The U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on Friday to learn from experts about current preparedness shortcomings and to assess the types of biological threats facing the United States.
The hearing, chaired by U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), was entitled “Outbreaks, Attacks and Accidents: Combatting Biological threats.” It outlined the three types of biological threats facing the U.S. – naturally occurring threats, accidental threats and intentional threats, which are often associated with acts of terrorism.
“Over the last three years, this subcommittee has examined the impacts of, and our preparedness for, natural and accidental biological incidents,” Murphy said. “We have held hearings on our flawed response to the Ebola crisis, the need for better preparedness for pandemic and seasonal influenzas, the unsafe practices by the Department of Defense and the Centers for Disease Control on the handling of live anthrax, and the Department of Homeland Security’s broken BioWatch system. In the coming weeks we will examine the federal response to the Zika virus. Each of these topics has a common denominator—the federal government was not adequately prepared.
“For years, we have lunged from crisis to crisis, reacting to what just occurred instead of planning for the next outbreak or attack. The subcommittee’s oversight work has made a difference in each area, but I am very concerned that the federal government lacks an overall plan for biodefense.”
Two panel members of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense – Donna Shalala and James Greenwood – testified at the hearing on recommendations made in the panel’s “A National Blueprint for Biodefense: Leadership and Major Reforms Needed to Optimize Efforts” report.
“I will tell you that the more that I learn about it, the more I wish I wouldn’t read it,” Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said about the report. “I’m serious. It’s very troubling when you understand the false security that we have. Even from something as simple, yet dangerous, as the flu, to the most serious threats that we’re facing today.”
Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN) agreed, saying that the report revealed a lack of preparedness.
“I have to tell you, I was in federal service until ’07 and felt like we were moving forward, but I have to tell you, until this report came out and until we’ve seen kind of the lack of adequate response to Ebola, quite frankly, I really do believe we have stepped back,” Brooks said. “And that we have moved from crisis to crisis.”
To prepare for current and future biodefense threats, Texas A&M University Public Health Preparedness and Response Vice President Gerald W. Parker testified, the U.S. needs to create a new biodefense strategy.
“There are many reports that have already told us that the United States is not taking the biological threat seriously enough and is unprepared to deal with a catastrophic biological event,” Parker said. “It may be that violent extremist groups [such as ISIS and al-Qaeda] so far have yet to recruit an individual with the necessary skills, or that a biologist has not become a self-inspired violent extremist.”
Such self-inspired actions would echo the anthrax attacks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which Parker said “began the era of catastrophic terrorism on the United States Homeland…The anthrax letter attacks marked the first significant act of bioterrorism in the United States. That attack was one of the easiest bioterror attacks to confront, yet the impact was far reaching.
“Biological threats are real, and the bioterror threat has the potential to cause mass casualties on a scale similar to a nuclear weapon…Today, I am more concerned than ever about the risk of biological threats – including biological warfare, bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases.”