U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

77–804 PDF 2013

FIRST RESPONDER TECHNOLOGIES: ENSURING A 

PRIORITIZED APPROACH FOR HOMELAND 

SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 

AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 9, 2012 

Serial No. 112–90 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JANICE HAHN, California 

VACANCY

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Staff Director 

NATALIE NIXON, Deputy Chief Clerk 

VACANT, Minority Professional Staff Member 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 

AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

COLEY C. O’BRIEN, Staff Director 

ZACHARY D. HARRIS, Subcommittee Clerk 

CHRIS SCHEPIS, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications ................................................................ 1 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 

Preparedness, Response, and Communications ................................................. 2 

The Honorable Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 

Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies ....................................... 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES

Mr. Robert Griffin, Director of First Responder Programs, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Ms. Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Office, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Mr. Edward Kilduff, Chief of Department, New York City Fire Department, 

New York, New York: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

Ms. Annette Doying, Director, Office of Emergency Management, Pasco County, Florida: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Ms. Kiersten Todt Coon, President and CEO, Liberty Group Ventures: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Gus Bilirakis for Robert Griffin ............................... 53 

Questions From Chairman Daniel Lungren for Robert Griffin ........................... 53 

(1) 

FIRST RESPONDER TECHNOLOGIES: ENSURING A PRIORITIZED APPROACH FOR HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Wednesday, May 9, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE

PROTECTION, AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis [Chairman of the Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications subcommittee] presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: Representatives Bilirakis, Walberg, 

Long, Clarke of New York, and Richmond. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure 

Protection, and Security Technologies: Representatives Lungren, 

Marino, Richardson, and Clarke of Michigan. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Good morning. It is still morning. The Joint Hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on 

Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications and the 

Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies will come to order. 

The subcommittees are meeting today to receive testimony on 

Federal efforts to research, develop, and deploy technologies to help 

first responders achieve their vital missions. I now recognize myself 

for an opening statement. 

I am pleased our two subcommittees are once again meeting to 

consider a topic of mutual interest and concern. Our Nation’s first 

responders are vital members of the Homeland Security Enterprise. 

First responders at the State and local level are first on the scene 

of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other emergency and we 

must ensure that they have the training, equipment, and technology they need to get the job done. 

The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology 

Directorate through its First Responder Group has taken steps to 

work with Federal partners, the first responder community, and 

the private sector to research, develop, and get to market technologies that will enhance response capabilities. 
2 

I want to thank Dr. Griffin for bringing some of the technologies—and they are right here—that S&T has developed along 

with him today. So thanks for bringing them, Doctor. I appreciate 

it very much. They provide great examples of S&T’s on-going work. 

I am interested in hearing from our Federal witnesses about how 

technology requirements and standards are set for this technology 

and how successful we have been in getting these promising technologies into the hands of first responders. I am also interested in 

hearing how DHS assists first responders in identifying appropriate technology as they consider how to allocate grant funding. 

From our first responder witnesses, I am interested in your perspective in how the technology research and development process 

is working, and how well your input is being integrated into that 

process. I will say that I am disappointed that FEMA declined to 

participate in today’s hearing. 

FEMA’s National Integration Center and Grant Programs Directorate regularly work with S&T and the first responder community 

and provide resources for technology identification and procurement through grant funds, responder knowledge base, and project 

responder. It would have been nice, of course, to have their input 

in today’s hearing. So I am very disappointed. However, the subcommittees’ oversight of this issue will continue after this hearing 

and that oversight will include FEMA. 

With that, I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications. Of course, the gentlelady and the Ranking Member from 

California, Ms. Richardson, you are recognized. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Bilirakis and also Mr. Lungren for supporting this hearing today. 

As Ranking Member on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee, and also a Member of Cybersecurity with my colleague here from New York, Ms. Clarke, I have 

a documented interest in ensuring that Science and Technology Directorate effectively meets the needs of first responders. 

Today, we will hear from Dr. Griffin on Science and Technology 

Directorate’s efforts to better meet the needs of first responders 

like others on this panel. Yet, I equally am concerned, as Mr. Bilirakis has just stated, of FEMA’s failure and its decline to appear 

and testify before us today. Discussing FEMA’s role in ensuring 

that our first responders have the equipment they need to respond 

to disaster safely and effectively should be a priority for all of us. 

In previous hearings, this committee has joined with the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General to raise appropriate questions about S&T’s 

efforts to meet the responsibilities to the first responder community. Before 2009, concerns were brought to the Director regarding 

the inadequate conduct of adequate outreach for first responders in 

the community. It was noted before 2009 that S&T had not identified the needs of first responders. If a system to identify needs does 

not exist, then the assignment of priorities certainly cannot be done 

in a meaningful way. 
3 

Equally, last November, Under Secretary O’Toole appeared before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity to discuss her efforts to reorganize S&T and to put it on the right track. At that same time, 

she informed us of her efforts to establish a first responder group 

to identify the priorities of the first responders community and to 

allocate appropriate resources accordingly. 

Further, the Under Secretary was made aware of and had discussed herself the improvements and the mechanisms that she had 

established to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively 

about the effect of budget cuts that would occur on S&T’s first responder activities. The Under Secretary was candid with this committee about the impacts of the Congressional budget cuts that 

would allow S&T to address only two or three of the 11 first responder priorities identified by the National Academy of Public Administration. 

It is unfortunate that as S&T is working to become more responsive to the needs of first responders, Congress is significantly reducing its ability to do so by cutting its funding. Today, as the Appropriations Committee on Homeland Security marks up the Department’s budget, I think it is important to bear in mind how 

S&T’s budget affects its ability to work to get things done and to 

ensure that S&T has the proper infrastructure to invest the money 

necessary that we have deemed in this committee. Although S&T 

has made progress since 2009, more must be done to fully carry out 

the R&D strategies and to fully implement the evaluation metrics. 

I am also eager to hear from representatives of the first responder community about their technology needs and whether they 

feel the Department has effectively solicited and responded to their 

input. Current challenges do exist and we need to make sure that 

they are removed. 

I look forward to the testimony today and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Now I recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure 

Protection, and Security Technologies, the gentlelady from New 

York, Ms. Clarke, you are recognized. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the Ranking Member, Ms. Richardson, as well as Chairman Lungren for convening this joint hearing. 

Having a closer look at how the Homeland Security Enterprise 

and First Responders Groups operates in S&T will be valuable. I 

also want to welcome all of our witnesses, especially my fellow New 

Yorker, Chief Ed Kilduff. Thank you for taking the time from your 

responsibilities to come to Washington today. 

Over the years, many of our successes have come from our ability 

to forge practical solutions from tough challenges. This committee 

has been supportive of the S&T Directorate in becoming better prepared to make such contributions for first responders. This 

progress is due to the hard work of S&T’s people, our better understanding of the precise problems, and to the increasing capacity to 

make use of innovation from our laboratories, universities, and the 

private sectors. 

The S&T Directorate has found it challenging to craft an overall 

strategy for first responder needs. It has also lacked the mecha-
4 

nisms necessary to assess past performance. Over the past few 

years, GAO and OIG reports have suggested that the Department 

had not yet developed a transparent, risk-based methodology to determine what first responder projects to fund, how much to fund, 

and how to evaluate the project’s effectiveness and usefulness. 

Without clearly defined metrics, Congress cannot gauge project 

goals and evaluate funding. 

I am eager to hear of the strides that the first responder group 

may have made in evaluating first responder needs, developing 

new and readapting existing technology, creating standards and 

prioritizing how first responder R&D moves forward. What we do 

here in Washington affects how fire fighters, police, EMS technicians, border and maritime security, doctors and nurses protect 

Americans every day, especially in times of disaster. 

One key issue in translating what works at the local level is finding a way to communicate success, so each jurisdiction doesn’t have 

to reinvent the wheel. Local first responders must feel more empowered to develop strategic initiatives for themselves. They recognize the importance of interoperability and the collaboration across 

jurisdictional boundaries. They know that crises do not stop at city 

and county lines. 

In the end, Congress needs to know how current first responder 

technology investments position S&T for the future. We must have 

a clear view of how first responder projects are aligned with customer requirements and how projects are prioritized and evaluated. 

We have been told by Under Secretary O’Toole that decreases in 

S&T’s budget will wipe out dozens of programs, stalling the development of technologies for border protection, detection of biohazards, cargo screening, and leaving in doubt research in IED detection. Striving to do more with less is always a symbol of an efficiently running program of any type, but trying to protect our citizens and Nation with programs that are backed by limited and 

dwindling science and technology assets is another matter. 

There are serious concerns about what programs the Directorate 

will have to give up as result of the budget voted by the majority. 

I look forward to hearing from Director Griffin on how he will 

prioritize the project in a reduced Homeland Security Enterprise 

and First Responder Group operation. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Ms. Clarke. I do want to report that 

this year’s budget—this bill that is on the floor is $158 million 

above last year’s level, so I am glad to see that. 

Other Members are reminded that statements may be submitted 

for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

MAY 9, 2012 

Good afternoon. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

To effectively prioritize resources, we need to align technology and training with 

the specific needs of our first responders. 

Since fiscal year 2002, DHS has awarded $35 billion in Federal grant money. Because of significant budget cuts and grant consolidation, fewer resources will be 

available to the first responder community. 
5 

As the ‘‘boots on the ground’’ in every emergency and disaster, first responders 

have a unique vantage point on equipment needs and equipment failures. 

The Department must have a two-way dialogue with the first responder community. 

It is only through planning based on such a dialogue that Science and Technology 

will be able to prioritize its limited resources and conduct research and development 

that meets the needs of the first responder community. 

It is my understanding that the Under Secretary has established a First Responder group to begin such a dialogue. 

However, FEMA’s involvement in this group is unclear. 

As the agency within the Department with the most direct interaction with the 

first responder community, FEMA should be much more than a liaison. 

Further, in light of budget cuts to the Science and Technology Directorate and the 

Homeland Security Grant Program, DHS must take a fresh look at its research and 

development resources. 

S&T’s activities must be designed to meet real needs. 

In the past, I have had serious concerns about how the Science and Technology 

Directorate invested resources. 

In 2009, for example, S&T funded a project on something called ‘‘brain music,’’ 

which was billed as research that would help first responders. 

This project had been funded for several years without any measurable results. 

At the time, I questioned the wisdom of funding that project, and how it could 

have any practical use for a fire fighter, police officer, or other first responder. 

After today’s hearing, I want the Under Secretary to inform me whether the 

‘‘brain music’’ project is still being funded. 

I commend the Under Secretary for her reorganization of S&T and hope that the 

alignment of research with real needs will enhance this Nation’s safety and security. 

However, we all know that the austerity measures forced by this Congress will 

seriously undermine your ability to conduct meaningful research and development. 

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tout the need to do more with less. 

However, reducing the number of scientists and engineers involved in working on 

a problem does not help us arrive at solutions any sooner. 

As Ben Franklin once said, ‘‘an investment in knowledge pays the best interest.’’ 

I look forward to the testimony of all of the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I now am pleased to welcome our distinguished 

panel of witnesses. 

Our first witness is Dr. Bob Griffin. Dr. Griffin is the director of 

first responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security 

Science and Technology Directorate, a position he has held since 

August 2012—2010, excuse me. 

Prior to joining DHS, Dr. Griffin served as the director of environmental services for Arlington County, Virginia. He also served 

as Arlington’s director of emergency management and as the assistant county administrator and chief of fire and rescue in Loudoun 

County, Virginia. 

Dr. Griffin earned his Ph.D. in Public Administration from Virginia Tech and his Master’s degree in Public Administration and 

Bachelor’s of Science in Political Science from UMass Amherst. 

Following Dr. Griffin, we will hear from Ms. Mary Saunders. Ms. 

Saunders is the director of the standards coordination office at the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Prior to her current position at the NIST, Ms. Saunders served 

as the deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing and services at 

the International Trade Administration. Ms. Saunders has been in 

Federal service for more than 30 years, including with the Department of Army and the U.S. Military Academy. 

Next, we will hear from testimony from Chief Edward Kilduff. 

Chief Kilduff is from New York City, New York City’s Fire Department, 34th Chief of Department, a position to which he has been 

appointed. He was appointed in January 2010. 
6 

Prior to his position, Chief Kilduff served as a Brooklyn Borough 

commander and has been a New York City fire fighter since 1977. 

Thank you for your service, Chief. Chief Kilduff has a Bachelor’s 

of Arts degree in Political Science from Amherst College. 

Following Chief Kilduff, we will receive testimony from Ms. Annette Doying. Ms. Doying is emergency management director for 

Pasco County, Florida, and serves as the Tampa Bay Emergency 

Management co-chair to Florida’s Domestic Security Oversight 

Council. 

Ms. Doying has been educated as an EMT and has trained in 

chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives response. 

Ms. Doying also has a graduate degree in Applied Forensics Anthropology from the University of South Florida. 

Finally, we will hear testimony from Kiersten—Ms. Kiersten 

Coon. Ms. Coon is the president and CEO of Liberty Group Ventures. She previously served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Ms. Coon has a Public Policy degree from Princeton University and a Master’s degree in Public 

Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 

I want to welcome all the witnesses. Your entire written statements will appear in the record. I ask that you summarize your 

testimony for 5 minutes. Again, welcome. I will ask Dr. Griffin to 

begin and you are recognized, sir. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GRIFFIN, DIRECTOR OF FIRST RESPONDER PROGRAMS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Good morning. Thank you. Chairman Bilirakis, 

Ranking Member Richardson, Ranking Member Clarke, Members 

of the subcommittee, I would like to begin by apologizing to anybody in the audience that hopes to hear from the quarterback for 

the Redskins. I am Robert Griffin. I am not that Robert Griffin. I 

am the Director of the Support to the Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responder Group in Science and Technology. 

I joined the Federal Government August 2010, after 20 years of 

service in local government, including service as a fire chief and 

emergency manager. 

My approach to the research and development for first responders is based on a mix of field experience, empathy, and a healthy 

dose of operational pragmatism. In December 2010, Under Secretary O’Toole realigned the Directorate and created a group to better understand, prioritize, and transition S&T’s work to the first 

responder community. 

I will present a quick overview of how we integrate first responder operational needs into our process, create methodologically 

valid approaches to drive critical funding decisions, promote innovation to meet capability gaps, and leverage partnerships to maximize our funding. To scope the challenge and opportunity of my 

role, the first responder community consists of over 80,000 different 

agencies, each of which has numerous needs and strong opinions 

on priorities. 
7 

To capture and prioritize the needs and requirements of this diverse and often divergent community, we developed a methodology 

to prioritize gaps and expand first responder participation. 

In order to build trust, we created a transparent process to identify first responder needs in strategic programmatic areas. Working 

with FEMA and first responders from a cross-section of disciplines, 

geography, demographics, and levels of government, we commissioned a third iteration of Project Responder to identify and 

prioritize capability gaps. From these gaps, we developed projects 

based on a criterion that includes meeting operational needs, building on existing investments, leveraging interagency and private 

sector resources, promoting non-proprietary solutions, and increasing market competition. 

We recognize that getting research to the field requires solutions 

that are affordable with a clear transition path. We have broadened our participation requirements gathering by leveraging ongoing work in the Interagency Board, professional associations, and 

other regional collaborative efforts. The use of multiple groups allows us to gather requirements from a larger cross-section of first 

responders, while validating gaps and funding priorities. 

While strengthening the process is important, our measure of 

success is transitioning technologies to operational use. We have 

successfully commercialized the multi-band radio, the protective 

backboard cover, explosive and hazardous materials response application, the compact rescue tool, the dazzler, the pipe bomb cap remover for improved forensics and bomb tech safety. We have also 

developed technology, like the advanced breathing apparatus that 

you see in front of you with private-sector partners who are working to bring this technology to market. 

Recent efforts have brought significant technology innovations to 

the first responder community, allowing them to become more resilient, efficient, and effective in executing their missions. Innovation 

is often limited by budget constraints, the capacity to incrementally 

incorporate new technologies into operations, while overcoming procurement, cultural, and functional challenges. 

Innovation can be creative. The creative use of existing technologies, like Kevlar and Breathing Apparatus or Tyvek, act as an 

impervious barrier to protect patients from contaminated body 

fluids. 

