done that before. So that has been something new. We've received positive comments from local law enforcement agencies and from first responders, that for the first time they're actually getting some kind of intelligence information. So that's been working well, but we need a better system instead of trying to use all these different systems, and we are working with the RISSNET people in a system that the Colorado State Patrol already has in their possession, Dialogic, which is a communicator system. What we found with chiefs and sheriffs is if their information comes in via the Internet or via their teletype machine or whatever system they have, they don't know that it's there. There's no mechanism with their own business practices for the clerical person when he receives it to say, ``Wow, this is something significant; the chief needs to see it.'' So a lot of times it sits there. So the Dialogic system, if you plug your numbers in, your fax number, your pager, your cell phone, your home number, it automatically begins to call people and says, ``You need to check your fax machine, your Internet message,'' whatever. And so then they know. And it keeps calling them until they respond. So it's a very annoying system, but it works. And so we are looking at using the money from the U.S. attorney's office, which they have been provided, and we have requested some funding to hire a person that will do nothing but operate this Dialogic system so that we do have a communication effort where we can alert people that there is a message coming in and they need to respond to it. Mr. Tancredo. And from what agencies are you receiving most of the information that you are presently then disseminating? Ms. Mencer. We get information from the FBI on their intelligence bulletins that they disseminate weekly. We also get the same information---- Mr. Tancredo. Excuse me. Now, those bulletins would not have otherwise--let's assume that your agency didn't exist for a moment--they would not have otherwise been disseminated? Ms. Mencer. They do. They are disseminated on our CCIC system, which I think would have occurred anyway. Also the NLET system, which the FBI uses, and we use that as well. Mr. Tancredo. So that now that is not happening that way; you sort of have taken over that? Ms. Mencer. Well, no, they--Do you disseminate on NCIC? I don't know if you do or not. I think it's CBI now. Mr. Carballido. Well, we do from headquarters, initially, and then there's further dissemination from CCI, and sometimes we also disseminate from FBI Denver BOLOs, be on the lookout for this, etc., more specific operational tactical information, and that goes directly to the local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Tancredo. What I'm trying to figure out here is exactly what the role is in term of this information dissemination for your agency. And is it truly a coordinating agency or are you just another part of the dissemination picture? I'm not clear on that exactly. Ms. Mencer. I think it's both. I think what we've done is create this whole other layer for first responders and for the fire chiefs that didn't exist before. And they had no information flow to them at all. So, you know, that's something that we've created in the new office and we are trying to enhance. And if the Office of Homeland Security proceeds with their goal to have that tear sheet, it will be much facilitated because they'll provide scrubbed information, if you will, on the bottom part that we can disseminate to first responders and then the law enforcement sensitive stuff at the top. So we are hoping that will make our job a lot easier as well. Mr. Tancredo. So, so far, it's mostly sort of--right now would you consider it to be a top-down information sharing process? You are not getting information, let's say, from sheriffs' departments that you then--coming up to you that you--I guess it's not--I don't know whether it's correct to say coming up to or down from, but are you getting it and are you sharing the information that they provide to you? Ms. Mencer. That's what we need to work on specifically, and that's what the seven districts will do, and the CBI component of the those seven districts will work with the chiefs and the sheriffs in collecting information that then we can disseminate statewide. For instance, if District 1 says, you know, we've received some information that's some driver's licenses have been stolen, and then we'll be able to send that out to the seven districts, and we'll coordinate the intelligence, bring it to the FBI's attention so that they can see is this something we need to be concerned about or not. So as we work on this process of getting these districts organized and reaching out to the chiefs and the sheriffs, we'll have a method of not only disseminating it from the top down, but then disseminating it from the bottom up, which we need to do and which we haven't done very well as a Nation, I don't think. Mr. Tancredo. Well, I appreciate the chairman's indulgence here on this because I'm just trying to get a good, clear picture of exactly what it is that you are charged with doing and how effectively it has, you know, begun to operate so far and where you think you want to go with it. It is confusing because there is this, you know, sort of a generic application of the word ``dissemination,'' and we use it a lot, and we talk about the need for information sharing, and are never sure if just the creation of an agency that is supposed to help in that purpose can actually be that single source or it just becomes another one of the things that people sort of look forward to hearing from periodically, people sort of down the line from it. And it's a challenge, I think, enormous challenge, of course, to figure out exactly what role you're going to play that isn't being played by some other--by the FBI and other Federal agencies. But let me take it one step further then. To what extent do you communicate or have communications with other Federal agencies that have responsibilities for internal security, specifically, let's say, the INS, Customs, even more specifically, Border Patrol; perhaps that wouldn't be the one because, although they do have, of course, internal security apparatus, to a couple of agents, anyway, do you have any involvement with them whatsoever? Ms. Mencer. Well, we are a part of the CTAC, which was mentioned earlier, the counterterrorism committee that meets, the State patrol, so we do have participation with other Federal agencies on that. I'm in regular communication with ASAC Carballido, so I speak on a frequent basis with the FBI because I have a relationship with them, obviously, which I think is a good thing at this point in our Nation's history, particularly in this State that I do have that relationship with the Bureau, and I appreciate that. And we, as a State, I don't see our role as coordinating with Federal agencies as much as I do with trying to coordinate the local folks out there. And I think because we in law enforcement are particularly territorial with the information we collect and receive, that we do need to begin to share more with sheriffs, sharing with the chiefs, and chiefs sharing with the sheriffs, and that kind of thing, and I see the State's role more as that coordination piece. There is an inherent distrust, I think, in law enforcement between local police agencies and the Federal agencies, and I think that is historic and has been going on for a long time. I don't think we are about to change that quickly. But I don't see the Federal Government being able to come in and do that. I think at a State level it's much easier for us to say we all need to work together in this, and then help with that intelligence piece to provide information to the FBI. But, as Mr. Carballido and I have discussed, it needs to go both ways, and the FBI needs to begin to bring things down as well, and hopefully we'll act as a conduit for that too. Mr. Tancredo. Maybe the creation of the Homeland Security will help--hopefully that will help in this rather confusing and sometimes convoluted process. And the last question I have is for Dr. Miller. There is an agency I visited sometime ago, and I apologize because it slips my mind, but it is located at Buckley. It's unique. Maybe I shouldn't say unique, but there may not be more than one or two others around the Nation. It has the ability to respond immediately to an event, chemical, biological type of event, and tell the State exactly what it is with which we are dealing with that particular agent. And I'm just wondering if--I didn't hear anything about it, I guess, or any coordination of activity with that. It seems like it was an enormously--When I visited, I thought to myself, ``God, what a great asset to have here in Colorado,'' because I think it's---- Dr. Miller. Are you talking about the civil support team? Mr. Tancredo. That's it. Dr. Miller. That's General Whitney's. And, actually, we work very closely with them. If they're evaluating, say, an anthrax threat, we are often talking to them. And our lab serves as a confirmatory lab. If their testing showed that they thought they had some agent, our lab would test it and confirm it. So we are very familiar with them. Mr. Tancredo. General, maybe just to share with the committee what the responsibility--because I thought that was just so great when I was there, I thought, you know, this is in Colorado only or very few States, anyway. General Whitney. Well, no, sir; actually there are 27 teams right now. We were the very first team organized, very first team certified. We've got the best team in the Nation here in Colorado. I'm not biased as all in that. Mr. Tancredo. Tell us exactly what its responsibility is. General Whitney. It's a team--The designation is Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, and we are team No. 8, is our designation, because of FEMA Region VIII as to what we were originally assigned to. Specifically, they are designed to take this 22-person team to a site that has been designated as a possible nuclear, biological, chemical, radioactive, or even a high explosive site, to determine if there is any type of agent there that requires special protective measures as well as to mitigate whatever it is that they find. They have tremendous reach-back capability with a communications suite, a truck that has every kind of communications gear you can think of. They have a tremendous capability to analyze on the scene with a mobile analytical laboratory, which is probably what you saw when you went out to Buckley. It's a one-of-a-kind-in-the-nation capability for this team, obviously, for the 27 teams that have this. So it's a tremendous asset for any community to have in place already, but it's also an asset that can be deployed anywhere in the Nation, whenever the need arises. Mr. Tancredo. Again, I really appreciate the chairman's indulgence here. Mr. Horn. No, I think when you've got a good topic, keep going. Mr. Tancredo. Well, that's it. I guess I'd say that the one thing I remember about that tour is that there was a hope on their part that there would be a lot more knowledge, general knowledge, about their existence and about their ability to actually coordinate than evidently was the case then. They felt that they were somewhat unused, that there was--you know, here we are, this great thing, and how many people even know, how many even local agencies know that we are there to respond if they have something like that. So that's why I kind of wanted to bring it out here, and, hopefully, I don't know, just get people to be more aware of its existence which, again, seemed like a great asset. General Whitney. Sir, I'm not sure how long ago you visited the organization out at Buckley. Mr. Tancredo. It could have been a week ago or 2 years ago, in my mind, I don't know; they all kind of fall together. General Whitney. Within the last 8 months or so, they have been very active and responded to numerous calls in support of the FBI as well as local agencies. So I think we have done, I think, a much better job in advertising their capabilities to all those responders that may require their capability. Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Horn. Let me followup in another way involving Ms. Miller and Ms. Mencer and also the general, and that is, what do we have in hospital capacity should there be some attack of biology, chemistry, nuclear, whatever? And I just wonder to what degree and I guess we will address that in the other panel and get a lot of knowledge there. But what's your figure on that? Dr. Miller. Well, actually, surge capacity in our hospitals is a huge issue and there are few empty beds right now, so this is a major problem in the case of a bioterrorism event or any other event that requires a lot of hospital beds. And one of the major objectives of this hospital grant is to create regional hospitals that will serve 500 patients, which is far beyond what we could do today. So we need to be creative and think of ways and places where you could actually take care of 500 patients in a region if you had to. And people are also looking at ways to increase bed capacity in the case of an event and working out scenarios for that. I think probably Mr. Wall could give you a lot more detail about that question, but it's obviously an issue and one that will be addressed in the hospital preparedness grant. Mr. Horn. How about the Veterans Administration, are they involved in these committees and all the rest? Dr. Miller. They are. Mr. Horn. How about it, General, are they at the table when you're coordinating things? General Whitney. Sir, we don't really have an interface with the Veterans Administration other than our veterans affairs organization we have within the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Most of the interface that we have is the same thing that we have with public safety as well as public health and environment. So we go to the same meetings that they go to, but we don't have a direct interface with them. Mr. Horn. When we started with the first of these series, it was in Nashville, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt Medical School and Hospital. And we had various diversions trying to get the rural parts of Tennessee involved as well as the urban. There is an incident where you had some strange thing that's attacked people, and they don't quite know what it is yet, and they want to bring it into an urban hospital and land the helicopter on the roof. We found out that even with all of the military forts and camps and you name it in Tennessee, the military helicopters could also sit on the roof. However there was no communication between them because of the difference frequencies. And I'm wondering, General, have we got any feeling around that we've got some frequencies where people can go and involve the law enforcement very rapidly and so forth? How much of a problem is that? General Whitney. Well, that is a significant problem. We have military frequencies, normally VHF and UHF radios and some FM radio capability in our military aircraft helicopters, as you talked to. We have significant Army aviation capability here in the State of Colorado within our Colorado Army National Guard. However, we also have the capability to talk to other local responders through a digital trunk radio that has been issued to the Colorado National Guard, and we can give those to a helicopter that, say, has to land on the roof of a hospital somewhere if we need to. OEM has done a very good job, I think, of making sure that all the State emergency responders can communicate with each other in that respect. Mr. Horn. Well, that's encouraging. I'm also interested in where we stand with laboratories other than CDC and other than the State of Colorado. Is there a use for the the various colleges' and universities' laboratories? Also the community colleges and the high schools if you're out in a rural situation, because Colorado is spread out and it's long miles to get to some of the things that we ordinary go and just think it's everywhere as in urban America or urban Colorado. How do we help the people in the rural part? Dr. Miller. That's a very good question, and the issue of surge capacity is also a huge issue. It doesn't take a lot for laboratories also to become overwhelmed if there's an event. And one of the things that we are doing within our bioterrorism grant is trying to bring all these laboratories together, the hospital laboratories, the CSU laboratories, the university laboratories. We've done a survey and tried to find out who has the capability, who needs to be trained in order to understand what tests you can do to rule out a bioterrorism agent, who needs to be trained about how to handle these things carefully because, obviously, you do. So that's a part of our work, to try and reach out to these other labs. And we recognize the rural issue too, and that's why we are trying to increase the capacity in our local health departments, like Mesa Health Department, Weld Health Department, El Paso; even though that's a metro area, they serve a rural area. So we are trying to address that issue. Mr. Horn. Now, CDC, as I believe, has a certification program in some of these laboratories. Is there a range of complexity? How does it work? Dr. Miller. Yes, there is a range. There are level A, B, and C laboratories. The State lab is a level C. That means we can quickly identify bioterrorism agents using advanced molecular methods. Level B laboratories have less advanced methods. Level A laboratories are basically clinical labs where they do hospital sorts of work. At that level lab, really the lowest level lab, they need to be able to rule out an agent, and say, ``I identified it as X, therefore I know it's not anthrax.'' If they can't rule it out, they need to know how to package it and get it to us or get it to a level B laboratory where further work can be done. Mr. Horn. Is there an overwhelming feeling yet in the Atlanta CDC where they're just overcome with people sending samples in and all this. And will that get done or will we have to do it in another way by using the States and the localities? Dr. Miller. I think during the anthrax event that was definitely the case. Laboratories were overrun. And people are definitely trying to figure out how to avoid that if we have another threat like that. And one of the things we need to do is work closely with the FBI, and we did that in Colorado. We need to make sure we have good threat assessment and that our laboratories are only used when there's a credible threat. Some States didn't do that; they allowed every specimen under the sun into their labs, which is dangerous, first of all, because those specimens weren't screened well, but it also used up their capacities so that they couldn't respond if there had been a credible threat. So I think we actually did that pretty well in Colorado. We were not completely incapacitated during the anthrax event, and we want to continue to maintain that kind of policy and work closely with the FBI to do that. Mr. Horn. Do you agree, gentlemen from FEMA and the FBI, on this? Mr. Carballido. I agree wholeheartedly. The protocols that we set in place and worked very hard on were instrumental in the screening process, absolutely. Mr. Horn. Has that been done around the Nation or is it just Colorado that's doing it? Mr. Carballido. It has been done in many places but not everywhere. Mr. Horn. Because of your protocols which you're very strong on, I come from Los Angeles County. We have had protocols, compacts, contracts, whatever you want to call it, for law enforcement, for fire enforcement, all of that, so we can help each other even if it's 500 miles north in the Santa Clara Valley or Central Valley and up to Stockton so where they need help. So do we have a lot of that here in Colorado? You've got the big city here. And what about with the terrible things that have happened in a lot of these States, and one of them is Colorado, in terms of the fires and all, which puts tremendous pressures on trying to get something done. What do you hear on that and what do you think about it? Mr. Carballido. We were not involved in the fire issue, sir. That, we were not involved in. Mr. Bakersky. The protocols that we have in place for support from other Federal agencies, other State agencies. As far as the FEMA Region VIII, because of western-type climate, you know, large concentration in small areas of population, a lot of the protocols for mutual aid have been in place. A good example that we had, we actually tested most of our protocols during the Olympics in Utah. We brought in all of our resources, not just Federal assets, but also additional State assets, using the protocols--like Dr. Miller was mentioning the anthrax--that were actually used during some of the anthrax scares, during the Olympics. So I think in this region we are fairly fortunate because of some of the activities that we've had. We've had the protocols in place between the law enforcement, between the emergency management agencies. Like with the Pope's visit, the G8 visit, the Olympics. So we've had a lot of real-world events that helped develop this partnership between Federal/State/ local, not only in the law enforcement side of the house, but also in the emergency management/public safety side of the house. So they've been tested and they work fairly well. And a lot of our protocols are basically prototypes for some of the rest of the Nation, and also the activities that we did in the Olympics are now prototypes for other agencies throughout the United States. Mr. Horn. Some people in other States have said there's just too much money being spent on planning rather than providing necessary equipment and training for those on the front lines of emergency response. Can you give us a feeling of what's happening there? Is it just planning or are we getting the goods so people can do their job, be they a first, second, or third responder? FBI? FEMA? Anybody else want to take it? Mr. Carballido. I would simply say that planning is also paramount. I don't know if there's a balance between equipment and planning in place, but planning cannot