Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee, I’m Ed Wilson, Fire Chief for the City
of Portland, Oregon. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the Committee.
Two
weeks after the 9-11 attacks on our nation, City of Portland Mayor Vera Katz
directed me to join with our partners in public safety in our region, to
determine our state of preparedness for a terrorist attack, and conduct a needs
assessment. On behalf of all emergency responders in major cities across the
United States, who undoubtedly undertook similar processes, I am here to
testify about our findings and briefly outline what we would do with additional
funding to increase our readiness.
Like
many large cities, we are on the right track with regards to planning for a
mass casualty incident, and have been for many years. Most large cities have functional plans in place, and
well-trained responders on all levels.
I can say from personal experience that, in Portland, we have also
developed a phenomenal network of relationships to facilitate a coordinated
effort when we will need it most.
Many
large cities take an all-hazard plan approach, which includes hazardous
materials incidents, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, and
of course, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It doesn’t really matter what causes the emergency; the response
to help citizens is very much the same.
Since
9-11, however, we have focused on a few key areas to improve our plans in case
the unthinkable happens… a terrorist attack in our hometown.
As
large cities in the United States, we have numerous factors that put our
citizens at risk. A most obvious issue,
as we learned from the World Trade Center attacks, and earlier from the bombing
of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, is the sheer number of people who
populate large cities. Higher
concentrations of people means more potential loss of life.
Metropolitan
areas are also more vulnerable to hazardous materials incidents because of the
industrial activity that is an important part of our economy.
In
addition, we have larger and more complex infrastructures, such as huge water
systems, extensive communication networks, bridges, and tall buildings. And of course many of America’s most visible
landmarks, such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, are located in big
cities. All of these increase the
vulnerability of metropolitan areas.
That’s
why metropolitan areas such as Portland are in need of increased resources to
keep our homeland safe. As I mentioned,
Portland Fire & Rescue worked with our regional partners in public safety
to determine where we stand in terrorism preparedness. I’m sure our findings are very similar to
what other major cities are experiencing.
We found four areas where we can improve:
1. Equipment and Training: We recommend increasing the supply of
protective equipment for all emergency responders, including law enforcement
personnel. Decontamination equipment
at the hospitals would add another layer of protection as well. In addition, Incident Command System Training
at the executive level will enhance any major City’s ability to provide leadership
during a terrorist or any disaster incident.
2. Communication: We found room to improve the redundancy and
the interoperability of our communication systems. While local agencies have mechanisms in place to communicate with
each other, these plans may quickly splinter when state and federal agencies
arrive on the scene. This lack of
interoperability was starkly evident during the response to the terrorist
attack at the Pentagon on September 11th.
Information dissemination is another significant communication issue that we need to address. Clear, timely, and accurate information needs to flow from the Federal government to the states, counties, and local governments. Relevant information needs to be shared with first responders such as Fire and Emergency Medical Service and with others such as public works and emergency managers.
3. Building Security: Portland, like many other cities in this
free country of ours, is very open. To
protect our citizens, we are considering enhancing security in our buildings,
by adding systems that can be accelerated as needed.
4. Recovery: To improve continuity of government after a
terrorist incident, we will develop a comprehensive recovery plan. First steps include a business risk
assessment and a mainframe recovery study.
Will the First Responder
Initiative help major cities across the country address these types of
issues? Absolutely. But there’s another strength in the proposed
Initiative. It would support programs
that develop or build upon existing mutual aid agreements. For example, in the Portland metropolitan
area, a regional group of emergency managers, involving five counties and two
states, has worked since 1993 to coordinate regional response to natural hazards. We are now developing a regional request for
anti-terrorism dollars.
We recently conducted
a tabletop exercise to test our newly developed Metropolitan Medical Response
System. It was a successful test drive
of a federally funded plan, which will help emergency responders coordinate
with local hospitals and public health in the event of a biological
emergency. Ours is the first
Metropolitan Medical Response Plan in the nation to have all of the 18
hospitals in the region participate.
One of our
significant findings is that hospitals, as an extremely important resource in
an actual mass casualty incident, would benefit from additional decontamination
equipment.
Finally,
I would note that according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, initial estimates
show that local communities have spent more than $525 million since 9-11 for
added security. Moreover, they
anticipate that these cities will spend about $2.2 billion in 2002 to manage a
burden unforeseen before 9-11. The need
for Federal assistance is clear.
Noting that a ”simple and quick method for dispersing Federal assistance” is a stated objective of the First Responder Initiative, I would like to recommend a system similar to the Community Development Block Grant Program. This would serve as an excellent model for dispersing these funds. It would allow Federal funding to go directly to cities with a population greater than 50,000. The remaining funding would go directly to the states for distribution to jurisdictions with a population less than 50,000. This model already exists and has been used successfully and extensively. It would be easy to duplicate, and would avoid unnecessary delays in getting funding to local communities who need it now.
It
will also be important that Federal funding to local communities allow as much
flexibility as possible. As you know,
different communities will identify different needs, levels of vulnerability,
and solutions to these difficult problems.
As a result, each community will need as much latitude as possible to
achieve those solutions. We are glad to
see funding flexibility included as one of the stated objectives of the
President’s initiative.
Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to
provide this information about how major cities in the United States would
benefit from implementation of the First Responder Initiative. Its benefits would be immediate and
long-term, making us safer from terrorist attacks and also enhancing our
everyday response capabilities. In
these tough economic times, we’re all working together to maximize
resources. At the same time, we have
new issues to address in our changed world.
It’s my hope we can succeed at both to keep our country safe and
livable. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.