As a former fire chief, I am used to working in teams and 

leveraging others’ resources. For example, building off the investments of the Department of Defense, we developed requirements 

that linked industry to the first responders to build and test the 

multi-band radio prototypes you see before you. The multi-band 

project provides a single radio capable of operating across disparate 

public safety radio bands. These radios are now available commercially from three manufacturers. In addition to local jurisdictions, 

ICE, the FBI, and Marine Corps are all procuring these radios for 

use. 

We are also currently working with the Army’s National Protection Center and NATICK, Kell Fire, the U.S. Fire Service, Australia, and the commercial sector to develop wildland fire fighter 

gear that improves radiant thermal protection, form, fit, and function, and reduces heat stress. This project leverages funding from 
8 

not only DHS, but DOD and the Department of Agriculture. During 

this summer’s fire season, the gear will be field-tested by over a 

thousand fire fighters in California, as we work to reduce wildland 

fire fighter deaths and injuries. 

Following Project Responder, we are working on virtual training, 

first responder tracking, hazard location, interoperable communications, and protective clothing and equipment. We will also continue 

to work in areas such as extending the operational life of existing 

technologies, technology forging, developing with NIST and others 

in communications, data sharing, ambulance safety, and alerts and 

warnings. 

Every dollar we are allocated is targeted to improving the operations of the men and women like Chief Kilduff and Ms. Doying. 

My team recognizes that by keeping the first responders safer, directly translates to keeping the Nation safer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Griffin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT GRIFFIN

MAY 9, 2012 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Lungren, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Clarke, 

Ranking Member Richardson, and Members of the subcommittees. Thank you for 

inviting me to speak with you today about our efforts to develop technologies to assist first responders. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains committed to helping first 

responders Nation-wide by ensuring that they are prepared, equipped, and trained 

for any situation and by bringing together information and resources to prepare for 

and respond to a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergency. 

The DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate’s mission is to strengthen 

America’s security and resiliency by providing knowledge products and innovative 

technology solutions for the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE). To meet the diverse needs of the HSE, S&T provides value by pursuing a strategy which is operationally focused, highly innovative, and founded on building strong partnerships. 

As the primary research, development, testing, and evaluation agency for the first 

responder community, S&T provides the HSE with strategic and focused technology 

options and operational process enhancements. S&T provides the technical depth 

and reach to discover, adapt, and leverage technology solutions developed by Federal 

agencies and laboratories, State, local, and Tribal governments, universities, and 

the private sector—across the United States and internationally. 

This commitment is reflected in S&T’s third strategic goal, which charges the Directorate to ‘‘strengthen the Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responders’ 

capabilities to protect the homeland and respond to disasters.’’ To meet this goal 

S&T created the Support to the Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responders 

Group (FRG) to foster S&T’s understanding of the needs and requirements of responders. The responder community consists of more than 60,000 disparate agencies 

across a variety of disciplines, including but not limited to fire, law enforcement, 

emergency management, and emergency medical services. By engaging first responders at every stage of the technology development cycle, FRG pursues a better 

understanding of their functional needs and requirements, and develops innovative 

solutions to their most pressing operational challenges. Without an effective research, development, testing, and evaluation program that specifically address their 

needs, responders have largely either done without or relied on vendor-driven solutions. 

Since it was created in December 2010, FRG has committed to understanding the 

mission and operational requirements of first responders, creating high-impact technologies and knowledge products, improving interoperability of equipment, and increasing first responders’ access to technical- and science-based information. To 

maximize limited funding, FRG is focusing on advanced technologies that address 

the greatest multi-functional need and that can be developed for first responders 
9 

within a 12- to 18-month time frame—providing them access to new technology that 

meet at least 80 percent of their requirements. FRG has also focused on building 

methodologically sound processes to define and prioritize first responder needs while 

engaging responders at all levels of government. This process has allowed FRG to 

fund the highest-priority projects identified by practitioners and leverage resources 

from partners within DHS and across other levels of government to create the greatest impact. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

To safely and effectively respond in dangerous environments, first responders 

need access to better technology and equipment. FRG approaches project solutions 

with pragmatic criteria in mind. Through direct engagement with first responders, 

FRG has identified several guiding principles used as criteria to assist with identifying solutions including: 

• Practitioner-Driven Approach.—Recognizing that initiatives must be based on 

user needs and driven from the field. 

• Building on Existing Investments.—Encouraging efficiencies by building on existing investments saves money by avoiding unnecessary and costly new hardware, software, data development, and training. 

• Leveraging Existing Solutions.—Conducting environmental scans to help leverage existing interagency and private sector solutions before any investments in 

new solutions are made. 

• Daily Use Solutions.—Seeking technological solutions that improve not only catastrophic response but daily use by first responders. 

• Non-Proprietary Solutions.—Ensuring that technologies from different manufacturers can actually interoperate requires the use of open-source, non-proprietary 

solutions. 

• Affordable and Accessible Solutions.—Recognizing that solutions need to be affordable and commercially available for purchase. 

SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

In 2009, S&T established the First Responder Integrated Product Team (IPT), 

often referred to as the 13th IPT, to address the most critical needs of the first responder community. Building on the First Responder IPT, FRG established a more 

methodologically comprehensive process—known as the Solution Development Process (see Figure 1)—to identify and address the most critical needs of the community. 

In partnership with first responders, FRG uses the Solution Development Process 

to identify, validate, and facilitate the fulfillment of needs through the use of existing and emerging technologies, knowledge products, and standards. This process focuses FRG’s limited funding on priorities identified by the first responder community. The process provides methodological rigor and allows for programmatic 

prioritization before projects are funded. This has helped ensure that related 

projects are coordinated, thereby consolidating efforts and saving time and money. 

The Solution Development Process is designed to operate within the broader S&T 

portfolio review process, which evaluates projects based on impact, transition, technology positioning, clarity of purpose, customer involvement, and innovation. Additionally, this process supports the S&T Resource Allocation Strategy which includes 

all activities and processes associated with the timely development and transition/ 

transfer of S&T products. 
10 

1The FRRG includes over 120 practitioners from a wide array of professional disciplines representing all levels of the public sector. 2The IAB is a voluntary collaborative panel of emergency preparedness and response practitioners from a wide array of professional disciplines that represent all levels of government and 

the public sector. 3Project Responder is a partnership between FRG, the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute, the IAB, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Preparedness Directorate to identify capability gaps and prioritize areas of investment to address or reduce those gaps. 

As part of the Solution Development Process, first responders from around the 

country including those serving on S&T’s First Responder Resource Group (FRRG),1

the InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB),2

and Project Responder 3 focus groups identify the current capability gaps faced by 

the community. These capability gaps are used by stakeholders to generate accompanying requirements. FRG uses the capability gaps, requirements, and its own 

analysis to inform its resource allocation and the private sector’s research and development investments. FRG selects projects for funding based on a number of criteria 

including: The practitioner-identified gaps, criticality/operational impact, threat likelihood, applicability, state of the science, cost-benefit analysis, ease of integration, 

transition likelihood, and time needed to prototype. The responders work with FRG 

program managers throughout the life cycle of each project and assist DHS in creating awareness of these newly-developed solutions in the field. FRG then works 

with the first responder community and commercial sector partners to transition the 

technologies, standards, and knowledge products and integrate them into regular 

use. 

First Responder Coordination 

Direct first responder interaction is paramount to S&T’s ability to deliver critically-needed solutions and technologies to the emergency preparedness and response 

community. S&T established the FRRG to aid in this mission by serving as a mechanism for continuous dialogue and the coordination of research, development, and 

delivery of technology solutions to first responders at the local, State, Tribal, territorial, and Federal levels. As part of the FRRG, responders from around the country 

are engaged throughout FRG’s Solution Development Process to identify, validate, 

and facilitate the fulfillment of first responder needs through the use of existing and 

emerging technologies, knowledge products, and standards. In addition to being geographically diverse, the FRRG membership represents jurisdictions of varying population sizes and budget size. The membership also represents the wide breadth of 
11 

professions involved in emergency preparedness and response that includes, but is 

not limited to, leaders and experts in law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency 

medical services, emergency management, 9–1–1, public health, hospital preparedness, Geospatial Information Systems, and information security. 

One of the areas both first responder and industry leaders identified as needing 

improvement was a clearer articulation of the funding priorities. Recognizing this, 

FRG has focused its resources on this critical first step of FRG’s Solution Development Process. Project Responder 3 is the third iteration in a series of studies to 

identify gaps between current and required capabilities to ensure that responders 

can effectively and safely address catastrophic incidents, both now and in the future. 

By leveraging Project Responder 3 and the FRRG, FRG is currently focused on the 

following five highest priority areas: • Readily accessible, high-fidelity simulation tools to support training in incident 

management and response. • The ability to remotely monitor the tactical actions and progress of all responders involved in the incident in real time. • The ability to know the location of responders and their proximity to risks and 

hazards in real time. • The ability to communicate with responders in any environmental conditions 

(including through barriers, inside buildings, and underground). • Protective clothing and equipment for all first responders that protects against 

multiple hazards (e.g., heat, smoke, blood-borne or airborne pathogens, and projectiles). 

These priority areas are currently being used to help guide research and development investment by the Federal Government, as well as, local, Tribal, State, and 

territorial authorities, and the private sector. 

Realized Solutions 

One example of how FRG partners to bring solutions to operations is the Wildland 

Firefighters Advanced Personal Protection System. Wildland fire fighters are often 

required to respond to emergencies in remote areas. This can involve hiking from 

a staging area to the fire location. Because the fire season takes place during the 

warmest months of the year, wildland fire fighters frequently must work under extreme heat and humidity. The Wildland Firefighters Advanced Personal Protection 

System will help to reduce heat stress—a major concern for wildland fire fighting 

personnel who must wear and carry a significant amount of personal protective gear 

to perform their duties. FRG is working with the U.S. Army Natick Research, Development & Engineering Center’s National Protection Center (Natick), the California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), the United States Fire 

Service, and others to develop a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) certified garment system that improves radiant thermal protection; reduces heat stress; 

and improves form, fit, and function when compared to existing garment systems. 

TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION

Transitioning technology for regular use by first responders remains a critical 

challenge for S&T. To help mitigate this challenge, FRG leverages the Center for 

Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CCAT) process, in coordination with 

San Diego State University, to solicit proposals from the vendor community for technologies that address gaps identified by first responders. The goal of this process 

is to develop technologies in 12 to 18 months that meet 80 percent or more of the 

requirement identified by the first responder community, with transition occurring 

6 to 12 months after project completion. Should a capability gap be both unique and 

one that receives a high-priority ranking by practitioners, contracts may then be 

awarded. By using CCAT, FRG is able to bring first responders, industry, and business professionals together under one focus, which allows FRG to provide solutions 

more efficiently. This process ensures that each technology development is undertaken with a high probability of successfully transitioning to the first responder 

community. 

A core focus of S&T is the rapid delivery of new technologies that address the mission needs of the first responder community. Over the past year, S&T has used Research, Development, and Innovation funding to develop technologies and knowledge 

products important to a range of homeland security activities and customers. FRG, 

with a cost share from industry, has been able to develop and transition technology 

solutions to the first responder community. Recent transitions include: 

First Responder Equipment 

• Board ArmourTM Backboard Cover.—Repurposing the TyvexTM material used to 

wrap houses in construction, S&T, in partnership with Advanced EMS Designs, 
12 

developed a disposable backboard cover to better protect patients and responders from disease and contaminants. This product was developed, tested, and 

commercialized in less than 8 months. It is now commercially available for 

about $10. • Next-Generation Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA).—S&T partnered 

with the Mine Safety Appliance Company to integrate and certify S&T’s lighter 

and smaller profile SCBA cylinder array into a full SCBA ensemble that has 

been certified by the Department of Transportation and tested against National 

Fire Protection Association standards. This represents the first major redesign 

in decades of this critical piece of first responder safety equipment. • First Responder Support Tool (FIRST)-Bomb Response.—S&T partnered with 

Applied Research Associates, Inc. to develop a smartphone application that provides authorized first responders the information necessary to safely control incident locations such as stand-off distances, rough damage and injury contours, 

nearby areas of concern (e.g., schools and daycare centers), and suggested roadblocks that could help isolate an incident. FIRST-Bomb Response also provides 

improvised explosive device and HAZMAT guidelines, reference information, 

and points of contact to call for questions and assistance. This capability is 

available through the Apple App store, the Android Market, and the ARA Store 

for laptops. • Semi-Autonomous Pipe Bomb End Cap Remover (SAPBER).—This technology 

removes end caps from pipe bombs while keeping operators at a safe distance 

and collecting video and physical evidence from the pipe bomb. SAPBER is a 

small, low-cost system capable of remote operation and accommodating a range 

of possible pipe bomb sizes and configurations. 

Interoperable Communications Solutions 

• Multi-Band Radio (MBR).—To provide a successful coordinated response, emergency responders must be able to effectively communicate with all partners 

across jurisdictional lines, including local, regional, State, and Federal entities. 

Until recently, no public safety radio existed that was capable of operating on 

more than one radio band. S&T developed the requirements for a hand-held 

MBR that allows first responders to communicate with partner agencies, regardless of the band on which they operate. The first responder communities 

in Chicago, Illinois, Miami, Florida, and New Orleans, Louisiana participated 

in highly successful pilots of the technology. S&T’s efforts sparked industry interest: MBRs are now commercially available from four manufacturers (Thales 

Communications, Inc., Harris Corporation, Datron World Communications, and 

Motorola Solutions, Inc.). Recently the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 

United States Marine Corps both announced they would be procuring MBRs for 

operational use. This project is just one example of how FRG efforts can result 

in useful market competition. 

• Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).—This project enables legacy analog radio 

systems to interoperate with similar systems as well as with new digital systems. Given the need for standardized implementations, the VoIP Working 

Group is producing specifications, or implementation profiles, for the most critical VoIP interfaces. The first VoIP specification developed by the working 

group is the Bridging Systems Interface (BSI) Core Profile, which allows first 

responder agencies to seamlessly connect radio systems over an IP network regardless of the manufacturer. Thirteen manufacturers voluntarily adopted the 

BSI platform and others have committed to doing so in their next product cycle. 

This helps reduce costs for first responder agency’s system design and installation. 

• Virtual USA® (vUSA).—A collaborative effort among S&T, other DHS agencies, 

and State and local emergency management agencies, vUSA improves information sharing among agencies and other partners. vUSA is a blend of process and 

technology that provides a virtual pipeline to allow data (such as the operational status of critical infrastructure or emergency vehicle locations) to be 

shared by different systems and operating platforms with no changes to the current system. Selected as a White House Open Government Initiative and a flagship DHS Open Government Initiative, vUSA is currently in use in 23 States. 

Earlier this year, FRG initiated a pilot in the Northeast to integrate vUSA and 

the Next-Generation Incident Command System (NICS). NICS improves first 

responder situational awareness, collaboration, and interagency interoperability 

during disaster response efforts by displaying incident information—such as 

road closures and fire hot spots—on a shared on-line map, allowing it to be 

shared between local agencies and local-to-State. The San Diego County Board 

of Supervisors has agreed to use vUSA/NICS as the primary way of sharing in-
13 

formation within the county as well as with other agencies outside of San Diego 

County. The CALFIRE is also adopting vUSA/NICS as their incident command 

and data sharing system. Partnering with the DHS Office of the Chief Information Officer’s Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, S&T plans to 

make vUSA/NICS available as part of the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). vUSA users now have HSIN accounts, which allows them to access a new HSIN Community of Interest that provides a suite of collaboration 

services such as web conferencing and instant messaging and access to new 

geospatial data. 

• Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS).—This program provides a National 

capability to deliver relevant, timely, and geographically-targeted messages to 

mobile devices. In December 2011, New York City partnered with S&T and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct the first end-to-end 

test of the CMAS tool. CMAS has reached its initial operating capability and 

S&T is working on several research, development, testing, and evaluation activities designed to improve current and future system capabilities. 

• Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Suite of Standards.—These standards help responders share critical data in any form. By sending messages to 

tablets, computers, and phones with EDXL-compliant software, real-time information arrives at the fingertips of those who need it most. EDXL standards are 

helping provide the ability to exchange all-hazard emergency alerts, notifications, and public warnings as well as to the exchange of hospital status, capacity, and resource availability/usage information among medical and health organizations and emergency information systems. 