be underestimated. We exercise the plans, and I think that's why we were successful in responding to the anthrax threat, which was major, as you well know. So I really don't know if there's a balance that exists in Colorado between equipment, training, and planning, but planning is paramount. Mr. Bakersky. One of the things we looking at with the new grant process is just not the planning, but the planning also includes equipment. When we are saying planning for equipment, we are looking as the interoperability of the equipment. We want to make sure that we have a standard. That's what we are trying to do with the new grant process is setting up a standard. Resource typing, so that if you request a certain thing from another area, you're getting the same. Some of the problems that you have in equipment, even on September 11th, things just as easy as hose thread. You had on Staten Island-- -- Mr. Tancredo. As what? Mr. Bakersky. Hose thread, thread on the end of a hose. The Staten Island Fire Department does not have hose that can be connected to New York City hydrants. So what they're trying to do--So you have the planning in equipment, but what you're trying to do is provide a standardization of equipment that could be used throughout the United States. A good example---- Mr. Horn. That's fascinating to me. These were borough differences of the five boroughs or so? Mr. Bakersky. Yes, sir. Mr. Horn. We do know Staten Island is different. Mr. Bakersky. Yes, sir. I'm from New York originally, so-- -- Mr. Horn. And they didn't know about that until the problems came? Mr. Bakersky. Probably not because they really did not--New York City being such a large organization, they didn't have mutual aid compacts in place. When you have a fire department of 18,000 individuals, they've never had an event that was beyond the scope of their capability, that they could not handle it with their own internal structures. September 11th came down and it did raise some issues. There's other examples you could use, like scuba gear. You can go from one end of the country to another end of the country and the regulator on scuba gear is the same. You go to the fire fighting community and MSCA and 3M and SCBA equipment all might be different threads. So that's one of the things we are looking at besides the equipment, to have the planning to be sure that you have the interoperability of the equipment that can be used in response to an event. Mr. Horn. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that because that's news to us. But you never would hear it in most places in America anyhow unless you've seen it there. Any other little things like interoperability not happening? Or do you all have interoperability in Colorado? You're either sick of hearing it or is it done? And are there still gulfs somewhere that aren't getting treated? Ms. Mencer. Mr. Chairman, I also serve on the national task force for interoperability as well. Mr. Horn. Boy, am I going to follow you around. Ms. Mencer. In my spare time I do that. And I'm happy to report, after listening to the other States that are represented on that task force, that we are far and away above many other States with our interoperability issues, and I think that's due directly probably to Columbine, which emphasized to us that we needed to be interoperable. We have the digital trunk radio system in the State. We have been progressing through different sectors of the State to accomplish that. Unfortunately, our funding was stopped this year because of our fiscal problems again. But once we get our funding reestablished, we'll continue with our progressing across the State with getting our DTR capabilities up. But, as you know, it was just announced earlier this week, Senator Campbell effected this system that will be like a patch system for different radio systems so that those areas of the State that are not interoperable, they will be able to use this system to patch through and get them connected. So that is not a long-term solution to the problem of interoperability but is a short-term fix until we can get the digital trunk radio system up all over the State. So we are working very hard at that, and we have made great progress at that in the last couple of years. Mr. Carballido. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, we also have a similar piece of equipment that we obtained--we were one of a number of offices in the FBI--from our research facility that accomplishes the same purpose, and this was done after Columbine as well. Mr. Horn. Now, how much does this cost in terms of those that have equipment and need to be changed? And when the Federal Government gives a grant out, do you think they ought to say and demand it, that if you're going to use the taxpayers' money, it ought to be the right way, and figure out what are you going to do with the equipment that is not doing very well? How do you handle that? Ms. Mencer. Mr. Chairman, this national task force is looking to make statements to bring forward to the Office of Homeland Security, to the President, stating what they believe are the best practices as far as interoperability goes. I was amazed to learn when I attended my first meeting of this task force that some States don't even see the need for interoperability, which I think is amazing. But, of course, most States haven't had a Columbine incident to reinforce the necessity of this. I think they will be coming forth with the statement encouraging that all States go to some level of interoperability, 800 megahertz, 700 megahertz, whatever it happens to be for that State. I think we will see all States coming on board with this eventually. But, again, I think Colorado is far ahead of that curve, and I'm happy that it is. But it is a continuing issue. I think the Office of Homeland Security is looking at earmarking some funds particularly for interoperability, and that may be what we need as a State to continue with our progress with getting the other sectors up in line. So I'm hopeful that we'll see some funding in that regard. Mr. Horn. Well, that's good because there's been some concern about the department created, that they haven't gone for standards against which one can then know we've done something right or we haven't. And so we are going to urge that a little bit and give it a nod. There's a number of questions we have here that we might want to use for you. And let me just say, if you had 30 seconds with the President of the United States, went into his office, what would you say to President Bush is the most important thing on dealing with terrorism? Let's just go down the line. General? General Whitney. Well, sir, I guess as it relates to my specific mission area, I would ask him how we could implement new equipment, new training, and new parts of our organization in order to be able to meet the challenges of this terrorist threat. Mr. Horn. How about it, Ms. Mencer? Ms. Mencer. Well, I would first compliment him, I think, on what he's attempting to do with the Department of Homeland Security. I think focusing existing resources is what we need to do. And I think the resources are there, the capabilities are there. We need to have a place to focus those, and I think he's doing that, as we've tried to do in the State as well. Mr. Carballido. Mr. Chairman, I think I would ask the President for a great deal of money and technology that exists presently to create data bases throughout the country that could better coordinate all the information that we all receive at the various levels, to better connect the dots and improve on our intelligence base, because for us that is the key to prevention and to be in a proactive posture so that we don't have to involve ourselves in crisis management. Mr. Horn. Mr. Bakersky. Mr. Bakersky. I would stress that we continue the initiatives that were started with the fiscal year 2002, supplemental fiscal year 2003, providing resources, both monetary and personnel resources, to States and locals, which basically are the first responders. They're the individuals that are going to be putting their--everything on the line. When we have an incident, we have to make sure that we have funding streams in the initiatives that are started and maintained for the next 3, 4, 5, 6, however many years it takes. Mr. Horn. Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller. I would panic, first of all, but---- Mr. Horn. No, you wouldn't. He's a really friendly guy. Dr. Miller. He does seem like a really friendly guy. I would echo some of those comments, and I would stress that this is really a new role for public health. And if we are really going to develop this capacity in public health to respond to bioterrorism and to be part of emergency plans, we need long-term infrastructure support. And I would also try and frame public health as part of the first responder community. I think it's easier to understand that way that we also need to be prepared to be first responders, and that's a new role. Mr. Horn. Very good. Any more thoughts? Mr. Tancredo. Nothing more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very, very interesting. Mr. Horn. And we have with us the General Accounting Office, and at the end of the next panel. We bring them here because we've got over 50 blue books already, and it's very worthwhile material, if you don't have it, and I would hope GAO would send it to all of you. And we ask them, what haven't we done? Where are the openings that we don't know what we are talking about? And then go back to it. So that will come up after the next panel. So you've done a wonderful job, all of you. And I think Colorado seems to be in good hands. So we will now move to panel 2. [Recess.] Mr. Horn. Recess is over. And before we begin with Panel 2, there is a statement, a very fine statement, by Representative Mark Udall, and I would like the reporter to put that following the Horn and Tancredo statements at the beginning of the thing. We'll put Mr. Udall's in as it is, and she will give it to you. I just want to make sure everybody is here. We've got Mr. Wall, Mr. Sullivan, Lieutenant Hoffner, Lieutenant Wicks, and Mr. Posner, so you know this procedure. Since it is an investigative committee, if you have any staff to support you, have them take the oath so I don't have to do it in the middle of the areas. So if you'll raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Horn. The five witnesses have affirmed the oath, and we will begin with Mr. Wall. If some of you haven't been here in the first session, we were going right down the line in order. And as we call your name, your whole, full written statement is automatically put in to the report, so you don't have to give every word in it, but we would like to have you give us 5 minutes or so, or maybe 10 sometimes, if it's that wonderful, and we would like you to give us the summary of it, and then we can get into the question period at the end, and we'll do that in each case. We've looked at the documents; they've been very good. And so we'll start right now then with Larry H. Wall, president of the Colorado Health and Hospital Association. STATEMENT OF LARRY H. WALL, PRESIDENT, COLORADO HEALTH AND HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Wall. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. In addition to my responsibilities as president of a hospital association, I'm also a member of the Governor's Epidemic Emergency Response Committee, and I chair the Hospital Preparedness Advisory Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning. September 11th has obviously created a new world for all of us, and that includes hospitals. Hospitals as first-line responders have always been the foundation of a response to the medical needs of patients, be they personal or as a result of natural disasters or flu epidemics. Historically, the resources of the hospital system have been adequate to meet the needs. The potential use of weapons of mass destruction and bioterror agents, however, results in the need for a whole new level of preparedness. There are at least eight areas that need to be addressed. One, communication and notification, and we've heard a lot about that already this morning. Communication for hospitals is as critical as it is for other organizations and agencies. Disease surveillance and reporting and laboratory identification. That was referred to earlier as part of the intelligence network, which I think is an important issue. Personal protective equipment. Facility enhancements. Decontamination facilities. Medical, surgical, and pharmaceutical supplies. Training and drills. And mental health resources. At this particular point the resources are not adequate to address all of these needs. Just to use a very simple example, the 2-year HRSA allocation for Colorado is approximately $4.5 million, or roughly $70,000 per hospital. The estimated cost to address the communication issue alone is in the neighborhood of $3.5 to $3.7 million, leaving little for the remaining seven areas of need. The current allocation of dollars, while it is very much appreciated, is really inadequate to meet the needs with regard to hospital preparedness. I think it's important to understand, however, that the public can certainly be assured that hospitals will be as prepared as they possibly can within the constraints of the available resources. Neither Congress nor the American public should assume that at the current level of Federal funding that hospitals will be fully prepared to handle the outcome of a significant event. We are significantly ahead of where we were on September 11th, and progress on preparedness will continue to be made. But more funding is needed if hospitals are to meet what I believe are the preparedness expectations of Congress and the American public. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'll certainly be happy to address specific questions with regard to hospital issues, some of which were raised in the earlier testimony. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.032 Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Wall. We now have David B. Sullivan, acting director, Office of Emergency Management for the city of Denver. STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SULLIVAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, CITY OF DENVER Mr. Sullivan. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. The events of September 11, 2001 have greatly exacerbated the threat to this country from terrorist attacks. Congress's willingness to provide leadership, direction, and funding to support our preparedness efforts has been greatly appreciated. We at the local level are thankful for the support we've received from Congress and the administration. Our efforts in Denver began prior to September 11th with the Nunn-Lugar-Dominici legislation. The equipment, training, and support we have received through that program has greatly enhanced our preparedness; however, there is still a great deal of work to be done. The $3.5 billion allocated for first responders in the President's homeland security strategy is truly needed, and we applaud the efforts of the administration and Congress, but there are some concerns. First and foremost is the competitive nature of the grant process that pits local first responders against each other for the Federal funds. This has been a problem in the past with the Department of Justice grants and continues to be troublesome. Terrorism events will tax the full resources of local jurisdictions, States, and the Federal Government. We must be prepared to respond in a comprehensive manner utilizing all resources available. The burden for response lies squarely on local jurisdictions. State and local Federal resources are sometimes hours or days away. The capability of the initial response is what will save lives. Rather than fund specific first responders, funding should be made available through local jurisdictions to provide for all their needs rather than preidentified disciplines. The breakdown of the funding in the homeland security strategy identifies how the moneys will be distributed. The distribution is similar to past DOJ programs in that only 9 percent of the $37 billion allocated for homeland defense will go to local jurisdictions. Of the moneys going to the States for pass-through funding, 25 percent will remain at the State level for whatever requirements the States determine. However, the 75 percent passed through to local jurisdictions are predetermined, fitting into defined categories of planning, equipment, training, and exercises. Amounts are predetermined for each category and the State determines priorities. Unfortunately, each jurisdiction's different, with different threat levels, different levels of preparation, and different resource needs. As such they should be given the same opportunity the States have in determining how the moneys are utilized. Emergency management, by its very nature, must integrate and collaborate with all the players involved on issues of domestic preparedness. Funding is required not only to provide initial resources, but also to create an infrastructure of domestic preparedness that will be a long-term integrated component of the day-to-day operations of an emergency management system. Federal support for local emergency management programs have slowly eroded over the past 15 years to the point where many emergency management programs have either been dissolved or incorporated into other supplemental responsibilities of another municipal agency or department. Local emergency management programs have always been the forgotten stepchild of other public safety agencies in terms of funding and authority. While the various and numerous Federal agencies have provided grants to traditional first responders, there has not been funding directed to support local emergency management agencies. Federal funds to build, maintain, or improve local emergency operation centers ended nearly 10 years ago, and there are little or no local funds to pay for capital improvements to such centers. If local communities are truly expected to be the first line of protection in the new homeland defense system, they must be properly equipped to facilitate efficient and effective decisionmaking in an adequate emergency operations center. Funds are needed to immediately--funds are needed immediately to upgrade and establish a full functional EOC in each community. While we at the local level support the enhancement of homeland security on a national level, we must never lose sight of the normal day-to-day emergencies and disasters that affect and could potentially devastate our communities. Attention and resources for floods, tornadoes, winter storms, wildfires, and other natural technological hazards must not be diminished at the expense of today's hot topic of weapons after mass destruction and homeland security. As local emergency managers, we stand ready to assist by coordinating the planning, training, and resources of our jurisdictions in developing comprehensive readiness programs. We look to you for assistance in developing these programs, recognizing the critical coordination role that local and emergency managers play in developing readiness programs. We do not operate as single disciplines when preparing for or responding to natural disasters, and we certainly should not do so within the arena of terrorism. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.036 Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Lieutenant Roger E. Hoffner, Arapahoe County officer of emergency management. Glad to have you. STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT ROGER E. HOFFNER, ARAPAHOE COUNTY OFFICER OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Mr. Hoffner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I apologize I don't have a prepared presentation. I was under the understanding that my sheriff was going to be presenting this morning, so I bowed to him. What I'd like to do is--and what Dave Sullivan said, I agree to wholeheartedly. The emergency managers in the metropolitan area work very closely together, and what he said is right on track. I'd like to say a little bit about where I came from before I get to where we are and where we are going. In 1996 I became the emergency manager for the county. Before that I was a deputy for over 15 years. And up to that point the only thing I knew and was aware of is what the responsibilities were for our response on the street to those everyday calls. I had no understanding or very little about incident command. I had very little understanding about preparedness for big disasters, none of that. And when I took the emergency management position, I found out that the job was probably more massive than I ever imagined, and it's more massive than I still imagine. I have never had a job that I haven't been able to master in 6 months to a year, and I've been doing this for 6\1/2\ years, and there are days I still feel lost. It's an incredible job. In 1998 I had an opportunity to go to an exercise sponsored by the Department of Energy in Las Vegas. It was then that I started learning about PPE, personal protective equipment. They talked about the Quick Masks that every capital police officer in D.C. was wearing on their belt. I took that back and decided to do a grant to try to get gas masks. Because if we look in most of our police cars, they'd be lucky if they had an old military gas mask that's a false sense of security; they have nothing. So with that money I applied for, $45,000, I got 400 gas masks. And the other thing that went with that is I tried to find out from government what was the best thing I could get for my money. And they all said, ``Well, now, we could give you a list of things, but we can't tell you which one because that's a conflict of interest.'' Well, I found that very frustrating because I wanted to spend the best money that I could, get the most I could out of it, and be able to protect my people. So I did my own research and I bought 400 masks with the best chem/bio filter they had and distributed it to our people in Arapahoe County, but I was still 1,000 gas masks short of what I needed. When