In fiscal year 2012, FRG is working on additional projects including: 

• Heads Up Display for HazMat Suits.—This device will monitor the internal and 

external temperatures both inside and outside a responder Level-A suit and will 

provide a warning when hazardous temperatures are reached. 

• Improved Structure Glove.—This next-generation high dexterity structural fire 

glove will dramatically improve water repellency, heat and flame protection, 

puncture resistance, dexterity, and don and doff ability. 

• Wireless Vital Sign Monitoring.—This hands-free body-worn system, lacking 

any external wires, will measure vital signs and properties through a shortrange wireless interface, and during transport, will transmit data from the ambulance to a receiving hospital through a long-range wireless interface. In an 

effort to leverage DoD’s work in this area, this project uses the 1401 Technology 

Transfer Program to make use of similarly developed DoD technology. FRG is 

in the process of awarding a contract to modify the technology so it can be used 

by EMT emergency responders on the civilian side. 

• Next Generation Textiles for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).—FRG is 

working across the S&T community to identify current technology and research 

efforts to determine the feasibility of a material that could provide protection 

against multiple threats (e.g., chemical/biological agents, ballistic, puncture, and 

fire/thermal) while maintaining wearer comfort. By improving the normal response garments, FRG will ensure that first responders have safer PPE that 

will protect them—even in unexpected incidents. This project is part of S&T’s 

Small Business Innovation Research Program that was initiated in 2004. Two 

solicitations are issued per year and consist of topics that address the needs of 

the seven DHS Operational Units (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Transportation 

Security Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency), as well as first responders. 

• National Information Sharing Consortium.—FRG is partnering with a core 

group of leaders in State and local government to build the National Information Sharing Consortium to address and promote State-wide information sharing and data interoperability. The purpose of the Consortium is to promote private investment and creativity to enhance data sharing and the creation of collaborative technologies and exchange environments. The Consortium’s activities 

will include the sharing of software code, applications, and model practices. The 

Consortium will oversee the on-going transition of vUSA as an operational capability for local and State use. 

• Virtual Training.—FRG is conducting research to leverage existing Government 

funding investments and technological advances that use capabilities available 

in the gaming industry, interagency simulations, and virtual interactive training to promote different first responder operating training opportunities. Virtual 

training can dramatically reduce training costs, help standardize training—especially for multi-agency events—and make it possible to provide more responders the training required to respond to emergencies. 
14 

4The Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act) 

provides important legal liability protections for providers of Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technologies—whether they are products or services. 5 6 U.S.C. § 195. 6 6 U.S.C. § 193. 

FRG also works closely with other elements of S&T to improve first responders’ 

operational capabilities. Additional examples of S&T’s recent transition successes include: • Controlled Impact Rescue Tool (CIRT).—Decreases by 85 percent the time it 

takes to breach reinforced concrete walls while increasing first responders’ control and overall safety. S&T demonstrated and transferred CIRT to Fairfax 

County Fire and Rescue, who routinely deploy internationally to assist in rescues from disasters both natural and man-made. CIRT is now commercially 

available from Raytheon Corporation, which shared development costs with 

S&T. • Explosives Trace Detection.—For checked baggage screening, this next-generation device is ten times more sensitive than existing systems, can detect narcotics as well as explosives, and is similarly priced to existing machines. The 

system is currently undergoing operational testing with the Transportation Security Administration and will be commercially available within a year. • SportEvac.—This is computer modeling software developed by S&T that provides simulation of evacuations allowing venue operators to determine the 

safest evacuation and optimum plans and procedures. The Indianapolis Department of Public Safety used SportEvac in their security and safety planning for 

this year’s NFL Super Bowl. This technology is covered by the SAFETY Act.4

• Geo-spatial Location Accountability and Navigation System for Emergency Responders (GLANSER).—A tool which allows incident commanders to locate and 

track personnel inside enclosed areas. Honeywell, Inc. has begun to commercialize GLANSER. • Qualification Testing on White Powder Detector.—S&T completed qualification 

testing for a commercially-available system that allows first responders to determine if suspicious white powders contain threat agents. The process relied 

upon the S&T-developed Public-Safety Actionable Assay standards that ensure 

local jurisdictions are using technology that meets rigorous specifications for accuracy and sensitivity. • System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER).— SAVER is an S&T program that provides knowledge products that enable responders to better select, procure, use, and maintain their responder equipment. 

The SAVER Program conducts objective assessments of commercial responder 

equipment and systems and provides those results along with other relevant 

equipment information to the emergency response community in an operationally useful form. SAVER focuses primarily on answering two main questions for 

the responder community: ‘‘What commercial equipment is available?’’ and 

‘‘How does it perform?’’ The knowledge products produced by the SAVER Program are available to the responder community through FEMA’s Responder 

Knowledge Base (RKB). 

Moving forward, FRG will continue to serve as a voice for the first responder community. While FRG itself stood up in 2010, FRG’s Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility (OIC) was established in 2004.5 OIC has a long history of developing 

solutions to help strengthen first responder communications for legacy systems. 

OIC’s technical capability and firm understanding of first responder needs has resulted in a trusted relationship with the first responder community. Recently, FRG 

has played a similar role for DHS operational components serving as a technical resource for the DHS Tactical Wireless Communications Modernization Effort 

(TacNet) as the Department makes critical procurement decisions for communications systems. FRG intends on continuing to play this role for legacy systems as well 

as emerging systems that use new technology. 

Not only is it important to develop and transition technologies, but it is also vital 

to inform the first responder community about the type of technologies and services 

that are available to them. FRG is committed to building high levels of trust with 

the field and does so through direct interaction with first responders. At the same 

time, FRG is continuing to identify effective, innovative, affordable ways to enhance 

those efforts, including working to increase the use of virtual meetings, brain storming platforms, and social media to strengthen our contacts with the field. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires DHS to establish a Federal clearinghouse for information and technology, to encourage and support innovative solutions 

to enhance homeland security.6 FirstResponder.gov and First Responder Commu-
15 

nities of Practice (FR CoP) are two websites that were developed by S&T to support 

this mandate. FirstResponder.gov debuted in January 2007 as a ‘‘one-stop’’ portal 

to enable local, Tribal, State, and Federal first responders to easily access and leverage Federal web services, information on resources, products, standards, testing and 

evaluation, and best practices, in a collaborative environment. In 2010, S&T unveiled a newly redesigned and enhanced FirstResponder.gov, which includes original 

news stories and communication tools to help first responders engage directly with 

DHS. FirstResponder.gov has more than 200 links to Federal, State, and local resources; is linked from more than 300 external sites; and is either the first or second 

website listed for a ‘‘first responder’’ query in both Google and Yahoo. FRG also developed the FR CoP. FR CoP is a professional networking, collaboration, and communication platform for first responders and others working in homeland security 

and provides an opportunity for responders to share lessons learned and best practices to assist other departments. FR CoP has approximately 3,000 members and 

more than 100 communities. 

CONCLUSION

S&T is committed to developing technologies for and providing technology information to our first responders, to assist them in conducting their mission to protect 

the Nation more effectively, efficiently, and safely. While we have seen significant 

results, capability gaps remain and the response environment’s constantly changing, 

which necessitates S&T to continually evaluate needs, required capabilities, and potential investments and innovations. S&T will continue to work with partners at the 

local, Tribal, State, territorial, and Federal levels to maximize investments as we 

develop new technologies to meet responders’ highest priority needs. My vision for 

FRG is grounded in the principles I discussed earlier, and I look forward to achieving that vision for our Nation’s first responder community. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. Now I recognize Ms. 

Saunders. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARY H. SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR, STANDARDS 

COORDINATION OFFICE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Thank you. Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Members Richardson and Clarke, and Members of the subcommittees, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss standards development 

and this role in standards that relates to equipment for and in support of our first responders. 

NIST is a non-regulatory agency within the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, whose mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and 

improve our quality of life. 

Mr. Chairman, a U.S. voluntary consensus standards system is 

bottom-up, private-sector-driven, and sector-focused. The Government participates as an equal and very interested partner. In contrast to many other countries, the Federal Government does not 

control or direct the standards system in the United States. 

As the Nation’s measurement laboratory, NIST has multiple 

roles relating to standards in the Federal enterprise. This standards coordination function, defined by statute has been borne out 

by a track record of over a hundred years of technical excellence 

and objectivity. NIST’s strong ties to the industry and the standards development community have enabled us to take on critical 

standards-related challenges and deliver timely and effective solutions. 
16 

NIST also leads the National Science and Technology Council 

Subcommittee on Standards, which brings together senior officials 

from across the Federal Government to engage on standards-related issues. NIST views standardization as an important tool to 

enable U.S. innovation and competitiveness, and facilitate the effective and efficient transfer of technology from the NIST laboratories to the marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight for you some of NIST’s 

programmatic activities that relate directly to standards development for a wide variety of first responder equipment, from telecommunications interoperability for public safety to materials research and more. One of the most important issues facing the first 

responder community is the current inability of telecommunications equipment to talk across systems or interoperate. NIST is 

deeply involved in the effort to foster interoperability. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 has 

allocated $7 billion in funding and made new broad-band spectrum 

in the 700 MHz band available to public safety, setting a foundation for a unified system operating on common spectrum bands 

that will foster Nation-wide roaming and interoperability and provide access to broadband data, video, mapping, GPS applications, 

and more. NIST Public Safety Communications Research Program, 

with support and funding from DHS S&T, has stood up a 700 MHz 

Public Safety Broadband Demonstration Network at our Boulder, 

Colorado campus, that serves both as a vendor-neutral environment and a test bed to aid and requirements gathering and standards development. 

Leveraging our staff’s expertise and the unique assets of the 

Boulder facilities, TSCR has taken steps to get the network up and 

running, including acquiring 700 MHz band class 14LTE commercial broadband equipment free of charge as part of a series of cooperative research and development agreements. Knowledge gleaned 

from network testing and evaluation will allow us to understand 

where current commercial standards meet public safety needs and 

where there are gaps. Identified needs will be incorporated into a 

standards development strategy. 

Broadband presents a unique opportunity for public safety. It is 

crucial that public safety’s requirements are reflected in the LTE 

standards, so that Federal grant dollars and taxpayer dollars are 

spent only on equipment that is both interoperable and performs 

as required under high user volume in emergency conditions, allowing first responders to better carry out their mission of protecting 

lives and property. 

NIST has also been involved in research efforts within the National Institute of Justice to develop standards related to body 

armor. A key NIJ standard describes how body armor used by first 

responders should perform and includes methods for testing and 

evaluating the armor. Nearly every piece of body armor worn by 

law enforcement officers in this country complies with the NIJ 

standard. 

Beginning in 2005, NIST provided assistance to NIJ to revise the 

standard to address a number of concerns. NIST developed a new 

protocol through which armor is exposed to an environment of elevated temperature, humidity, and mechanical tumbling, and then 
17 

subjected to ballistic tests. This proposed protocol has been incorporated into the most recent revision of the NIJ standard issued 

in July 2008 and continues to be used in NIJ’s body armor compliance testing program. 

NIST is creating critical solution-enabling measurement science 

and technical contributions underpinning emerging standards, 

codes, and regulations that are used to improve the safety and effectiveness of fire fighters. We are working with local and States’ 

fire services, manufacturers, and a range of other Federal agencies 

on equipment such as self-contained breathing apparatus, thermal 

imaging cameras, and personal alert safety systems. 

I will talk specifically about the PASS devices, which are designed to signal for aid if a fire fighter becomes incapacitated. 

NIST investigators found evidence that PASS signal failed to function properly in the fire fighter’s environment. NIST determined 

that exposure to higher temperature environments negatively affected the loudness of the alarm signal. As it cooled, the alarm signal on most of the units returned to pre-exposure sound levels. 

NIST researchers, supported by DHS S&T, developed a new high 

temperature functionality requirement and test protocol, a life-saving improvement for each of the 1.25 million fire fighters whose 

past devices were upgraded. 

Mr. Chairman, NIST, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, 

is focusing on developing test methods in a number of areas and 

has other activities focused on specific environments of interest in 

which the first responder community operates. 

We look forward to continuing to work with our Federal, State, 

local, and private sector partners to improve safety and performance of our Nation’s first responders. Thank you, again. 

[The statement of Ms. Saunders follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY H. SAUNDERS

MAY 9, 2012 

Chairmen Bilirakis and Lungren, Ranking Members Richardson and Clarke, 

Members of the subcommittees, I am Mary Saunders, director, Standards Coordination Office of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). I want to 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss standards development and NIST’s role 

in standards as it relates to equipment for and in support of our first responders. 

NIST is a non-regulatory Federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST’s mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness 

by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance 

economic security and improve our quality of life. Our efforts to drive innovation 

through advances in measurement science enable industry to bring technological advances to the commercial market sooner, thereby helping U.S. manufacturers stay 

globally competitive. The focus on innovation is critical if we are to, as the President 

and Secretary of Commerce John Bryson have noted, ‘‘make it here and sell it everywhere.’’ 

Today’s hearing is focused on innovation as it relates to the development of standards for equipment used by or in support of the first responder community. My testimony will discuss the standards ecosystem in which NIST works, address the issue 

of standards as a help or hindrance to innovation in this space, highlight some examples of our work related to first responders, and the touch upon the technical 

challenges ahead. 

THE STANDARDS ECOSYSTEM

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. voluntary, consensus standards system is bottom-up, industry-driven, and sector-focused. The Government participates as an equal and interested partner. Federal, State, local, and Tribal government representatives par-
18 

1http://www.ansi.org/aboutlansi/introduction/history.aspx?menuid=1. 2Pub. L. 104–113 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, § 12(d)(1). 

(available at: http://standards.gov/standardslgov/nttaa.cfm). 

ticipate when the activity is relevant to their needs, and consistent with their respective missions and functions. In contrast to the Government-directed, prescriptive standards that characterize the systems in place in a number of other countries, 

the Federal Government does not control or direct the standards system in the 

United States. 

The modern-day engagement of the U.S. Government in the formal U.S. standards 

system can be traced back to the founding of the organization that has evolved into 

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). In 1916, the Department of 

Commerce was one of the founding members of the American Engineering Standards Committee, formed to be an ‘‘impartial national body to coordinate standards 

development, approve national consensus standards, and halt user confusion on acceptability.’’1

Since the founding of the American Engineering Standards Committee, U.S. Government agencies have been extensively involved in the development and use of 

standards to meet agency missions and priorities. This engagement was catalyzed 

in 1995 by the passage of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

(Pub. L. 104–113), which directed Federal agencies to ‘‘use technical standards that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined 

by the agencies and departments’’,2 except where inconsistent with applicable law 

or impractical. 

The strength and agility of the U.S. standards system stems from its sector-specific focus. Individual industry and technology sectors are served by standards developing organizations that are sensitive to and responsive to that sector’s needs, and 

understand the dynamics of that technology and industry. While there is no formal 

count of the number of standards developers in the United States, it is estimated 

that there are about 600 standards-setting organizations based in the United States. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE

Federal Government agencies engage in standardization in a wide range of mission-specific roles, including contributing to development of standards in the private 

sector and using standards for procurement or regulatory actions. In fiscal year 

2010, more than 2,800 Federal agency staff from across the Federal enterprise participated in more than 500 private-sector standards organizations. This participation 

is spurred in large part by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113), and the associated OMB Circular A119. The 

NTTAA directs agencies to consider the use of voluntary consensus standards, in 

lieu of Government unique standards, and OMB A–119 reflects this direction and 

also strongly encourages agencies to participate in standards development activities 

to ensure that the resulting standards are better suited to meet agency needs. 

NIST’S ROLE IN THE U.S. STANDARDS SYSTEM

NIST plays a critical role in the context of Federal engagement in the standards 

process. As the Nation’s measurement laboratory, NIST has multiple roles relating 

to standards in the Federal enterprise. NIST’s coordination function, defined by 

statute, has been borne out by a track record of technical excellence and objectivity, 

embraced by NIST’s world-class scientists and engineers, ever since the Institute 

was chartered by Congress in 1901. NIST’s strong ties to industry and the standards development community, backed by technical excellence, have enabled NIST to 

take on critical standards-related challenges and deliver timely and effective solutions. 