we started---- Mr. Horn. What do you have now? Mr. Hoffner. Right now I have about 850 bags out there, and that's where I'm going to go to. One of the things that we started with, where we really picked up our information, is the federally funded Top-Off 2000 exercise that came to Denver with the biological release. I was involved in that from the beginning with the planning phase, up through the incident command, and with the hot wash at the end to do a critique on. A lot of people thought that was a failure. I thought it was an incredible success because what we did was we learned and we learned and we learned some more. And one of the big things we learned was that we don't have a good communication system. And we never worked that closely with the department of health, with hospitals, and we have no communications with them. We learned an awful lot from that and we are building on it. And when Aurora had the Nunn-Lugar money come down to do their exercises, one of the last ones they did about 4 months ago was almost identical to Top-Off, and the responses we had to that showed me that it's working, that people were working together, that we were talking about communications, that we were talking about our response, we were talking about mass distribution of medical aid to people. So it's working. That money was very well spent. The MMRS, the Metropolitan Medical Response System, was another grant that came down, and Aurora and Denver both were cities of that. And with Aurora getting the last one, we've had incredible response about making sure that money went to good use. We put stockpiles of supplies, Mark 1s and medical supplies for first responders to an incident. A major success, I think, for our front range. And that other money that we used is--I had an opportunity to take our county back to Emmitsburg, Maryland, to the Emergency Managers Institute for an integrated emergency management exercise in the November 2000. They were all leaders of our county, all taken care of by Federal funds. That brought us together. There were people there I didn't think they could be in the same room, and as a matter of fact, when it came down to it, they worked very well together. So I've had the opportunity to meet with that group and followup every 3 to 6 months with followup meetings, with training, with tabletops, with that kind of thing, and that has been incredible. All federally funded money. Again, a success. But then I get to the money that came down for 1999, 2000, 2001, and my image, when I think about New York City, is, sure, I see the plane going into the building, but my biggest image is seeing those cops and firemen with handkerchiefs tied around their faces and gagging and coughing and can't breathe. So what I did with that money when it came down, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties did a regional application. I got-- $352,000 is what was targeted for us. And I had in my mind that I wanted to put together some kind of first responder bag for these first responders, for the cops that are going to be out there first. We needed to take care of them. When September 11th happened, my money was sitting someplace between here and who knows where. So I asked the Office of Emergency Management, the State, if they would request $113,000 to be expedited so I could get those bags together as quickly as possible. And they did that. And with that 113,000, I put 805 bags together, which included a chemical/bio mask, a chem suit, goggles, three different kinds of gloves, a decontamination kit, eyewash, earplugs, disposable mask, and put it all in a canvas bag that they could carry in their car. I assigned one of those to 805 cops. Still short, but I picked the primary, most probable officers that would respond and said, how many do we need? And I gave them out. They were very well received. The only problem that comes up is we have a question about training. How do we meet OSHA standards? Well, reaching out to my resources that I have met over the last 6 years and my contacts, I had a meeting 2 days ago with Tri-County Health and with three representatives from National Jewish Hospital. They came up with a plan to implement training to include medical, limitations, and fit tests, which are the three primary things for OSHA. They're going to do a proposal to me. They're going to do it on a very reasonable fee, and I'm going to include that in the grant, and it's going to cover every person that received a mask. And we are going to be able to take those and be able not to have--and one of the reasons why I went with this is, it's multifaceted; we can use them for the WMD event. But we can also use them for that everyday thing that happens, the turned- over tanker, with a meth lab, or whatever that they're doing perimeters on, to protect themselves. Some protection. They have nothing. The next round of money that's coming now, we are hoping to get somewhere around $500,000, which I'm going to try to get probably another 1,000 bags put together to cover every cop in two counties. And now I've added one of the rural counties, Elbert County, into it because they pretty much have nothing. And I thought, well, being big brother, we can help them out. So we are going to bring them in, and I'm going to make sure every cop gets it. The extra money that we've had with that--we call it extra because it's just in addition to that--is that our HAZMAT teams and our fire departments have been reinforced with detection equipment, with decon equipment, and personal protection equipment. And although we have not met every need that we would like to have, we have far exceeded--and I can't even imagine how far we've exceeded--over 1996 when I started. So, yeah, we could use more money. We could use more money all the time, and there's other things we could do. But with the money we've had, we've come a long way. We talked about interoperability with radio systems; that was one of the comments that was made earlier, the interoperability of communication systems. What they do is they plug in a radio and it allows them to talk to each other. But if there's no control on who gets on those radios, there's going to be such mass chaos that you won't be able to communicate, but you've got one frequency now or maybe two. The other question we need to deal with is the incident command system, to have that somehow supported by Federal Government down to the State level that says that, yeah, we strongly suggest that everyone uses the incident command system, which includes a communications plan within that system. So that we know that when you have this one frequency, the only person talking on it is a commander, and everybody else talks with other frequencies within their own department. And we can do that. But I think if we don't have that communication, we are going to be lost, just like we were with Columbine. And on the grants, real quickly, I agree with Dave that when these grants come in, it's hard to look at a grant when we say we need communications and the grant is telling me that we need to spend $500,000 on needs assessment. We know what the needs are; we don't need to have somebody tell us that we need to do a needs assessment. Mr. Horn. This is--which agency made that statement? Mr. Hoffner. Which one? Mr. Horn. On the one that you would have to do a needs assessment. Mr. Hoffner. That comes down on a lot of grants. They have areas that say specifically you have to spend this much money on, and we are saying, ``No, we'd like to spend it on this.'' And they say, ``No, our guidelines are there.'' And what I'd like to see is be able to--like Mr. Sullivan said, is to be able to have those grants so they're a little more open. And the new one coming down has a little more latitude to it. And it's going to allow us to be able to do a little more approach to exact needs of our local agencies, and I think that's critical. And I'll shut up except for questions. Thank you. Mr. Horn. Very interesting. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.042 Mr. Horn. Lieutenant Wicks, Office of Safety Services, Police Division, city of Englewood. STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT BYRON D. WICKS, OFFICE OF SAFETY SERVICES, POLICE DIVISION, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Mr. Wicks. Yes, sir. The Department of Safety Services for the city of Englewood incorporates fire and police as well as building codes and code enforcement. So when I speak, I speak both from the fire and police perspective. My current assignment is as the investigations bureau commander. And before I get started, I want to make note that we are the benefactor of Lieutenant Hoffner's initiative and project. And we have, I believe, about 76 of those 805 bags that Lieutenant Hoffner's agency has donated to us, and we appreciate that. Right after October or in October 2001, shortly after the September tragedy, my director appointed me czar of the Englewood Office of Preparedness and Security, as he called it, and Lieutenant Hoffner's been in this business for 6 years and if he feels confused; I've been in it for about 10 months and I know I am. So my perspective is definitely one from the operator's point of view, and that's based on 27 years of law enforcement experience, 31 years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps in which I was always assigned to operational billets. So as Lieutenant Hoffner indicates, operations at the level that we deal with is critical. The two points that I want to bring up, and you're going to hear a lot of this, if you haven't already, is, first, the issue of interoperability. I know it's a hot topic, but if we don't have it, we are lost. And as sort of a subset to that issue of interoperability, I include communications, obviously, and that is definitely a problem, planning, and commonality in terms of response. There isn't that much difference in a typical response that agencies in a suburban area would have. It's not to say that one size is going to fit all, but with minor modifications, it would be about a 95 percent solution. But when we are on one page and Arapahoe County's on another, even if we can talk to each other, we are not going to function well enough to do the job correctly the first time. Which brings up the issue of exercises, both interagency and intra-agency exercises. And along with that, it would be nice if there was some standard, if you will, if Arapahoe County and Englewood had an exercise that maybe the State would say, ``This is the way we want to go,'' so we have a common direction, a common focus, not just for our two agencies, but all agencies in the State of Colorado. And then the second point I want to just address very quickly, and Roger virtually said everything I was going to say: As a grant administrator, funding issues are always an issue. One, obviously, is the amount of Federal funding in terms of grants, but maybe even more important than that, and Roger addressed this, is the fact that, one, how is it going to be spent? We recognize our own strengths and we also recognize our areas of need better than