NIST also plays a leadership role on the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Standards (SOS), which brings together senior officials across 

the Federal Government to engage on standards-related issues. In October 2011, the 

subcommittee issued a report, ‘‘Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address National Priorities: Background and Proposed Policy Recommendations,’’ that 

provided an overview of the current legal and policy frameworks for Government engagement in private-sector standardization and conformity-assessment activities; described how the Government engages in those activities; summarized stakeholder 

observations in response to a request for information about Government engagement in standardization; and outlined policy recommendations to supplement existing guidance to agencies. As a follow-up to this report, the administration released 
19 

3http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-08.pdf. 4Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–96)—http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf. 5PSCR is a joint program of the Department of Commerce’s NIST/OLES and NTIA/ITS that 

provides research, development, testing, and evaluation to foster Nation-wide communications 

interoperability for first responders. 

a memo in January 2012 highlighting the need for continued work in the standards 

area.3

NIST views standards and standardization as an important tool to enable U.S. innovation and competitiveness. NIST engagement in the private-sector-led standards 

system enables the effective and efficient transfer of technology from the NIST laboratories to the marketplace. This is further made possible by the participation of 

nearly 400 NIST technical staff in over 100 standards organizations, and more than 

1,000 different standards activities, in support of domestic and international priorities. It is noteworthy that this number represents more than a quarter of the NIST 

technical staff. NIST’s engagement with industry in these standards activities also 

provides us the ability to learn first-hand about industry’s measurement, standards, 

and research needs, and this provides valuable input into our prioritization of current NIST programs and planning for future programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight for you some of NIST’s specific programmatic activities that directly relate to standards development for a wide variety 

of first responder equipment. Given the foundational nature of NIST’s research mission in measurement science and standards, NIST technical expertise is being 

brought to bear across multiple sectors. From telecommunications interoperability 

for public safety to materials research, NIST technical expertise, in collaboration 

with industry, academia, and other Federal entities, such as the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T), can improve 

the reliability, safety, and performance of equipment used by first responders across 

the country. 

EXAMPLES OF NIST STANDARDS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO FIRST RESPONDER EQUIPMENT

700 MHz Public Safety Broadband Communications 

This subcommittee is very aware of challenges facing the first responder community. One of the most important issues is the current inability of telecommunications 

equipment to talk across systems, or ‘‘interoperate’’. NIST is deeply involved in the 

effort to foster interoperability. 

The public safety community is experiencing a generational shift in technology 

that will revolutionize the way it communicates. Traditionally, emergency responders have used land mobile radio technology that has limited data capabilities and 

suffers from a large installed base of stove-piped proprietary systems with non-contiguous spectrum assignments. As a result, public safety has long struggled with effective cross-agency/jurisdiction communications and lags far behind the commercial 

sector in data capability. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–96)4 has allocated $7 billion in funding and made new broadband spectrum in the 700-megahertz (MHz) band available to public safety, setting the foundation for a unified system operating on common spectrum bands that will foster 

Nation-wide roaming and interoperability and provide access to broadband data, 

video, mapping, GPS applications, and more. 

The new Nation-wide public safety broadband network will rely on commercial 

cellular technology. However, the public safety community has several unique requirements that are not reflected in current broadband technology or the roadmap 

for future standards development. In an effort to identify those gaps in public safety’s requirements and represent those to international standards bodies, the Public 

Safety Communications Research (PSCR) program 5—with support and funding from 

DHS S&T—has stood up a 700-MHz public safety broadband Demonstration Network at the NIST/National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) laboratory at the Department of Commerce’s Boulder, Colorado campus, that 

serves both as a vendor-neutral environment where public safety, industry, and 

other stakeholders can observe how new broadband technologies can meet public 

safety’s unique communication needs as well as a test bed to aid in requirements 

gathering and standards development. 

Leveraging the expertise of the PSCR staff and the unique assets of the Boulder 

facilities, including NTIA’s Table Mountain Radio Test Site, PSCR has obtained an 

experimental spectrum license and has deployed an over-the-air broadband network, 

operating in the 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum. The Demonstration 

Network has successfully acquired 700MHz Band Class 14 LTE broadband equip-
20 

ment—including eNodeBs, devices, evolved packet cores, and test equipment—free 

of charge as part of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) 

process. 

Research gleaned from Demonstration Network testing and evaluation will allow 

us to understand where current commercial standards meet public safety’s needs 

and where there are gaps. The gaps that are identified will be incorporated into a 

standards development strategy. 

Broadband presents a unique opportunity for public safety to define their requirements before deployment and only purchase systems that conform to the standard. 

It is crucial that public safety’s requirements are incorporated into the LTE standard so that Federal grant dollars and taxpayer dollars are spent only on equipment 

that is interoperable and allows first responders to better carry out their mission 

of protecting lives and property. PSCR’s Demonstration Network exists to facilitate 

this requirements gathering and standards development. 

Body Armor 

NIST has also been involved in research efforts with other Federal agencies such 

as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to develop standards related to public safety and criminal justice. One standard maintained by NIJ describes how body armor 

used by first responders should perform, and includes methods for testing and evaluating the armor. This standard has existed since 1972, and a testing program that 

relies on the standard has been in place since 1978. Nearly every piece of body 

armor worn by police officers in this country complies with the NIJ body armor 

standard. 

An influential piece of legislation was enacted in 1998 that accelerated adoption 

and use of protective body armor by law enforcement. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 provided matching Federal funds to qualifying local and 

State agencies to make their body armor procurement dollars go farther. Grant recipients were required to have mandatory wear policies. As a result of this legislation and related grants: (1) Agencies were able to afford body armor for all of their 

officers, and officers were required to wear it; and (2) the body armor industry had 

incentives to continue advancing technologies to improve body armor. 

To keep pace with technology advances, standards must continually be updated 

to reflect and encompass technological advancements while not inhibiting innovation 

by being overly prescriptive. Lags in updating standards may affect the adoption of 

newer technologies. New technologies may be introduced in advance of standardization. In the former case, delays may occur in the widespread deployment of new 

technologies. In the latter case, confidence in the technology or the reliability of the 

equipment utilizing the technology may suffer. 

Consider an incident in 2003 when a police officer’s body armor, or vest, was perforated by a round it was rated to stop. This incident illustrates the importance of 

ensuring that standards and technologies advance together. Until the late 1990s, 

most body armor worn by police officers was made of either aramid (Kevlar or 

Twaron) or polyethylene (Spectra or Dyneema). In this case, the armor was made 

out of a relatively new material, polybenzobisoxazole, or PBO, that was first introduced into body armor in 1998. The perforation of this vest in the 2003 case was 

the first known field failure in the 30-year history of the body armor standards program. In response to this incident, the U.S. Attorney General launched a safety initiative to examine soft body armor containing the material PBO. 

Until this time, materials in common use had been studied previously and the 

most significant environmental factor affecting armor performance—liquid water— 

was a long-standing part of the standard testing protocol. NIST was tasked to undertake a research effort to examine PBO and its performance in fielded body armor 

performance and to make recommendations for improvements in the standards and 

testing program. NIST research revealed that PBO degrades due to exposure to 

moisture (humidity in the air or liquid water) as well as folding. It was clear that 

a revised version of the NIJ body armor standard that incorporated some measure 

of resistance to these environmental degradation factors was essential for officer 

safety. 

Beginning in 2005, NIST provided assistance to NIJ to develop a revised body 

armor performance standard to address a number of concerns, one of which was the 

ability of the armor to withstand environmental and wear conditions that armor 

might see over its lifetime. NIST developed a soft armor conditioning protocol, 

through which armor is exposed to an environment of elevated temperature, humidity, and mechanical tumbling, and then subjected to ballistic tests. This protocol has 

been incorporated into the most recent revision of the NIJ body armor standard 

issued in July 2008 and continues to be used in NIJ’s body armor Compliance Testing Program. 
21 

6Karter, M.J., Fire Loss in the United States During 2009, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, August 2010. 7Karter, M.J., and Molis, J. L., U.S. Firefighter Injuries—2009, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, August 2010. 8 ‘‘The Economic Consequences of Firefighter Injuries and Their Prevention,’’ NIST GCR 05– 

874, March 2005. 9 National Research Agenda Symposium Report of the National Fire Service Research Agenda 

Symposium June 1–3, 2005, Emmitsburg, Maryland. 

Since all officers want body armor that is lighter and more comfortable, new materials and new construction methods for body armor continue to be introduced into 

the marketplace. The body armor standard must be able to address the safety of 

new materials, both in initial use and over time. The armor conditioning protocol 

in the NIJ standard is an excellent first step in assessing the long-term field performance of body armor, but more work needs to be done and is in fact, the subject 

of on-going research at NIST. 

First Responder Equipment 

NIST is also creating critical solution-enabling measurement science and technical 

contributions underpinning emerging standards, codes, and regulations that are 

used to improve safety and effectiveness of the U.S. fire service. In 2009, the fire 

service responded to over 1.3 million fires 6 that resulted in 78,000 fire fighter injuries and 83 fatalities 7 with an estimated cost of $8 billion.8 In order to reduce the 

number of fire fighter fatalities and injuries, science-based performance metrics are 

necessary to improve fire fighter safety and enhance fire ground effectiveness. For 

both equipment and tactics, it is critical that performance can be measured and 

evaluated in a scientifically sound manner. The lack of adequate measurement 

science directly impacts the protective equipment and tactics utilized by the over 

1 million fire fighters in over 32,000 fire departments in the United States. 

To respond safely and effectively in hazardous environments, fire fighters need access to better technology and equipment. If relevant performance data is available 

for existing equipment or tactics, then a meaningful performance metric can be developed, but too often the necessary data is not readily available. Lab- and full-scale 

tests in combination with science-based metrics will allow industry to evaluate and 

improve their own products and develop new technology. 

For the past 9 years, NIST has been an active leader and participant in developing measurement science for fire service technology. Our Fire Research Laboratory has unsurpassed experience in fire testing and is a trusted source of unbiased, 

science-based, quantifiable recommendations to standards-developing organizations 

including the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), ASTM, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Code Council (ICC). 

NIST’s unique role as a non-regulatory Federal agency, deep technical expertise, 

and unique assets enables industry, academia, and Federal entities to work with 

NIST collaboratively, to the benefit of all parties involved. NIST works with local 

and State fire services, manufacturers, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) National Personal Protection Technology Laboratory, the 

Fire Protection Research Foundation of NFPA and others in this space. 

In partnership with first responders, NIST identifies and prioritizes research 

needs for the fire service. This process focuses NIST’s efforts on priorities identified 

by the fire fighting community. The 2005 National Fire Research Agenda Symposium,9 which was attended by over 50 organizations, including the fire service, manufacturers, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of 

Fire Fighters, National Voluntary Fire Council, DHS, and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) identified and prioritized research needs for fire fighters. Some of the 

‘‘urgent and critical issues’’ that were identified included improved respiratory protection, situational awareness technology, tactical decision aids, lessons learned/fire 

reconstructions, and strategies that would reduce injuries and fatalities. Over 60 

participants at the 2009 NIST Innovative Fire Protection Workshop identified tactical decision aids, improved respirators, and enhanced turnout gear as high-priority 

research needs. 

Examples of Fire Fighter Standard Solutions 

• Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Lenses: Fire fighters wear protective equipment to protect themselves from exposure to the harsh environment. 

SCBAs are designed to provide clean breathing air and prevent exposure to 

toxic combustion gases. NIOSH investigators noticed SCBA thermal degradation issues after the deaths of several fire fighters. NIST partnered with NIOSH 

to characterize the performance of the SCBA face piece in the fire fighting environment and determined that exposure to high thermal radiant flux caused the 
22 

viewing lenses to soften, form holes, and fail. With funding from the DHS 

United States Fire Administration and DHS S&T, NIST studied the conditions 

that may be encountered by fire fighters and the effects of those conditions on 

SCBA face piece lenses. This led to recommendations for a new test methodology and performance criteria to the NFPA Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment which are to be included in the 2013 Edition of 

NFPA Standard 1981 on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus 

(SCBA) for Emergency Services. 

• Thermal Imaging Cameras: Thermal imaging cameras (TIC) are becoming increasingly valuable tools for first responders; however, there were initially no 

performance standards that addressed the unique conditions in which first responders operate. Evaluating the performance of thermal imagers requires the 

resources to characterize the performance of thermal imagers, both in lab- and 

full-scale experiments and then developing performance metrics and standard 

testing protocols. NIST developed performance metrics and testing protocols to 

evaluate and ensure predictable performance of thermal imaging cameras that 

were incorporated by the NFPA Technical Committee on Electronic Safety 

Equipment into the 2010 edition of NFPA 1801 Standard on Thermal Imagers 

for the Fire Service. As this standard was put into place, each of the over 32,000 

fire departments across the United States gained access to thermal imaging 

cameras that would perform as expected in the harsh fire conditions. 

• Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS): Fire fighters can be overcome by heat 

or smoke of a fire and may be unable to alert other fire ground personnel to 

their need for assistance. PASS devices are designed to signal for aid if a fire 

fighter becomes incapacitated. NIOSH investigators noticed that there was evidence the PASS alarm signal failed to function or was not heard by other personnel in the area. NIST again partnered with NIOSH to characterize the performance of PASS devices in the fire fighters’ environment. NIST determined 

that exposure to high temperature environments typical of what a fire fighter 

encounters caused the loudness of the PASS alarm signal to be reduced enough 

to become indistinguishable from background noise on the emergency scene. As 

the PASS cooled, the alarm signal on most of the units returned to pre-exposure 

sound levels. NIST researchers, supported by DHS S&T, developed a new high 

temperature functionality requirement and test protocol for inclusion in the 

2007 edition of NFPA 1982 Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 

a lifesaving improvement for each of the 1.25 million fire fighters whose PASS 

devices were upgraded. 

CONCLUSION

NIST continues its pursuit of measurement science to improve test methods and 

standards for advancing innovation for products used by everyone in the first responder community. NIST, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, is focusing 

on developing test methods in a number of areas, ranging from telecommunications 

interoperability to determining the performance of Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) and fire fighter locator systems, fire fighter radios, and fire fighter protective 

clothing in rough-duty environments. NIST has other activities focused on specific 

environments of interest in which the first responder community operates, such as 

guidance on non-traditional means to mitigate the fire hazard due to ventilation and 

suppression activities within structures in a manner that provides optimum safety 

and effectiveness for the fire fighter; and development of improved standards and 

building codes through simulations and experiments on structural vulnerabilities to 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions the subcommittees may have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Ms. Saunders. Chief, you are recognized now for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD KILDUFF, CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT, 

NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Chief KILDUFF. Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking 

Members Richardson and Clarke, and all subcommittee Members 

that are here. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today about the New York City Fire Department’s homeland security technology efforts, our initiatives, and our innovations. 
23 

New York City remains a primary target for terrorists, due to its 

size, economic importance, complex infrastructure, and symbolic 

status. During the more than 101⁄2 years since September 11, the 

Fire Department has made significant progress in preparing for future terrorist threats and natural disasters by increasing our capabilities and expanding our capacity to search for any significant 

event that threatens the lives of New Yorkers. 

The most critical partners in supporting these initiatives, which 

are discussed in greater detail in our written submission to the 

subcommittees, are the Federal Department of Homeland Security 

and Congress. Since its inception almost a decade ago, DHS has 

recognized FDNY’s unique role in protecting New York City and 

has awarded the Department more than $400 million to enhance 

our capacity to respond to terrorism. This funding has enabled the 

FDNY to provide specialized training and resources for our hazmat 

and rescue teams to improve internal and interoperable communications, and to provide commanders with better on-scene information and situational awareness. 

We also use DHS grants to fund firehouse-based computerized 

training kiosks. Many of the drills and exercises provide all field 

units with tactical training for real-life incidents, such as bus 

bombings, subway attacks, incidents in the harbor, and all-hazards 

events. 

With the limited time I have, I want to try to demonstrate to the 

subcommittee Members how DHS funding has been invested wisely 

in the FDNY, which works for the benefit of New York City, the 

New York Metropolitan area, the region, and all first responders. 

That investment has been made in each and every one of our 

11,000 fire fighters and fire officers and 3,200 EMS members, who 

every day use the funded technology equipment, tools, and training 

to help save lives and increase the safety of the public and our first 

responders. 

Imagine the scene of a large-scale or complex incident. As our 

first responders arrive, the incident command system and our 

tiered response matrix have already determined the roles that each 

member will play upon their initial arrival on the scene and as the 

incident escalates. At their disposal is an improved, three-part fire 

ground communication system, consisting of vehicle-based crossband repeaters, high-powered portable command post radios, and 

handy talkie radios with customized channels. 

Our members are equipped with improved gear in the form of radiological detectors and safer chemical protective clothing. They are 

supported on scene by mobile command vehicles, helicopter video 

feeds, new generation Marine response craft, and electronic command boards for control and tracking of resources. Leading these 

efforts are ICS-trained center commanders assisted by specialized 

squads and rescue companies, tactical support units, and haz-tech 

ambulances. 

At the same time, our department leaders operate out of our 

state-of-the-art fire department operation center based in our 

Brooklyn headquarters. From this operational nerve center, commanders can oversee operations at the scene and exchange information with regional partners, while keeping a close eye on events 

unfolding in the rest of the city. 
24 

Throughout our operations, we utilize the electronic fire ground 

accountability system to facilitate on-scene accountability of first 

responders. From the scene, we can share voice, video, and data 

communications in real time with law enforcement, regional and 

mutual aid partners, city and State agencies, DHS, and other 

Homeland Security partners. As this scenario shows, FDNY has 

the resources and training to respond to a myriad of complex incidents. DHS funding has helped our first responders, the boots on 

the ground, immeasurably. 

There is much more to be done, however. With DHS and its 

Science and Technology Directorate as our partner, we are confident that we will continue to find innovative solutions to address 

our on-going needs. We support the efforts of the S&T Directorate 

to create economies of scale by developing solutions that help the 

fire service and first responders Nation-wide. Due to anticipated reductions in grant funding going forward, this is not only practical, 

it is imperative. 

Two areas where we think this is particularly critical for first responders are standards and testing and network command. Most 

fire departments throughout the country lack the resources to establish standards and test equipment themselves, especially in 

light of ever-increasing changes in technology. The S&T Directorate 

is uniquely situated to take the lead in the testing and development of National standards that we need for, among other things, 

CBRNE detection and mitigation equipment. We support, benefit 

from, and urge continued funding for these efforts. 

Network commands, where commanders are linked to real-time 

data on desktop computers and mobile devices or via their operation centers, remain an unmet need. However, the S&T Directorate is piloting the Next-Generation Incident Command System, 

or NICS, a geo-special tool that can integrate data from diverse 

agencies and allows first responders to have a common operating 

platform. 

The FDNY supports the S&T Directorate’s efforts to develop this 

important tool for first responders. In fact, the FDNY recently tested NICS in a simulated hurricane exercise that we designed for 

West Point cadets involving the management of National Guard resources. With regard to DHS grant funding for the FDNY, we understand that DHS’ focus will be on providing sufficient funding so 

that we can sustain our current capabilities, maintain the equipment and resources that we currently have, and support us as we 

continue to utilize our strengths and assets to protect the New 

York region. 

As mentioned in the subcommittee testimony in more detail, we 

do have some concerns about the proposed changes for fiscal year 

2013 Homeland Security Grant Cycle. First and foremost, we urge 

that funding be targeted to those areas at most risk for terrorism. 

Another concern is the compressed time frames proposed for Homeland Security grants that removes the flexibility we need to develop 

the complex systems and assets we require. 

It is important that the technological advancements I have described can potentially become part of a Nation-wide integrated 

system of response that benefits first responders in every jurisdiction. 
25 

I thank you for allowing us to testify today and look forward to 

answering the committee’s questions. 

[The statement of Chief Kilduff follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD KILDUFF

MAY 9, 2012 

Good morning, Chairmen Bilirakis and Lungren, Ranking Members Richardson 

and Clarke, and Members of the subcommittees. My name is Edward Kilduff and 

I am chief of department for the New York City Fire Department. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the New York City 

Fire Department’s homeland security technology efforts, innovations, and initiatives. 

New York City remains a primary target for terrorists due to its size, economic 

importance, complex infrastructure, and symbolic status. During the more than 101⁄2

years since 9/11, the Fire Department has made significant progress in preparing 

for future terrorist threats by increasing our capabilities and expanding our capacity 

to surge for any significant event that threatens the lives of New Yorkers. The most 

critical partner in supporting these initiatives—which I will discuss in more detail— 

is the Federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the support of Congress. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

Since its inception almost a decade ago, DHS has recognized the FDNY’s unique 

role in protecting New York City, and has awarded the Department more than $400 

million to enhance our capacity to respond to terrorism. 

This funding has enabled the FDNY to provide specialized training and resources 

for our HazMat and Rescue teams, to improve interoperable communications and to 

provide commanders with better on-scene information and situational awareness. 

We also use DHS grants to fund many of the drills and exercises that provide all 

field units with practical training for real-life incidents such as bus bombings, subway attacks, incidents in the harbor, and all-hazards events. 

Looking forward, we understand that DHS’s focus will be on providing sufficient 

funding so that we can sustain current capabilities, maintain the equipment and resources that we have, and support us as we continue to develop new-generation resources to protect the region’s critical infrastructure. 

INITIATIVES AND ENHANCEMENTS

In preparation for this hearing, we reviewed our homeland security initiatives and 

hoped to highlight in this testimony those that involved some technological component. Technology is an integral part of all of our initiatives—from our state-of-theart new fireboats to all methods of field communications to our drills and training. 

So, with that in mind, allow me to briefly describe some of our highest-priority preparedness accomplishments. 

Special Operations Command 

The FDNY has rebuilt and significantly enhanced our Special Operations Command (SOC) capabilities, so that we are more prepared than ever to deal with incidents involving biological, chemical, or radioactive releases, and other major incidents with mass-casualty potential. 

The underpinning of these enhancements is the ‘‘tiered response’’ system that we 

established to ensure the optimal availability and distribution of response resources. 

This tiered-response framework entails training FDNY units in a variety of response 

capabilities at incremental proficiency levels and strategically locating those units 

across the city. In addition to Hazardous Materials (HazMat) capabilities, this matrix maximizes the FDNY’s capabilities to respond to any large-scale incident in a 

manner that is highly effective, economically efficient, and sustainable over the long 

term. 

SOC includes five Rescue Companies, seven Squad Companies, our highly specialized HazMat Unit and the Marine Division consisting of three year-round and three 

seasonal Marine Companies. Rescue and Squad Company members receive the highest levels of training the Department offers in technical rescue and victim-removal— 

more than 280 hours of specialized rescue training in collapse response and rescue 

operations. All five Rescue Companies are SCUBA-qualified. All Rescue and Squad 

Companies have advanced hydraulic and search equipment for operating at building 

collapses and are trained and equipped for high-angle rescues. 
26 

All Fire and EMS personnel have received training to the HazMat Operations 

level. 

To augment and support our SOC response, we can deploy: 

• 25 SOC Support Ladder Companies, which are capable of providing personnel 

and equipment to support search-and-rescue operations; 

• Four HazTech Engine Companies, whose members receive 80 hours of HazMat 

training; 

• 35 HazTac Ambulance Units, whose vehicles are equipped to provide medical 

care in a HazMat environment; 

• Two new state-of-the-art 140-foot fireboats, specially equipped with radiological 

detection capability, that can respond to chemical, biological, radiological, and 

nuclear (CBRN) incidents anywhere on or near the water; 

• One new 65-foot state-of-the-art fast-response boat (with one on the way) with 

CBRN protection and radiological detection capability, three 33-foot fast-response rescue boats (with seven more on order), and one 31-foot medical response boat (with two more on order); 

• One Decon, one SCUBA, and two Tactical Support Units and one De-watering 

Unit; 

• A Re-breather Unit that allows us to operate for prolonged periods in hazardous 

environments; 

• 29 Chemical Protection Clothing units; and 

• Ten Rescue Medic Ambulances. 

Organizational and Communications Infrastructure 

Of course, enhanced capabilities are only one component of our preparedness 

goals. The FDNY has also taken steps to improve our organizational and communications infrastructures as well. The FDNY has: 

• Expanded training in the Incident Command System for all Fire and EMS personnel; 

• Developed a fully-staffed Incident Management Team (IMT), which was dispatched to New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, and to Broome 

County, New York this past fall after Hurricane Irene; 

• Launched an automated recall program that can target off-duty members to ensure resources are available to maintain coverage throughout the city during 

any emergency; 

• Implemented a communications channel between on-scene fire fighters and the 

EMS command; 

• Implemented a second EMS city-wide channel for Multiple Casualty Incidents; 

• Established links to the MTA repeater systems to facilitate communications in 

the subways and tunnels; 

• Designed and purchased two state-of-the-art Mobile Command Vehicles and an 

IMT/Planning Vehicle to assist in response coordination and communications; 

• Finalized all-hazards emergency response plans for responding to terrorist 

threats and natural disasters; 

• Developed an internal risk assessment website for priority locations; 

• Assigned a fire officer, beginning in July 2012, to the National Counter Terrorism Center in McLean, Virginia; 

• Established a connection to the U.S. intelligence community via the Homeland 

Security Data Network and Intelink, secret-level networks that link to finished 

intelligence to aid our overall readiness to meet the consequences of a terrorist 

attack; 

• Enhanced our Bureau of Fire Investigation intelligence capabilities, including 

the assignment of Fire Marshals to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the acquisition of top-secret clearance for National intelligence, the creation of a 24-hour 

hotline for FDNY members to report suspicious activity, and target hardening 

and protection of FDNY’s critical infrastructure; and 

• Established the Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness to coordinate 

our counterterrorism planning and strategy. 

The FDNY has also successfully deployed a three-part field communication system 

that represents a critical step in improved fireground communications. The system—designed and built in-house—consists of 13 vehicle-based, cross-band repeaters, which allow radio signals to be transmitted into dense building environments; 

75 high-powered portable command post radios; and handie-talkie radios with several customized features that have improved on-scene tactical and command communications and fire fighter safety. These radios also provide us with full interoperability—the ability to speak with other city agencies and our mutual aid partners— 

helping to protect all first responders. 
27 

The FDNY has made important strides in strengthening EMS communications by 

adding a second city-wide radio channel. This additional EMS channel eliminates 

the overlapping frequencies between our command and city-wide channels, enhances 

the capability of EMS command at the scene of multiple incidents and allows for 

better utilization of frequency allocations for EMS Chiefs. 

Technology and Network Command 

As circumstances evolve at a disaster, a critical challenge is to ensure situational 

awareness for optimal incident management. This would include forming networks 

of voice, video, and data among multiple groups of emergency responders, Government agencies, and non-Government organizations—at the incident scene and at 

emergency operations centers away from the scene. The FDNY has leveraged our 

technology to create a common operational picture and interoperable networks for 

coordination and unified command. 

To that end, we have implemented many long-term technology initiatives, which 

include: • Building a state-of-the-art Fire Department Operations Center (FDOC), an 

operational nerve center at our 9 MetroTech headquarters that is fully activated 

for use by senior Chiefs in the event of serious fires and other large-scale incidents; • Developing an enhanced real-time deployment and siting model for the Department; and • Piloting wireless Electronic Command Boards for better on-scene command, control, and tracking of resources. 

The FDNY also supports the efforts of the DHS Science & Technology Directorate 

to develop an integrated situational awareness platform for first responders called 

the ‘‘Next-Generation Incident Command System’’ or NICS. NICS is a geospatial 

tool that can integrate data from diverse agencies and allow first responders to have 

a common operating picture. 

We understand that DHS is working with MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory to pilot NICS 

and that NICS is currently supporting the integrated operations of California first 

responders, led by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal 

Fire. The FDNY recently tested NICS in a simulated hurricane exercise that we designed for West Point Cadets involving the management of National Guard resources. 

Virtual Training 

Over the past year, with help from DHS, the FDNY created and introduced its 

kiosk e-learning platform in all FDNY firehouses and EMS stations. The computerbased training enables us to deliver training and situational awareness information 

to the field faster and more efficiently than ever before. Keeping our 15,000 fire 

fighters and EMTs trained and refreshed is a crucial—and costly—part of our mandate as we address the complexities of the post-9/11 environment. Using real-time, 

video-rich content captures the attention of our members and encourages on-going 

learning. Among its benefits are: 

• Company officers use kiosk content to structure drills and education in the firehouse; and 

• Our FDOC can push out situational awareness to members about in-progress 

events where they might be called to respond. 

FDNY has the most comprehensive fire fighter training program in the country, 

consisting of classroom learning, hands-on skills development and training in stateof-the-art simulated environments including a high-rise building, subway cars and 

tunnels. We know that e-learning will never fully replace classroom or practical 

skills training, but it has become an important component of the training cycle we 

provide for our members. Fire departments from around the country are interested 

in leveraging our e-training content. This information sharing is a core value of the 

FDNY, and we are evaluating the feasibility of offering our kiosk training to other 

departments. 

THE CENTER FOR TERRORISM AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

Making consistent progress on the wide array of initiatives I have just described 

requires careful planning. We created the Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness (CTDP) in 2004 to be the focal point for the Department’s strategic preparedness, providing the Department with the necessary intelligence to make critical decisions in dangerous environments beyond more routine responses. 

The Center’s activities bring together our own members’ varied expertise to create 

a dynamic and practical approach to counterterrorism, disaster response, and consequence management. CTDP bridges the divide between the established intel-
28 

ligence community and non-traditional intelligence consumers and producers, such 

as the fire service. 

CTDP has also helped develop new technologies such as the Electronic Command 

Board (ECB), which I mentioned earlier. The Department piloted the ECB and its 

hand-held, tablet-style Command Pad this past spring. ECB is used to account for 

deployed units and will be connected to FDOC to send digital blueprints and other 

building information to the fireground. It can also be used in subway emergencies 

to provide Incident Commanders with information on tunnels and emergency exits. 

It will also receive mayday signals from Electronic Fireground Accountability System. 

One of the functions of CTDP is to develop tabletop and full-scale exercises to test 

procedures and core capabilities of the Department. Continual training exercises 

better prepares our first responders to use technology at routine and major events. 

FUTURE PREPAREDNESS ENHANCEMENTS

Building on the achievements I have just listed, we set an ambitious agenda for 

future preparedness enhancements. 

One significant development is the implementation of the Electronic Fireground 

Accountability System (EFAS), just mentioned. The EFAS pilot was launched in December 2010 to improve the on-scene accountability of members at fires and other 

emergencies, including large-scale high-rise or subway incidents. With EFAS, an officer’s laptop identifies and assigns a position for all fire company members. Now 

fully integrated, EFAS will monitor handie-talkie transmissions and mayday alerts 

and allow the Incident Commander to perform an Electronic Roll Call. 

Grants 

In the area of Federal grants in general, we do have some concerns going forward. 

We know that FEMA plans sweeping changes for the fiscal year 2013 Homeland Security grant cycle. First and foremost, the Urban Areas Security Initiative needs to 

be preserved as a stand-alone program that is well-funded and targets assistance 

to those areas identified as most at-risk for terrorism. 

With funding expected to decrease Nation-wide, it is more imperative than ever 

that FEMA direct funds based on where intelligence and threat analysis tell us they 

are most needed. Now is not the time to cut funding to New York City, which remains the No. 1 high-value target for terrorists. 

We are also concerned about the compressed time lines being instituted for homeland security grants. The proposed 24-month grant cycle, with very limited exceptions, is short-sighted. Some of the FDNY’s most successful and powerful DHS-funded assets, such as our fireboats and our FDOC, took years to build and implement. 

We need flexibility so that we can continue to develop the complex systems and assets that, although they may have relatively long time lines for implementation, 

have equally far-reaching and impactful results. 

Our goal is not to spend funds quickly, but to use Federal resources efficiently 

and well to advance preparedness for New York City and the Nation. We will continue to encourage DHS to be flexible and work with us to achieve that mission. 

SIGNIFICANT RESPONSES

Last, I would like to mention two key incidents from the last few years where 

many of the technological advancements I have just described came into play, with 

great outcomes: Flight 1549’s emergency landing in the Hudson River in January 

2009, and the May 2010 terrorist incident in Times Square. 

Flight 1549’s landing is a noteworthy example of networked command in action: 

The FDNY Fire and EMS Operations, the NYPD, and the U.S. Coast Guard all 

worked together, connecting at the scene through a unified command structure 

under the National Incident Management (NIMS) protocol. We were able to connect 

back to the FDOC at headquarters while the Fire Marshals connected with 

LaGuardia Operations to obtain the flight manifest. EMS connected with the broader EMS system—including hospitals in New Jersey—to track all of the transported 

patients. Ultimately, the FDNY was able to confirm that all the passengers were 

accounted for. We then posted this information on the Homeland Security Information Network, which was shared with our partner agencies, and ultimately that good 

news made its way to the Situation Room at the White House. In sum, we had to 

hastily form an effective, new-generation network where human and technological 

networks played a key role in instant information sharing and analysis. 