anybody else does. Second of all is the form the grant comes in and the complexity that we have to deal with in terms of reporting what we've done with the moneys. Some grants, as a grant administrator, we will not accept, we will not apply for, because it's so difficult, it's so painful as an organization to account for that money, we simply won't do it we will not take any grants from the COPS program. Mr. Horn. Did you ever have money from the COPS? Mr. Wicks. Yes, we did, and we were audited, and it was incredibly painful, and it was just too difficult to prove what they were asking us to prove. Mr. Horn. Well, you also had the problem of the localities and the cities of having to go out and add some people to their law enforcement, either their fire or for police and the sheriff's office, and that would be--got you out on a string there, and the Federal Government money suddenly comes off. And I don't know how much that was a factor in saying that--that program happened to be my law which was merged into it, because I wanted people just like you, a Marine, when you're retired from the military, I thought it was a good thing to do that because we needed police people. This was back in 1992-93, and so I was curious about what the problem was there with COPS. I do know there was a lot of bias as to the politics of it. That isn't unusual, but a little more than one. Mr. Wicks. Well, we only spent about half our money and tried to give it back. That is impossible, to give back money on a grant. I mean, we couldn't spend it, we couldn't give it back. It was very burdensome. So right now the only grants that we will apply for are the block grants. And, quite frankly, I like the format of block grants because we get to choose the area in which we spend it, a one-page justification for the expenditures, and show them a receipt. Mr. Horn. Well, I agree with you. I was a big advocate, beating the drums, long before I got into Congress in terms of revenue sharing, and that way the localities were much more able to figure out the needs than somebody sitting in Washington. That's my approach to it. There's the revenue sharing. Mr. Wicks. And the last thing Roger brought up as well is we are one of the few police departments that uses the incident command system. Apparently Arapahoe County does. We use it because in safety services we combine with fire. Almost all fire departments use them but very few police departments. It's a great system, and it would be nice if the State agencies in the State of Colorado were like those in California where they all use the incident command system. They're all talking the same language and we all understand the responsibilities and jobs in a collective endeavor. And with that, I'll rest. Mr. Horn. That's very helpful, and we'll go in and do a few more things. And now we have Paul L. Posner, Managing Director of Federal Budget Issues, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. Some of you, I think, are well known by it, and that is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, currently Dave Walker, first-rate person, who believes in management and believes in people working together and all the rest. And he's got a 15-year appointment, and nobody can fuss around with him, including the President and the Congress, which is a pretty good deal. He deserves it, and he's doing a great job. And so we've asked Mr. Posner to tell us what's missing and what haven't we got into that we should have gotten into. And if we've got something that isn't working right, we throw it over to him because we like his little blue books. There's about 50 blue books they've put out, by the way, on terrorism; isn't that right, easily 50? Mr. Posner. Probably more, but easily 50, yeah. STATEMENT OF PAUL L. POSNER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUDGET ISSUES, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Mr. Posner. Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here, and it's a pleasure to hear the other testimonies such compelling ways showing that our Federal system is still vital. It reminds us at Washington how valiant the efforts have been out here, and when we craft new Federal responses, we better be sure that we support and don't kill that kind of initiative and passion. We are realizing slowly that this challenge is beyond the capacity of any one level of government, including Washington, and it means that what we do here involves a national not a Federal response. It means it has to be collaborative, partnerial in nature. We have over 40 Federal agencies involved in this problem, 22 of which are going to be consolidated into the Department of Homeland Security, and there's still going to be a significant number of agencies not in this department, I might add. We have State governments from which we've heard, local governments, special districts; we have 87,000 units of those. We have private players who are critical in addressing this problem, and somehow we all have to figure out a way to integrate and overcome the stovepipes that have traditionally, at least at the Federal level, and are used to having these. I started my career with the New York City budget office and was familiar with stovepipes in city government as well. One of the things that's so critical we've heard, particularly after September 11th, is the statement with regard to the first responders, and that's obviously a critical role. We've heard a lot about that, how you're better preparing yourself. But throughout the whole range of this problem, State and local governments are critical. But the last panel brought that up very well that even in counterintelligence and counterterrorism efforts, State and local governments are really critical players because we at the Federal level don't have the resources that you do. There are 650,000 police officers in this country, and it's dawning on Federal agencies that to respond to the kind of threat we are facing, they have to get into the community and have those kinds of information-- they need to better find a way to tap the kind of information that you have and the resources you have. And that's why the INS is starting to contract with local police departments to chase down visa overstayers because their staffs simply aren't enough to do the job. It's true for critical infrastructure. How do we protect critical infrastructure? The Federal Government doesn't own much and doesn't do much on its own. The critical infrastructure--the roads, the highways, the transit facilities, the ports in this country, the drinking water--are all really owned by State and local governments and private sector. And so how we can kind of figure out a way to mobilize a response on a national level is absolutely critical to solving this problem. And the dilemma for any local official, having been one myself at one time, is that you have really a lot of different players involved with these things. You don't control much, but, you sure are accountable for almost everything. And so that's why, you know, it's important that we help you better address those kinds of issues. I will say that there are shifts going on right now in the way we--and we've heard here at the local level some of the important initiatives going on. At the Federal level, we all, of course, know about the President's proposed a Department of Homeland Security. The House has passed a bill largely following his proposal. The Senate has a somewhat different bill that has not yet passed. We are awaiting a resolution of that this fall. We believe at GAO that is a promising first step, a necessary but not sufficient step. It's important to get all the relevant players, for example, border security, get it together. Does that mean they'll all really work together? No. That's why putting them into a department is probably the first of a maybe 10-year journey before we really achieve the kind of harmonization and integration that we need. In the bill, for example, the Customs Service still has autonomy with regard to submitting its budget directly to Congress, notwithstanding the new department. So there are forces that still are going to be very difficult to address as the department, if we get a department, tries to bring some more cohesion to this. Grants is one of the real important tools that we think the department will use and consolidation of grants is important. And you all have experienced the Department of Justice and FEMA and the Public Health Service and a variety of other separate funding streams coming down with different requirements, and we kind of dump it in your lap, and you've got to figure out how to bring them together. The Federal Government can do a better job of bringing some cohesion to that up front and providing some national goals, but giving you flexibility in how you address them. So those are some of the challenges that we are starting to move to, but we've also seen some significant shifts already, not even passing the statute yet, in long-standing roles and relationships between these levels of government. National defense was historically a national responsibility, a Federal responsibility. Fire and police were historically a local responsibility. What this crisis is bringing to light is that defense is increasingly a local responsibility, protecting the Nation from this kind of insidious attack. And that, in fact, local police and how you work together is a national level interest. So we are bringing more of these kinds of levels that used to be separate together in some way, and the key is how can we do it in a way that both provides accountability to achieve some national expectations but gives flexibility to avoid a one-size-fits-all. For example, when you look at what's in the offing right now, what's on the table, we have a new law that Congress passed requiring local drinking water systems to do vulnerability assessments and develop protection plans with some Federal money. We have a new Coast Guard regime that's putting a new Federal responsibility over the ports; that used to be a State and local responsibility. The Coast Guards requiring plans in 55 major ports. Fire services are again going to get a lot of Federal help but also probably some Federal standards. Communications, historically, we've heard, is a fairly fragmented thing. Every State and every community does it somewhat differently. The Office of Homeland Security's plans say that as a condition for Federal grants, local and State governments are going to try to achieve some greater interoperability, some national standards coming down in that arena. For the motor vehicles issue every State has a separate Department of Motor Vehicles. We are now seeing national proposals coming from Congress and the President to nationalize that responsibility, to get States to provide better secure documents when they issue driver's licenses so that we don't have terrorists able to counterfeit these kinds of documents. So there's going to be greater national pressures building on local services. The question is, how can we do it in a way that accommodates both national and local roles? We've also seen State and local roles changing, and that's one of the issues when we talk about what's missing here. One of the things we've been doing is we've been going out, and we've seen, as jurisdictions within metropolitan regions attempting to work together more closely. Bringing together partners across a community as widespread as the Denver Metropolitan area is not an easy challenge. Every metropolitan area has tens, or hundreds in some cases, of governments, special purpose and others, that are responsible to their own constituencies. How to bring some harmonization together is always a challenge. And so as we look down from the Federal angle, we see some of these problems are clearly local, some of them seem to be State, when the States can provide leadership, and some of them might best be done on a regional basis. And we've seen, as we visited, a lot of this starting to happen on its own. Mutual aid agreements historically have been in place. The public health networks are improving. And we are seeing a lot more here in Denver and other areas of regional efforts to promote better sharing and promote more economy of scale in how we provide for this expertise we need. But more, clearly, can be done in that regard, and it's historically very difficult to get communities, whether in the Washington area or New York area, to really collaborate with one another. And that's the kind of thing that we need to promote. And we look at critical infrastructure areas, and we also see a lot of fragmentation there. Take, for example, airports. Airports have a patchwork quilt of different players responsible for security. We have TSA now responsible once you go through the gate. We have local and State governments responsible for the perimeter. We have the National Guard that comes in from time to time. We have the FAA that has responsibility. The airlines have responsibilities. So when we look at the safety of airlines and airline travel, we have a lot of players. And it's not clear to anyone that this has really been sorted out. The same thing goes for something like food safety. You take the distribution chain and you have, you know, from the farm to the processor to the retail establishment to the grocery store or the restaurant, very different governmental roles and responsibilities for each stage of that process. The farmer is pretty much on their own. We have some kind of State roles there. When you get to the processing plants, why, there you have two different Federal agencies: The Agriculture Department responsible for meat and poultry, and the FDA responsible for pretty much everything else. We don't have any Federal standards; we have voluntary standards that those agencies have put out for that phase of the distribution process. When we get to the restaurants, that's totally State and local. So what the President's homeland security plan suggested, and I think this is a useful thing to think about, is having a national strategy for each one of these critical infrastructure areas so that we would at least have a way to agree as a Nation whether we are comfortable and whether those roles and responsibilities are appropriate. Given all these different players, it's really important to have clear goals and measures as we craft national strategies-- what we are trying to achieve. How much security is enough, and how will we know it when we get there? The presence or absence of a terrorist event is not an acceptable performance measure. We want at national levels to make more of these investments. The quid pro quo is, I think, we are going to want to see some demonstrable changes in the results, in the outcomes. What are we getting by way of approved protection? Are there ways to measure it? Can we get every one of the systems to subscribe to those measures? Finally, we've heard a lot of discussion, rightly so, about assistance, and we need to think more clearly at the national level about how we are going to get this done. Because, clearly, every hearing we do and every time we go to the local level, needs are incredibly large and always outrun the funding available. I'm reminded that the congressional budget office on Tuesday is going to issue their latest deficit update for the Federal Government; $160 billion deficit in 2002. One of my other responsibilities at the General Accounting Office is to develop long-range Federal budget forecasts. And given the aging of our population and the increasing demands of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, why, our forecast of CBOs say that at current tax rates, we are going to be able to basically pay for the elderly and their doctors and that's about it in 20 years. In other words, we are quickly running, as the baby boomers retire, into dire fiscal straits. And so the question is, how do we respond to these urgent needs in a way that is both effective and economical? And that means we are going to have to think hard about how to best target these moneys, how to best ensure that we are going to get something of value for this. How, for example, to ensure that when we hand money down to local communities and States that they don't simply turn around and replace their own money with our money and cut taxes or put it in some other area. In other words, we need to prevent fiscal substitution. We need to have reasonable accountability provisions. I know that planning sometimes can go a little awry. Some kind of, again, assurance of results in terms of what we are getting for the money is important. And, finally, there is the question of sustainability. How long should the Federal Government be involved, and what should be the Federal versus the State versus the local shares of costs in these things? So the point is, I think, by and large, we have to fig- ure out a way to have a national and not a Federal approach. How do we balance accountability and flexibility, and how do we do it in a way that capitalizes on the strengths of each of the levels of government in forming a real partnership. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Posner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7890.067 Mr. Horn. OK. And let us go back a minute now on a few questions, and then we'll wrap it up. Mr. Wall, I was curious as to what degree are the Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics working with your overall association, and what do you feel the VA can do in terms of some of the things we've talked about in terms of the attacks of chemistry, biology, you name it, and are we prepared for the private, nonprofits, and the VA, and the military hospitals? Mr. Wall. Several questions there. I'm not sure I have answers to all of those, but---- Mr. Horn. Are they part of your group? Mr. Wall. The VA system, at least in Denver, the hospital in Denver is a member of the association. The other outlying VA hospitals are not members. They are appointed to be represented on the hospital preparedness advisory committee, but to date I don't believe we've had a representative attend any of our hospital preparedness advisory committee meetings. With regard to the issue of capacity that you raised earlier, there was a time in Colorado when we had approximately 5 beds per 1,000 population. As a result of the changes in the health care economy, we are down today to about 2 beds per 1,000 population. So the issue of excess capacity is not present any longer, and I think Dr. Miller talked about surge capacity, and we right now as part of the needs assessment process are evaluating how many gurneys are available, can beds be put in hallways, do we have power to be able to do that, and so on and so forth. So I think the issue of capacity with regard to application to a significant event is something of a very significant nature that we need to be very, very concerned about. For example, most hospitals in Colorado were built in the 1960's and 1970's. We obviously have some that are---- Mr. Horn. Hill-Burton? Mr. Wall. A lot of Hill-Burton money around the country and Colorado included. Emergency power needs in the 1960's and 1970's were very different than emergency power needs today. I mean, computers weren't even a reality back in those days, and now all of the technology that we have is basically driven by computers. Emergency power was not, in fact, required at that level at that time. It was basically required to be able to continue a surgery in an OR, for hall lighting, perhaps for food preparation, but nowhere near to the extent were the power requirements in place in that time that we have today. So to upgrade capacity in case power had to be self-sustaining is a very significant issue for most hospitals in the eventuality of an event like this. Work force capacity is a significant issue today. Even if we had all of the equipment that we needed, even if we had all the beds we needed, the question is, where is the work force going to come from to staff those beds if all of a sudden you had a need for 1,000 new patients in a metropolitan area like Denver? I can tell you right now the capacity is not there to address an event of that size. Dr. Miller was talking about the work that we are doing trying to address this issue on a regional basis where we could take care of 500 patients. That is a lot of additional patients in a system which, quite frankly, from a bed capacity point of view, is there right now. So there are some very significant needs out there, and that's why I raise the funding issue as important. And clearly the money is needed for the improvement of the infrastructure for public health. There's no question about that. But to put that in context, the first-year grants to public health were about $14 million in the State of Colorado. The first-year HRSA grant for hospitals in the State of Colorado was $1.9 million, a portion of which is utilized for staff required as part of the grant as well as the cost of the needs assessment which was part of the grant as well. So we may net out of that for hospital capability the first year maybe a million and a half dollars. And I can tell you, that doesn't begin to scratch the surface in terms of having hospitals prepared. And the issue of preparedness is ongoing. It's not that we get ready for a year and then we don't have to be concerned about it. This is going to be an issue of ongoing concern well into the future, and I think we need to look at it in a long-term context. Mr. Horn. I think some of these terrorists will be doing a lot of mischief, and most hospitals have a separate supply of electricity and energy, I think I'm right on that, where they have gasoline and motors, should they ever try to do something like knocking down the towers and all that. And that will probably happen just as it did in New York. But the power goes out and all the rest, and what do we do and what are we doing now to make sure that they can't get to the different batteries that are in many hospitals and motors to generate that energy? Mr. Wall. I think you have two issues there. Certainly hospitals have emergency capability. I think my point is that the bulk of that emergency