In May 2010, Faisal Shazad attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. 

Engine 54 and Ladder 4—companies that lost their entire crews on 9/11—were 

called to the scene for a car fire. Before 9/11, a fire officer’s first instinct may have 
29 

been to get up close to the car and use water to extinguish the fire. But these first 

responders recognized that this was no ordinary car fire. And, because of their increased situational awareness and dedicated training, they immediately realized 

that they had a potential terrorist threat on their hands. They knew exactly what 

to do: They started clearing the area and called the NYPD bomb squad. They also 

knew what NOT to do: They did not disrupt the vehicle and did not attempt to put 

out the fire. Their actions kept bystanders safe and also preserved crucial evidence 

that lead to a quick capture of the suspect. 

I am proud of our members’ critical role in these two incidents, but the truth is 

we respond to incidents on a daily basis that require a ‘‘new-generation’’ response. 

While our rebuilding is never finished, I can say without equivocation that this Department is better prepared, equipped, and trained and more capable than ever before. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, to quote New York City’s Fire Commissioner, Salvatore Cassano, 

‘‘the greatest way to honor those we lost on 9/11 is to make sure that we are prepared for the next event.’’ We are prepared for the next event, and the process of 

continuing these preparedness efforts carries on. Our partnership with DHS and the 

support of the Members of Congress have been absolutely critical to these efforts. 

Importantly, all of the technological advancements I have described can potentially 

become part of a Nation-wide, integrated system of response information that benefits first responders in every jurisdiction in the country. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Chief. Ms. Doying, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANNETTE DOYING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA 

Ms. DOYING. Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Members Richardson 

and Clarke, other Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate you 

allowing me to testify here today before you on your first responder 

technologies hearing. The subject matter, trying to accomplish a 

prioritized ranking scheme for funding, resonates very directly with 

me and I hope that my testimony assists you with that today. 

When I first came on board to work as the Homeland Security 

Coordinator in Pasco County, Florida, science and technology was 

a DHS element that I was quite excited about. Over the course of 

more than 6 years, I taught approximately 4,000 first responders 

Homeland Security-related concepts of operation. 

I would tell the students a story that started something like this. 

Do you remember the fellow who died of anthrax exposure in October 2001? He worked at the National Inquirer building in Palm 

Beach County. I want you to imagine that you are the local hazmat 

responder and you have been asked to enter that building, find, 

contain, and remove the anthrax from that building. As you don 

your low-bid SCBA, as you don your low-bid protective ensemble, 

and as you strap on your low-bid protective device, how do you feel 

about being the guy going in that building? 

I would go on to talk in these classes about how the DHS Science 

and Technology Directorate was intended in part to bring cuttingedge technology being developed in private sector and university 

R&D labs to those agencies that have responsibility for responding 

to WMD CBRNE events. I shared my opinion that the future held 

for us the idea that the choice of low-bid-only equipment would be 

countered by the science behind the why we need this device or 

equipment justification. I held out hope that our local hazardous 

materials responders would don TPE and use devices that would 
30 

be of a proven quality, proven to Government through Government, 

instead of by a corporate salesman who we can’t point to and swear 

that he has our best interests in mind. 

Today, I hesitate to share that message, because my observations 

of how science and technology has trickled down to local communities shows me some disparities between what I had hoped for and 

what is. An example I offer is a very limited local perspective on 

the work of the domestic nuclear detection office. This program 

seems to have worked diligently to ensure that communities are 

protected from a radiological or a nuclear incident. As a result, 

local law enforcement officers have been recipients of personal radiation detector devices and hospital entryways are outfitted with 

NC2 detectors. But not enough law enforcement officers have these 

devices. Certainly, the first-in officer doesn’t have one. 

For those hospitals that have these devices, not enough integrated planning with local health departments and first responders 

has been accomplished. At the local level, there is little understanding of how to access technical reach-back capabilities to support an incident of this type, and so there will be losses. 

The consolidation by the Science and Technology Directorate of 

the multiple standards that apply to Homeland Security is a successful and useful effort. NFPA 1981 and NFPA 1994 standards of 

self-contained breathing apparatus and protective ensembles are 

key and critical components of a Nation-wide homeland security 

program. Their focus on protection of first responders is of an importance that is well understood by all of us here today. Continued 

focus on modernizing these standards, promoting the use of emerging technologies and support of the response community, and 

leveraging the knowledge found in R&D labs is our first line of defense for local responders. 

In the last 10 years, I have seen a significant amount of confusion about where homeland security funds should be spent. I have 

heard the arguments that ask how equipment fits into the context 

of capability building and risk reduction. Equipment, the right 

equipment, well trained on, is an important tool for the first responder. 

I have observed the gains made within the area of training for 

the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium facilities. I find 

that resident training at these facilities is more effective than attempts to provide the same training within local communities. A 

significant effort to promote first responder participation and educate local communities about the value of this training would further the agenda that asks us to standardize our approach towards 

emergency response. 

There is considerable logic for concentrating funding in high-risk 

communities. However, the designation of jurisdictions-specific specialty team means that single jurisdictions have been well-equipped 

and trained with the use of homeland security funds. For those of 

us serving on the fringe of those high-risk communities, this funding methodology has produced some sense of detachment to the 

homeland security mission. There should be a more networked approach to capability building, one that disregards jurisdiction, supports multi-agency response, and acknowledges that it is through 

mutual aid that all disasters are best served. 
31 

In nearly all of the communities that surround me, I see emergency managers, fire fighters, and law enforcement officers struggling with Homeland Security as an ‘‘other duty as assigned.’’ For 

the local first response community, this is a deficit. You should 

know that without dedicated Homeland Security personnel at the 

local level, much of the work being done on a National scale is hidden from view and, therefore, largely disregarded. 

Thank you for offering me the time to speak to you today. 

[The statement of Ms. Doying follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNETTE DOYING

MAY 9, 2012 

Members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today in your 

joint hearing on first responder technologies. Your focus on ensuring a prioritized 

approach for Homeland Security Research and Development resonates with me and 

I hope that my testimony assists you towards that end. 

I realize that this committee has probably seen some very tangible work accomplished by the universities and private sector institutes funded through the Science 

and Technology Directorate. Through conversations with my new-hires, guys who 

worked CBRNE in the Air Force and Army up until a few months ago, I understand 

that the Department of Defense saw an increase in the quality and quantity of Personal Protective Equipment and response equipment over the last 10 years. They 

also experienced strengthened relationships with Research & Development entities 

and labs that support testing and analysis. I also know that the placement of the 

very competent and well-equipped WMD–CSTs (civilian support teams) in local communities was a positive forward movement in support of local response. The experiences of Federal representatives working with and within the S&T Directorate, 

members of the military, and the faculty at funded universities and staff of National 

labs is not the experience of local responders. My perspective is limited to the outcomes of homeland security initiatives at the local level. 

In the realm of emergency preparedness gains have been made within the area 

of training through the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium facilities like 

the Center for Domestic Preparedness at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, AL, the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training at Louisiana State University, and the 

Texas Engineering Extension Service. This training has become a cornerstone of 

common knowledge building for the local response community. I’ve seen the consortium grow and I’ve watched as more and more local folk become aware of the training opportunities offered through it. I’ve personally put SHSGP funds to good use 

to support training of local responders through the consortium and I’ve seen other 

local governments do the same. I find that resident training at these facilities is 

more effective than attempts to provide the same training through mobile delivery 

within local communities. Support for local responders to attend training at Consortium facilities should be the emphasis for future capability building. A significant 

effort to promoting participation and educate local communities about the value of 

this training would further the agenda that asks us to standardize our approach towards emergency response. Careful oversight that focuses on the quality of instruction and gauging the depth of knowledge built through consortium training will help 

justify the need to have local responders leave their own communities for this training. 

A few weeks ago, Sheriff Chris Nocco, Pasco County, Florida provided testimony 

before this or a similar body. Sheriff Nocco spoke about a number of things but I 

would like to speak to one of these as well. The Sheriff conveyed his understanding 

of State and Federal designation of regional specialty response teams and his concerns about the use of these teams in a community which must then rely on the 

skills and equipment of those teams. Designation of a regional team really means 

that single jurisdictions ‘‘own’’ a team that will be eligible for Federal homeland security planning, training, exercise, and equipment funds. There is considerable logic 

for concentrating funding in high-risk communities and expecting that those communities build a capability for managing those risks. However, for those of us living 

in and serving communities on the fringe of those high-risk communities this funding methodology has produced some sense of detachment to the homeland security 

mission. If you aren’t empowered to make decisions about the application of homeland security funds, then how do you contribute to the mission? Further, the expec-
32 

tation that those specialty teams will serve outlying communities through mutual 

aid is reasonable, but this approach to building capability fails to recognize that mutual aid works in two directions. There should be a more networked approach to capability building; one that disregards jurisdiction, supports multi-agency response, 

and acknowledges that it is through mutual aid that all disasters are best served. 

At the State and local level I’ve seen a significant amount of confusion about 

where local State Homeland Security Grant Program funds set aside for planning, 

training, and exercise should and could be spent. I’ve understood the struggles and 

arguments that local, regional, State, and Federal players have when trying to determine how equipment fits into the context of capability building and risk reduction. We’ve all felt the consternation over the debate about sustainment funding for 

equipment upkeep. I, and my community, have been fortunate in that from 2005 

until 2011 I filled a Homeland Security Coordinator position created by my local jurisdiction and initially funded through the State Homeland Security Grant Program 

(SSGP). This obligation of funds towards a dedicated full-time emergency manager 

focused on local implementation of homeland security initiatives is what enabled my 

understanding of the things I’m speaking to you about today. But in nearly all of 

the communities that surround me, I look and don’t see a counterpart. Instead, I 

see emergency managers, fire fighters, and law enforcement officers struggling with 

an other-duty, as-assigned. For the local first response community, this is a deficit. 

Without dedicated homeland security personnel at the local level, much of the work 

being done on a National scale is hidden from view and, therefore, largely disregarded. 

The consolidation, by the Science and Technology Directorate, of the multiple 

standards that apply to homeland security is a successful and useful effort. NFPA 

1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs should be well understood and implemented by local government. Beyond the 

standard, however, there should be stronger mechanisms for ensuring that disasters 

are well managed, business can continue, and local civil servants know their role. 

Other standards, such as NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained 

Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services which requires all SCBA gear 

to adhere to certifications that provide respiratory protection against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks and NFPA 1994, which specifies the minimum requirements for protective ensembles for fire and emergency services personnel operating at domestic terrorism incidents (chemical/biological) are key and 

critical components of a Nation-wide homeland security program. Their focus on the 

protection of first responders is of an importance that is well understood by all of 

us here today. Continued focus on modernizing these standards, promoting the use 

of emerging technologies in support of the response community, and leveraging the 

knowledge found in research and development labs in the private sector and universities is our first line of defense for our local responders. 

When I first came on board to work homeland security in Pasco County, Florida, 

this was a DHS element that I was quite excited about. Over the course of more 

than 6 years, I taught approximately 4,000 local first-responders homeland security 

related concepts of operation. I would always tell a story that started something like 

this: ‘‘Do you all remember the fellow who died from Anthrax exposure in Palm 

Beach County in October 2001—he worked at the National Enquirer building? Well, 

imagine that you are the hazmat responder from local government who is asked to 

go into that building, find (detect) the anthrax, collect and package it, and transport 

it out of the building. As you don your low-bid SCBA and your low-bid protective 

suit, and you strap the low-bid detection device around you, how do you feel about 

being the guy going in?’’ 

I would go on to talk about how the DHS Science and Technology Directorate was 

intended, in part, to bring cutting-edge technology being developed in R&D labs in 

the private sector and in the great universities across our Nation to those agencies 

inside of government that have responsibility for responding to WMD/CBRNE 

events. I shared my opinion that the future held for us the idea that the choice of 

low-bid only would be countered by the science behind the why-we-need-THIS device/equipment/supplies justification. I would go on to state that I held out hope that 

our local hazardous materials responder would don PPE and use devices that would 

be of a proven quality—proven TO Government THROUGH Government instead of 

by a corporate salesman who we can’t point to and swear that he has our best interests in mind. 

Today, I hesitate to share that message because my observation of how science 

and technology has trickled down to local communities shows me some disparities 

between what I had hoped for and what is. In example, I offer a limited local perspective on the work of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). This program seems to have worked diligently to ensure that communities are protected 
33 

from a radiological/nuclear incident. As a result, local law enforcement officers have 

been the recipients of personal radiation detector devices and hospital entryways 

are outfitted with in situ detection devices. But, not enough law enforcement officers 

have these devices. Certainly, the first-in officer doesn’t have one. Not enough hospitals have these devices and for those that do, not enough integrated planning with 

local health departments and first responders has been accomplished. At the local 

level, there is little to no understanding of how to access technical reachback capabilities. And so there will be losses if we find ourselves responding to a radiological 

or nuclear incident. I could offer other examples of how a good program hasn’t gone 

far enough to reach local communities. 

Outside of the purview of domestic security, other hazards exist. Recently, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) articulated its position on the 

National Hurricane Program to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I’m familiar with their recommendations and wanted to take this opportunity to communicate my support of a few of their key concepts as it relates to Emergency Preparedness. NEMA suggests that the FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

conduct an analysis of government user’s needs to ensure that the software application HURREVAC remains the best tool for use by emergency managers in their 

evacuation decision making. This recommendation asks that these agencies consider 

current and emerging technologies and the resource requirements for maintaining 

and modernizing HURREVAC. This is a reasonable request and reflects the customer-service-oriented approach that should be the underpinnings of any emergency 

preparedness work. NEMA also shared their recommendations related to a continued focus on private sector outreach and the need to focus efforts on sharing FEMA 

products with the private sector. This is a balanced and reasonable recommendation 

and is conducive to efforts being made within local and State governments. Finally, 

NEMA’s recommendation related to leveraging academic institutions applies not 

only to hurricane preparedness but to the entire realm of emergency preparedness. 

Federal support for building collaboration between local communities can promote 

the application of education and experience to disaster management in all phases. 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to share the local perspective 

on first responder technologies. Your focus on a prioritized approach to homeland 

security research and development is strongly appreciated by the citizens and civil 

servants of our great Nation. I personally appreciate the effort you are making here 

today on behalf of Pasco County’s first responders and all of the dedicated first responders who serve in times of disaster. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Ms. Doying. Ms. Coon, you are recognized to testify for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KIERSTEN TODT COON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

LIBERTY GROUP VENTURES 

Ms. COON. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman 

Bilirakis, Ranking Members Richardson and Clarke, and Members 

of the subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me to testify in front 

of you today. 

As you have heard about, I think the most relevant component 

to it is that I served on the Senate Committee on Governmental 

Affairs after 9/11 and was part of the team that drafted the Science 

and Technology Directorate. I have spent most of my career in public service. In the private sector, I continue to do that by working 

with strictly public-sector clients on crisis management. 

My focus, rather working in Government or outside of it, has 

been how to bring solutions to the local level and how to make the 

lessons learned at the Federal level and the best practice accessible 

to those who are responsible for implementing them every day. 

In the context of this hearing, I would like to highlight one primary issue, a key challenge, and a proposed solution. This issue is 

how can we translate the technologies and the tools that are working in one jurisdiction at the local level to other jurisdictions near 

and far across the country. Communities, particularly since 9/11, 

have done an exceptional job of finding the resources to address 
34 

their local issues, as hard as that may have been, whether it is 

interoperability among first responders or access to public and private resources during the response and recovery phases of a crisis. 

The challenge lies in the Federal Government, either through 

DHS or FEMA, needing to have a structure in place to survey Nationally what is working across the country, sharing those best 

practices and the lessons learned at the local level with other jurisdictions around the country, so we are not forced to reinvent the 

wheel around the Nation. As we look at a solution, DHS through 

S&T and FEMA need to connect to localities, perhaps through the 

FEMA field and regional offices to find out what is working. Use 

those Federal resources, rather than putting the burden on the 

local level to find those resources to share technologies, to take 

these best practices, the effective technologies and the tools Nationally, so each jurisdiction doesn’t have to go through the similar 

trial-and-error experiences. 