capability in hospitals is undersized based upon the power needs of hospitals in the year 2000. And for us to think that we have the capability on those emergency power systems to run all of the equipment that we would need in order to respond to an event like this, I think is not appropriate. It is just not there. Emergency power capability is critically important. With regard to the issue of security, hospitals throughout this country, and certainly in Colorado, have internal security forces in most cases, although, again, the further outside the metropolitan area one goes, the more problematic that becomes. But there certainly would be ways, I think, of protecting a hospital from outside mischief, for the most part. Those generators are tested periodically, and they are available. But, again, it's a question of the capability of those generation systems that is in question. Mr. Horn. The first panel, before they went away, we said, if you could see the President for 30 seconds, what's the most important thing you'd tell him? Mr. Wall. I think there's probably three things. One is the continued need for ongoing work force development. And sometimes that may not be viewed as part of preparedness, but the reality is we can have all the equipment and capacity we need, but if the work force isn't there to provide the care, it's all for naught. So I think work force development is absolutely essential. Second, the training of that work force is critical. The issue of bioterror agents, chemical agents, and weapons of mass destruction are new things for hospitals to have to deal with. I think--As the lieutenant said earlier, he's been in this 6 years and still feels lost on occasion, and I think the same is true for health care professionals, although that's their daily routine. We are talking about a new and different time and new and different agents, which is going to require extensive training and ongoing training because of the turnover of personnel that occurs as well. And then last, obviously, the equipment needs that we have. Most hospitals, certainly outside of Metro Denver, do not have individual decontamination capability. There's very little personal protective equipment available. And, obviously, the key thing we've talked about today is the communications system. And in a State like Colorado, with our varied geography, communication in nonemergency circumstances is a tremendous challenge, let alone during an emergency where it's necessary for all first-line responders and enforcement agencies and incident command centers to all be able to talk with one another with regard to the management of that incident. And I can tell you that is a tremendous problem in the State of Colorado. Mr. Horn. What do you feel are the human, in terms of personnel, type of issues for the hospitals? Is it the nurse shortage? Mr. Wall. Nursing is clearly an issue, but in Colorado we also have shortages of radiologic technologists, laboratory personnel. Labs have been mentioned a number of times today, and laboratory personnel are in short supply. And another key profession is that of pharmacists. We have a significant shortage of pharmacists throughout the entire country. And if you begin to think about the distribution of pharmaceutical supplies during an event of this nature, they're going to be a very key profession in our ability to respond. Mr. Horn. What about the various scholarships we have had? Maybe they aren't enough. We've had nursing scholarships from the Federal Government. We've had the GI bill generally after the Second World War. And what do you think the government should do about that? Now we are talking about bringing people from the Philippines and all that, and they're already here. I mean, they've been here for probably two decades at least. How do you think you're going to solve this problem of getting them educated? Mr. Wall. Well, I think, again, Mr. Chairman, it goes back to the issue of adequate funding for the training of the health professions. And over the years, I think if you look at the expenditure for the education of health professionals, it's progressively become less and less and less. And I know Congress right now is looking at a Nursing Reinvestment Act. I think that's a critical issue, but not only for nursing, but for the other health professions as well. We in health care have our own work to do to make health care an attractive profession for individuals as well. Quite frankly, the ability to move into the computer sciences where you work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, make significant 6-figure incomes, compared to nursing, where you're working 7 days a week or you're at least available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that's not very enticing to young people. And I think we need to do some things about that from the point of health care as well. But we clearly need to reemphasize the importance of the health care professions at the national level. Mr. Horn. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan, if you were in the President's oval office for 30 seconds, what would you tell him? Mr. Sullivan. I think I'd just sum up my earlier remarks. Additional resources, flexibility in their use, coordination, and the interoperability of communications equipment, and that would be both the personnel and the technical interoperability. We have a tendency, I think, to focus on solving our communication needs by buying new radio systems. It's been my experience that a lot of the communication doesn't take place because of cultural differences or blinders, if you will, of the agencies involved. And that's something we need to address. Mr. Horn. So you've really got to work with the culture of bureaucracy, bureaucracy by bureaucracy? Mr. Sullivan. Essentially. And the tendency, particularly on the first responders' level, to focus in on your particular discipline and what you've been trained to do and not step back and realize that it's a broader issue, and you need to communicate with law enforcement, fire, EMS, public health, and those types of things. Mr. Horn. And with this new department that we have, a lot of mergers and a lot of corporate mergers have occurred. And when those come together, there's often also a problem--just like Customs, 200 years of real help in this country. And same thing with the Coast Guard. You have a problem, and corporations have looked at that. And you've got to be very fair to those you merge with so that the one group does not have all the positions. They've got to meld them with the rest of the group and have them all working together. Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. We need to--It's just a simple process--I wish it were a simple process--of breaking down barriers. There's been a lot of talk today about intelligence sharing. That needs to happen. We need to break down a lot of the barriers. That isn't just a Federal and State problem; it's a local problem. Law enforcement--and I say that even though the two gentlemen to my left are armed---- Mr. Hoffner. I don't have any bullets. Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. Has been reluctant to share outside of the law enforcement community. And it's one thing for the FBI to send information to State law enforcement and local law enforcement, but if that information doesn't get distributed out to public health and EMS and fire and emergency management agencies, it really doesn't serve its purpose. Mr. Horn. Thank you. What would you tell the President, Lieutenant Hoffner? Mr. Hoffner. Well, if I had 30 seconds, I'd say it's really important that we make sure that the Federal Government keeps doing what they're doing, but we need not forget who's going to be the first responders to that incident, and who's going to be taking care of that incident and those people and those victims and those communities for the first 2 or 3 days. And that's our law enforcement and fire departments, and we need to make sure that they have the training and the personal protection equipment to make sure that they can survive. Mr. Horn. How about you, what's your version, Lieutenant? Mr. Wicks. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things I would ask the president to do is assist the civilian population, if you will, with training for these critical incident commanders to include community leaders, some of the politicians, you know, kind of in this same environment, so the community leaders understand the issues that we as critical incident commanders have to deal with, and we would all kind of get the global perspective more than that myopic perspective of this is what I do and there's no cause and effect out there, because there is. What I do will have a cause-and-effect and a ripple effect on a lot of other people and agencies. Mr. Horn. Mr. Posner, 30 seconds. Mr. Posner. Well, I would say the well-intentioned efforts to respond to crises in the past often lead to phenomena that's been called ready, fire, aim, and we ought to be better prepared this time to put management more up front in terms of thinking clearly, what are the tools we are going to use, how are we going to design them, and how we going to deploy managers at the Federal, State, and local level to really think through how these things are going to be implemented. And in that regard, we had a vehicle where these kinds of discussions took place in Washington--the ACIR, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. It's been out of business for a while. And these field hearings are very useful in bringing up some issues we need to be thinking more systematically about in Washington, and how can we create a forum to have these kind of discussions back there. Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you all. And I think we've learned quite a bit. And it will be a good report with the help of our fine reporter. I want to put on the record thanks from the staff, and that includes Mr. Russell George, who is now leaving the subcommittee, but he's done a wonderful job over the last 5 or 6 years. And he is now the inspector general for an agency that--he was given a nomination and now confirmed by the Senate. And so the lady on the left here, and your right, is the acting staff director, Bonnie Heald. We also have the chief of staff in my office, Dave Bartel is back there. And Chris Barkley is assistant to the subcommittee. And Bonnie Heald and Chris Barkley and Dave are all on this particular hearing, and we thank them a lot because it meant tough hours, 2 and 3 in the morning working, this kind of thing. Michael Sazonov is back in Washington, staff assistant. And here in Denver we have Dan Kopelman and Adam Roth from Representative Tancredo's staff. And then Anne Roelofs is the Jefferson County facilities person, and she got us this wonderful auditorium here. She hasn't towed our cars away yet, we think, and she's a real worker who knows how to do things. And not least but the best is here, the court reporter, Stacy Armstrong. So thank you very much. And with that, we are adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]