DHS should develop a methodology for using the successful technologies and tools that are working regionally and building as a 

template from which other can build. It is important to note that 

this template idea that we have looked at the local level is not a 

one-size-fits-all approach. Any of us who have worked at the local 

level know you can’t impose one of those structures on them, but 

it is taking it as a foundation upon which jurisdictions can build 

and customize their needs and resources. 

I want to offer a case study that I have worked over the last 3 

years, which is the Arlington Office of Emergency Management. In 

various capacities, I have had the privilege of working with them, 

led by Jack Brown and Charlotte Franklin, and I commend Dr. 

Griffin for making the move to take somebody—Charlotte Franklin 

was working in economic development—and bring her to crisis 

management. She has been tremendously successful and she owes 

a lot of that to Dr. Griffin and through the support of the Northern 

Virginia Emergency Response System. 

Arlington has focused on the role of the private sector in disaster 

preparedness, response, and recovery, but not in the traditional 

sense. The county has not recycled the overused term ‘‘public-private partnership.’’ It has turned that phrase on its head by asking 

the private sector: What does it need from the public sector to do 

its job? 

If we look at our understanding of the role of the private sector 

since 9/11, we can look at three phrases: 9/11—we were concerned 

if there were enough resources to respond and recover. When we 

had Katrina, we understood that the public sector and the private 

sector had the resources, but we failed in matching the needs with 

the resources. What we now understand is that this is not an inventory discussion. It is not: Do we have them? Will the private 

sector donate it? The private sector will donate it. The challenge is 

the supply chain management. So how can the public sector work 

with that—work with the private sector in facilitating supply 

chains to work effectively? 

Arlington County has taken on this issue in a multi-phase 

project, which began in January 2011. After convening a forum 

with representatives both Nationally and locally from the private, 

public, and nonprofit sectors, the county, through a DHS grant and 
35 

support from NVERS, developed a web-based portal that enables 

citizens to identify where they can donate goods and where they 

can receive assistance. I am happy to go into greater detail about 

the portal, but the lessons here revolve around what has happened 

since this portal was developed with Federal money. 

Arlington learned through other grants and other regions nearby—they have learned that other regions have developed similar 

technologies. Florida and Louisiana both have a similar web-based 

system. What is noteworthy is that it appears that all of these were 

developed with Government funding, but with limited knowledge of 

each other. What is also important to understand is that one of the 

jurisdictions that developed this money through Federal funding offered to sell the platform to another’s jurisdiction 400 miles away 

for $50,000. 

The inefficiency of the system is obvious. Arlington works under 

the premise that anything it has developed or discovered through 

Federal monies should be shared without cost. It is trying to put 

the portal on a platform that can be shared Nationally and shared 

with other jurisdictions. I do want to highlight that the S&T monies that were used for one of these portal-based programs, it was 

S&T money that funded that and S&T monies were also applied 

successfully to a risk management assistance program in Arlington. 

The case study highlights that DHS should have the knowledge 

in both directions of how its monies are being spent. Through my 

experience at the Federal, State, and local levels, the other key 

issues in this context that are worth noting are the fact that when 

S&T develops technologies, it needs to ensure that it has the input 

of those who will be using them. Similarly, first responders need 

to have a formal voice, a liaison, or an advocate to DHS and 

FEMA. Over the past few years, first responders have become more 

empowered to develop strategic initiatives for themselves. They 

know better than anyone that crises do not stop at borders and 

they are working hard to integrate those capabilities across lines. 

As we examine ways to improve current capabilities, we need to 

focus on increasing the outreach between first responders and S&T, 

increasing the connection and communication between those who 

are developing technologies and those who will be using them. Additionally, this process should not always move in one direction. We 

also need to examine how to distribute the information that is collected at the State and Federal level, FEMA’s information, to the 

people who need them in a time of crisis. We should inventory the 

existing organizations and outreach mechanisms that exist in the 

Federal Government. As we explore ways to improve current processes, we understand that it is not always about creating new and 

novel, but often about enriching and supplementing what exists. 

In conclusion, as a country, we rely on our first responders every 

day for disruptions, crises, and disasters of all kinds. One of the 

key intentions of the creation of the Science and Technology Directorate within the Department of Homeland Security was to enable 

the Nation’s top scientific minds to develop cutting-edge technologies and tools to help our first responders do their jobs. A key 

factor to this success is the frequent communication and relationship between them. 
36 

We can get caught up in the jargon and technical terms, but at 

the end of the day, we need to ask what is needed, how it will be 

used, and who can develop it. The input from first responders is 

critical. We need to be thoughtful and deliberate in how we evaluate the needs of first responders, and identify and develop technologies that ensure we are being as effective as we can in creating 

prepared and resilient communities. Because through the aggregation of small communities, we create a strong Nation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Coon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIERSTEN TODT COON

MAY 9, 2012 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairmen Bilirakis and Lungren and Ranking Members Richardson and Clarke. It is a pleasure to testify before you today on the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Office of Science and Technology’s process to develop technologies that support the needs of first responders. I am currently President and 

CEO of Liberty Group Ventures, LLC and work with State and local governments, 

as well as corporations, colleges, and universities, on cybersecurity, crisis management, response, recovery, and community resiliency. 

BACKGROUND

Prior to LGV, I was a partner at Good Harbor Consulting—and developed its 

North American crisis management practice. In this capacity, I built teams of small 

businesses, typically run by individuals who had had leadership roles in government, to address critical infrastructure protection and crisis management challenges 

at the State and local level. The agility and efficiency of these teams proved to be 

effective in assessing what was needed at the State level and helping to translate 

lessons learned to the Federal level. 

Before Good Harbor Consulting, I worked for Business Executives for National Security (BENS) and focused on the role of the private sector in disaster preparedness 

and response, as well as examining the role of cybersecurity in crisis management. 

I spent time consulting for the California Governor’s office on homeland security and 

also served as a Professional Staff Member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (now the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs); I was on the team that drafted the infrastructure protection, emergency preparedness, and science and technology directorates of the legislation that created 

the Department of Homeland Security. I also worked in the White House domestic 

policy office and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

My focus, whether working in government, or outside of it, has been how to bring 

solutions to the local level and how to make the lessons learned at the Federal level 

accessible to those who are responsible for implementing them every day. In the 

context of this hearing, I would like to highlight one primary issue, its key challenge, and a proposed solution. 

ISSUE/CHALLENGE/SOLUTION

Issue.—How can we translate technologies, tools, etc. that are working in one jurisdiction, at the local level, to other jurisdictions, near and far? 

Communities, particularly since 9/11, have done an exceptional job finding the resources to address their local issues—whether it is interoperability among first responders or access to public and private resources during the response and recovery 

phases of a crisis. 

Challenge.—The Federal Government, either through DHS or FEMA, should have 

a structure in place to survey what is working, across the country, and share best 

practices, lessons learned, at the local level with other jurisdictions around the 

country. 

Solution.—DHS, through S&T, and FEMA, needs to connect to localities—perhaps 

through the FEMA field and regional offices—to find out what is working and then 

use Federal resources (do not put the burden on the local level to find the resources 

to share technologies) to take best practices, effective technologies and tools, Nation-
37 

ally, so each jurisdiction doesn’t have to go through similar trial-and-error experiences and reinvent the wheel to get to the same solution. DHS should develop a 

methodology for using successful technologies and tools that are working regionally 

and/or locally, as a template from which others can build. It is important to note 

that the template is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather a foundation upon 

which jurisdictions can build and customize to their needs and resources. 

CASE STUDY—ARLINGTON OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

In various capacities over the past 3 years, I have had the privilege to work with 

the Arlington County Office of Emergency Management, led by Jack Brown and 

Charlotte Franklin. Arlington has focused on the role of the private sector in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery—but not in the traditional sense. The 

county has not recycled the over-used and now somewhat meaningless term, ‘‘public/ 

private partnership.’’ The county has turned that phrase on its head by asking the 

private sector what it needs from the public sector to do its job. If we look at our 

understanding of the role of the private sector since 9/11, we can divide it into three 

phases: 

• Phase I.—Immediately following 9/11, we were concerned if there were enough 

resources to help respond and recover. 

• Phase II.—During Katrina, we learned that inventory was not the issue and the 

primary concern, which was quickly assuaged, was whether the private sector 

would be willing to donate the inventory. The primary challenge then became 

how do we, logistically and legally, get the resources to where they are needed— 

and, what is the Government’s role in facilitating the movement of goods it does 

not own. 

• Phase III.—We now understand the public/private partnership issue to be supply chain management-based. We know there is enough inventory, and we know 

the private sector is philanthropic and benevolent and will donate whatever is 

needed in a crisis. But, what we haven’t figured out is how to ensure supply 

chain management can operate as effectively and efficiently in a crisis state as 

it does in an emergency state. 

Arlington County has taken on this issue in a multi-phase project, which began 

in January 2011. After convening a Forum with representatives, Nationally and locally, from the private, public, and non-profit sectors, Arlington, through a DHS 

grant and support from the Northern Virginia Emergency Response System 

(NVERS), developed a web-based portal that enables citizens to identify where they 

can donate goods and where they can receive assistance. I am happy to go in to 

greater detail about the portal, but the key lesson here is what has happened since 

the portal was developed. Arlington has learned that through other grants, Washington, DC and Fairfax County have each developed a related technology. It has also 

learned that Florida and Louisiana have developed a similar web-based system. 

What is remarkable is that it appears that all of these were developed with Government funding, and with limited, if any knowledge, of the others. What is also important to note is that one of the jurisdictions that has developed this technology offered to sell the platform to another jurisdiction 400 miles away for $50,000. The 

inefficiency of this system is obvious. Arlington works under the premise that anything that it has developed or discovered through Federal monies should be shared 

without cost and is trying to put the portal on a platform that could be shared, Nationally. 

This case study highlights the fact that DHS/FEMA/S&T need to understand how 

its monies are being spent and how to take the successes of those grants to other 

parts of the country. 

Through my experience at the Federal, State, and local level, the other key issues 

in this context that are worth noting are: 

• When S&T develops technologies, it needs to ensure that it has the input of 

those who will be using them. Similarly, first responders need to have a formal 

voice, a liaison, or advocate to DHS and FEMA. 

• Over the past few years, first responders have become more empowered to develop strategic initiatives for themselves—and they recognize the need for and 

importance of key issues, such as interoperability of equipment and collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries. First responders know better than anyone 

that crises do not stop at borders—and they are working hard to integrate capabilities across jurisdictional lines. 

As we examine ways to improve current capabilities, we need to focus on: 

• Increasing the outreach between first responders and S&T—increasing the connection, communication between those who are developing technologies and 

those who will be using them. Additionally, this process should not always move 
38 

in one direction—there are cases where new technologies are developed in response to needs, as well as scientific discovery; and, there are cases where needs 

directly inform what technology should be built. • We must inventory the existing organizations and outreach mechanisms that 

exist between S&T, FEMA, DHS, and first responders and identify the most effective and efficient ways to utilize them. As we explore ways to improve current processes, we understand it is not always about creating new and novel, 

but often it is about enriching and supplementing what exists and making it 

more accessible. 

CONCLUSION

As a country, we rely on our first responders every day for disruptions, crises, and 

disasters of all kinds. One of the key intentions of the creation of the Science and 

Technology Directorate within the Department of Homeland Security was to enable 

the Nation’s top scientific minds to develop cutting-edge technologies and tools to 

help our first responders do their jobs. A key factor to the success of this idea is 

the frequent communication and strong relationship between those who are developing the tools and those who are using them. We can get caught up in jargon and 

technical terms, but, at the end of the day, we need to ask what is needed, how 

will it be used, and who can develop it. All of the necessary pieces exist—it is now 

our responsibility to figure out how to complete the puzzle. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to answering any questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Ms. Coon. I want to thank the panel 

for your excellent testimony—very informative. Now, I would like 

to recognize myself for questions. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I want to begin with Dr. Griffin. Dr. Griffin, since December 

2010, when your First Responder Group was established, you have 

developed the Solution Development Process. This process is designed to pull first responders from around the Nation into S&T’s 

methodology for developing resource priorities. Can you tell me 

how this works exactly? How do you choose the first responders to 

participate? Is it done by survey or do you get together in a physical location once or more a year? Then I have a follow-up. Please, 

sir. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we thought through 

our requirements gathering process, one of the things I have tried 

to do is build off the existing IPT process that was in place, but 

I wanted to work to better identify operational gaps and find a way 

to clearly prioritize programmatic areas. So one of the first things 

I did was I partnered with FEMA and we developed Project Responder as a mechanism to both identify operational gaps from 

first responders across the country and then to use that as a mechanism to prioritize areas that we were going to put funding in, recognizing that I don’t have enough money to fund all of the needs 

of the first responder community. So it also provides us a structure 

that we could use to create priorities. 

What I also then did is I brought in other workgroups, like the 

IAB, InterAgency Board, spoke with professional associations, 

looked at what was going on in regional workgroups in order to 

cross-validate our priorities and needs. As we look at our first responder outreach effort, I try to do a couple of things. I try to make 

sure that we are balancing our groups with not only folks from 

high-risk urban areas, but also suburban and rural areas. I try to 

make sure that we are balancing our first responder outreach to include all of the demographics of the country, thinking about communities that are both affluent and less affluent. I am also trying 

to balance our groups so that we have a fair cross-section of all of 
39 

the functions, so that we have law enforcement and emergency 

medical services and fire and emergency management, and other 

first responder entities equally balanced to make sure that we are 

thinking cross-functionally as we develop our set of requirements. 

What we have been doing is that we have been bringing the committees together once a year and then using video conference and 

teleconferences in order to then build sets of requirements off of 

our prioritized lists. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. For the first responders on the panel, 

how many of you have been asked to participate in S&T? Then how 

many have you? Anyone here been asked to participate in S&T? 

Chief KILDUFF. Yes, sir. We have participated with S&T on a 

number of different projects. In fact, Dr. Griffin was up with us 2 

weeks ago, as we ran an exercise with a class of West Point cadets, 

looking to build out a network of communication and information 

sharing that they could use in their exercise. Then Dr. Griffin basically takes that back to his groups and sees if he can develop that 

network communication program, something that is very important 

to us. So we want to stay—keep close ties with Dr. Griffin and the 

Directorate. 

We also have a member that is dedicated to a couple of Dr. Griffin’s project staffs that, although he was not there full-time, he has 

a full-time participant is a few committees, mostly to do with detection equipment and hazmat management. We have found the Directorate to be very responsive to what our needs are and has always basically led whatever we need—has always led the committees in that direction, obviously for the benefit of the entire first 

responder community, but has always been very responsive to us 

and our needs. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Anyone else on the panel who has participated? 

Okay. Question for Ms. Doying. Capitol Hill and the State of 

Florida are two places where the memory of the anthrax—I know 

you address this a little bit in your testimony, but the memory is 

so very strong of the anthrax attacks of 2001. Those attacks drove 

most of the work in biodefense this Nation has undertaken in the 

last decade, including development of improved protective and detective equipment for first responders. 

You said in a course, that you taught this course for 6 years, you 

used to ask your first responders how they feel about going into an 

anthrax-laden building to provide response. What was their response then? Then how would you think they would feel now? Is 

the equipment needed to do that work both available and affordable to you? Very important. 

Ms. DOYING. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You are recognized. 

Ms. DOYING. Yes. At the time, as I would teach that class and 

I would relate that story, all of the fire fighters and law enforcement officers and EMTs in the room, they would laugh, because the 

low-bid approach in local government to purchasing technology is 

a long-standing custom. As we have moved forward over the last 

10 years, what I do know is that those first responders from my 

community and the communities that surround me that have participated in the consortium training using the right tools, learning 
40 

the methodologies for approaching a chemical or biological incident, 

they have gained a lot of confidence in the Nation’s ability to respond to those events. 

I also know that within fire service, the advancements with 

SCBA, for example, to be more protective for a chemical or biological incident and other safety features that have moved forward into 

the PPE realm, have also increased the confidence of the local first 

responder. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay, so is the equipment available. Second, is it 

affordable in your opinion? 

Ms. DOYING. It is available. Affordable in a highly-focused way. 

Not available to the n’th degree. You know, you have to concentrate 

who you are going to suitably protect and, therefore, who you are 

going to not only gear up physically, but gear up mentally to be the 

first line of defense for a specific type of incident. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Now I recognize Ms. Richardson for 5 minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, would you tell us if you agree or disagree with the assessments that Ms. Coon made? 

Chief KILDUFF. I think that Ms. Coon made some very valuable 

assessments when it comes to how a local picture can be translated 

to a more National picture. I think that a lot needs to be done by 

connecting communities, by connecting people that have the ability 

to sponsor equipment, test equipment, and then train and equip 

members that are out in the first responder community. It is a 

step-by-step process that is underway but has quite a few gaps 

when it comes to coordination when it comes to coordination and 

also when it comes to funding. 

So I think what Arlington does is admirable and they are leaders 

in a lot of these first responder communities. They do have a very 

heads-up—it is an integral group that is very attuned to National 

security, homeland security, first responder preparedness, and they 

are a good demonstration for that. But it all has to be applied at 

a National level and that is really I think where this should be 

headed. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Dr. Griffin, are you aware of the concerns that 

both the Chief and now Ms. Coon have expressed? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am, Ma’am. It is one of the areas that we are 

looking to address because I think it is a great opportunity for us. 

One of the values that I believe my group can bring is by connecting first responders around the country. I understand that 

there are limitations and a direct correlation between what works 

in Arlington County versus what may work in Seattle, but at the 

same time, there is great work being done at the local government 

that we can link together. 

So as we think about some of our tools—like firstresponder.gov 

or our first response community of practice, which actually allows 

first responders to get on our sites and safely chat with each other 

about what is working and not working—are tools that we look at 

as, in part, trying to begin the process of addressing the concerns 

that were raised in testimony. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Excuse me. Ms. Coon, could you share with Dr. 

Griffin why those systems do or do not work? 
41 

Ms. COON. The system to translate what is working at the local 

level, Nationally? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Right, and communicating that. He just referenced firstresponder.gov and some other things. 

Ms. COON. So I think it is taking—what you want us to encourage the local levels to be innovative and to take on the money to 

do something that is sort of pushing, as Ms. Doying talked about, 

the cutting-edge technologies. I am not—I don’t know that they are 

not working. 

What I do know is that, in the experiences that I have had, taking something efficiently that is working at the local level and trying to work through the Federal Government to get it out there, 

is a little bit of a cumbersome process. But I do want to say that 

I am not—I don’t know that those particular mechanisms are not 

working. They just have not been accessible to the projects that I 

have been working with. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. So Dr. Griffin, are you hearing their concern? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, I am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Can you get back to the committee on what 

you can do to address the concerns that have been addressed by 

the folks here who have testified? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Absolutely. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. My first question has to do with—Dr. Griffin, 

being here on the committee now myself for a couple of years, quite 

a lot of money has been expended for these various programs. 

What are you going to do to make sure that the first responders 

are spending their limited funds on equipment that is actually necessary and that works? I think it builds upon my initial first questions that I just asked. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Part of the challenge, as I tried to address, is that 

there is not a single set of requirements that are going to meet the 

needs of 80,000 first responders. So as we develop technologies, we 

recognize that we have to continue to work with first responders 

through our entire process, so that we work through what we call 

a spiral development process. As we develop technologies, they are 

an integral part of redefining and continuing to define equipment 

that we are trying to bring to market. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Dr. Griffin, if you don’t know, we certainly 

can’t expect them to know. I served in local government and I am 

familiar with—for example, the Chief, is from a very large city— 

like, for example, Los Angeles or Long Beach. The city of Long 

Beach—I was on the City Council—it is one of the top—I think it 

is the 33rd city in the State of California. So there are larger cities. 

There are medium-size cities. Then there are smaller cities. 

So what is precluding the Department from coming up—obviously, every Department is different. However, we don’t have time 

to have every single city create their own process. So what is precluding your Department from creating a basic model for larger cities, medium-size cities, smaller rural cities of at least some basic 

frameworks of what has been done—what is available, how they 

can utilize it, and then providing a mechanism for those that are 

being innovative and creating new things to be able to piece that 
42 

in, so that we can save time and money of what the other folks are 

doing? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. To answer that question maybe better than I started to. We are working with—we do work with FEMA on those very 

processes. We also spend a lot of time developing toolboxes, which 

will allow local jurisdictions to take the knowledge that we have 

gained and adapt it for their personal uses, tailored to their organizations just for those reasons. 

The other part of one of the drives that I have had is also to better define where we are putting our money, so that people understand what projects we are working on, so they can begin to think 

about how it could be adapted for their use. We do take best practices and we do push them out to the first responders so they can 

see what other first responders do. Because what we find is that 

first responders who talk to first responders are learning an awful 

lot. 

So it gets back to the conversation that we had a little bit before. 

But building toolboxes and basically, excuse the analogy, but teaching first responders how to fish, rather than giving them the fish 

is part of our responsibilities and it is something that we do do. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one last question? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, but one more question. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Griffin, do you feel it is appropriate that if an agency is using 

Federal dollars to create a system, is it appropriate for them to be 

charging other jurisdictions to utilize that same system if it was 

Federal dollars that was spent? If you don’t think it is appropriate, 

do you have any rules or process in place to prohibit that from occurring? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Ma’am, I am not sure about any rules. I will gladly, 

for the record, return a more cogent answer to you. 

I can tell you from my own first experience in the first responder 

community is that anything that we developed, particularly money 

that was—well, it was anything that we developed in either 

Loudoun County or as Chief or in Arlington County, we gladly gave 

for free to other communities. So there is an awful lot of sharing 

that does go on from community to community. I will find a more 

cogent answer to your initial questions about policies on charging. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. It is not just restricting to Arlington, but 

it is other agencies that may be seeking to charge Arlington and/ 

or other jurisdictions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Griffin, many of us believe that S&T should have a formal 

strategy, clear guidelines, and requirements for first responders 

funded research. In your testimony, you talked about the first responder Integrated Product Team, IPT. You mentioned the solution 

development process as part of the IPT, but it appears to be an informal mechanism to hand out millions of dollars in research. 

What specific steps are you taking to make the Integrated Product Team more analytically rigorous? Please give us more detail 
43 

about the solution development process. Who serves on it? Who 

does it answer to? What role does it play in your overall strategy? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you for the question, ma’am. It is a very 

complex question. Again, I will be glad to submit, for the record, 

a more formal answer. If I could just real quickly try to hit on it. 

The process that I laid out in my written testimony is actually a 

very formal process that I have instituted within our group. So as 

we have defined the strategic programmatic areas that we are 

working on, what we do is that we use the IPT process and outreach to first responders is to begin to gather requirements that we 

build projects off of. Those projects then are worked through the 

formal process within Science and Technology that Under Secretary O’Toole briefed you on. 

So what I have done is that I have integrated our IPT process 

with what is happening in S&T. So we work through the same 

portfolio review process. In fact, each month I take a quarter of our 

portfolio and work a smaller portfolio review process to make sure 

that we are meeting the goals and metrics that we have defined for 

those projects. So it is very formal as far as working into the new 

systems that have been incorporated into Science and Technology. 

In addition, what we have done is that we have tried to define 

areas—those programmatic areas that we are going to fund, recognizing that there are lots of capability gaps that were identified in 

Project Responder. There were 40. We are putting money towards 

five. Of those five, we are hitting only partial, you know, partial 

solutions to those questions. 

But what I can show you, though, is a much more programmatic 

structured approach to how we are spending our money and how 

we are leveraging a lot of other folks’ money. So it is a much more 

structured process than it was. It is a much more strategic process 

with the idea of both identifying where short money can go, but 

also areas that we just are not able to hit because of budgetary 

constraints. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Well, thank you. Clearly, that is a real 

challenge when you are really—you are dealing with such a fluid 

dynamic in the varying jurisdictions around the Nation and terrain. You know, we talked about the forest fire incidents and the 

types of new technologies that would be applicable there may not 

necessarily be applicable in a municipality or a city. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am. If I could just hit that point 1 second. 

If you look at the gear on the table, what for a long time we were 

doing is we were putting our wildland fire fighters instructional 

gear—like you see my old jacket there—what we have done is 

working with the Department of Defense and Agriculture and U.S. 

Fire Service and Kell Fire, is that we have developed a new set of 

gear based on requirements gathered from the wildland fire fighters, just because it represents such a change in the need of gear. 

Okay. That is just a prime example of how we are trying to provide 

goods to the first responder community. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. There is much more of a rigorous application than I guess we read into in terms of the testimony. I look 

forward to you just forwarding to us something more, I guess, more 

substantive that pulls it all together for us. 
44 

Then my final question is to you, Chief. I want to thank you, 

once again, for taking the time away from what I know are massive 

duties back in the city. 

In your testimony, you talked about your tiered response system. 

Is that different from the Incident Command System? 

Chief KILDUFF. Well, Incident Command System would provide 

oversight to—and structure to an incident. Our tiered response is 

taking certain equipment and certain training abilities, putting 

them in different units, and then having a layer of these different 

units respond to an incident. 

So we would have our hazmat unit. If we had a hazardous materials incident, we would have our hazmat unit respond with over 

600 hours of training and we would couple them with more local 

units that would have a reduced number of training but still capabilities to complement the hazmat unit. Then we would train them 

down. We would have other units respond that might be entry 

units. Below that, we would have units come that might be decontamination units, and units that would then decon any victims or 

any patients of some sort, hand them off to an advanced layer of 

EMS personnel that have special training. 

So what we have done is we have layered the capabilities of our 

units. These units respond every day as fire fighting and emergency response units. Same thing with EMS, though we have given 

them additional capabilities so we can layer whatever response is 

necessary for a particular incident. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I know that I have 

gone over time. I just have one more question. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We are going to have a second round, but you can 

have another question. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

I just wanted to find out whether, Chief, you had any ideas that 

are coming from the men and women from a ground-up perspective. How do you take these new ideas and evaluate them to see 

if they in fact are valuable? Then second, does the department have 

any formal way or protocol for you to send ideas that you have vetted by the department to be evaluated by your policymakers, laboratories, and advisory panels? 

Chief KILDUFF. If we receive something from the field units that 

is of particular interest to us, we generally will direct it to your research and development folks who have the ability to reach out to 

many different testing and validation throughout the country. We 

do rely heavily on the National Fire Protection Association and the 

standards that they have set for a lot of our equipment. That 

equipment has also been tested by other folks to validate the usefulness of the equipment. 

So there are actually quite a few layers that we can go through. 

You know, S&T is one group that represents a National level, so 

to speak, but there are other private interest groups, private testing companies that we will all channel through our research and 

development folks. We are fortunate that we do have a robust research and development. That is really why we are here is because 

not everybody has that capability, but that is how we would work 

that. 
45 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. I will recognize myself for 

this second round for 5 minutes. 

First question is for Ms. Saunders. I was pleased to read in your 

testimony your reference to the NIST, National Telecommunications and Information Administration laboratory at the Department of Commerce in Boulder, Colorado at the campus. My staff 

has visited this site and was very impressed with both the work 

being carried out and the expertise and dedication of the staff 

working there. 

With regards to the 700 MHz Public Safety Broadband Network 

that is being constructed in the coming years, in your opinion, are 

NIST and NTIA being given all the resources that they need in 

order to develop the necessary standards and to plug the gaps, as 

you call them, so that the network will be a success? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned the recent passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

of 2012, Public Law 112–96, and its allocation of $7 billion in funding and new broadband spectrum. So our colleagues in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration are actively pursuing essentially a loan or an advance on that funding, 

so that in partnership with NIST, we can go ahead and take the 

next steps in terms of both the test bed and the standards participation. 

We are in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding between NTIA and NIST, laying out respective roles and 

responsibilities very clearly in this particular space. I will say that 

our technical staff at NIST have gone ahead and aggressively identified the relevant centers’ organizations and a major center’s organization is at the international level. So these are international 

standards and have already established NIST institutional membership in those organizations and we are gearing up to—we have 

already begun participating. So we are well on our way to taking 

the next step with the test bed. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Our next question is for Mr. Griffin. The Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee has been closely following the development of 

the Commercial Mobile Alert System, CMAS. In your testimony, 

you noted that S&T is working on a number of activities to improve 

the system capabilities. Would you please elaborate on this and 

how are you working with, of course, FEMA, the FCC, wireless carriers, and alert originators to get these enhanced capabilities into 

the field? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Certainly, sir. The Science and Technology and the 

First Responder Group is actually responsible for the RDT&E, the 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for Commercial Mobile Alert Services, CMAS, and the Integrated Public Alert Warning System, IPAWS. We work in close partnership with both the 

FCC and FEMA and the private industry, because the carriers are 

incredibly important in the whole alerting and warning systems. 

I would highlight the work we did in December 2011 in New 

York City. We are working with the Department of Emergency 

Management in New York, FEMA, and their Central Aggregation 

Systems, and the commercial carriers. We were able to send the 

first end-to-end text message for alerts and warnings. We are tak-
46 

ing the information that we learned from that test and we are developing both lessons learned and identifying additional work that 

needs to go on within the sphere of CMAS and IPAWS. 

What is coming next for us is that we are looking at funding. We 

are currently funding research on public response. We are looking 

at targeting of alerts to specific geographical areas. We are planning four regional tests and a National test on public alerts and 

systems. We are developing best practices, lessons learned, and 

case studies for alert originators that will help both local emergency managers as well as industry leaders work together as far 

as developing a National alert system. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Chief, you want to comment on the testing that took place in New York with regard to 

CMAS? 

Chief KILDUFF. Actually, that was actually run through OEM, 

but I am not personally that familiar with it. I know that we participated. We have some very talented people that have been working on it, but I personally am not that familiar with it. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. No problem. Well, thank you very much. 

Appreciate it. Now I yield 5 minutes to the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Griffin, coming back to follow up on some earlier questions. 

You mentioned that S&T works with FEMA to provide information 

to first responders. Other than your firstresponders.gov and so on, 

what other mechanisms are you doing to coordinate with FEMA to 

ensure that first responders know what equipment is available, 

what they might possibly need, and how they might go about interacting? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Sure. We work closely with FEMA in a number of 

different ways. So FEMA has responsibility for coordination of operations and does a lot of outreach with local first responders, 

State and local first responders, and is responsible for grant funding. We are responsible for the research, development, test, and 

evaluation developments and standards and requirements-gathering process. We do these in conjunction with our FEMA partners. 

So when we set out initially to begin to figure a way to create 

a formalized process for gathering requirements through Project 

Responder, we did that in conjunction and in partnership with 

FEMA. We also work with FEMA in areas like the alerts and 

warnings standards I just spoke to, as well as other standards, 

communications interoperability standards—the 2P25 standards— 

which we develop in conjunction with people like NIST and others. 

Then we work with the FEMA grants folks to make sure that interoperability language is worked into the grant process. 

As we look at areas like data sharing and how we can move data 

from like New York City to the State of New York to the Federal 

agencies and then back down again. So I think it is critical that 

we figure out ways to move data from both the Federal agencies 

back down to local governments. We work closely with FEMA to 

make sure that we are integrating all of our systems with the systems that they use. So we work closely with them in most aspects 

of everything that we do. 
47 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Ms. Saunders, the budget for S&T was 

significantly reduced from 2011 to 2012. As a result, the funding 

to NIST dropped from $18.6 million to $17.6 million. Were there 

projects that were discontinued or delayed due to the result? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes, ma’am. There were. There are various 

projects impacting first responders at the Federal, State, and local 

levels have either been scaled back or are no longer funded due to 

the changes in the funding that you mentioned. 

I will give you two examples. One is our projects associated with 

personal protective equipment, specifically for the Fire Service. 

Many of these efforts prior to this year focused on standards development through the National Fire Protection Association and successful development with respect to thermal exposure measurements for first responders in the areas of PASS devices, radios, and 

self-contained breathing apparatus. 

The standards for respirator masks—we have not yet been able 

to get to the thermal metrics to those and currently there are no 

high-temperature performance metrics that exist to test respirator 

masks under high heat conditions. Those efforts were not funded 

this year. S&T’s First Responder Group and Human Factor’s Division was unable to fund the last phase of an effort to develop a 

standard design guidance for the patient compartment for an ambulance that takes human factors and safety into consideration. 

The EMS community had identified this as a No. 1 requirement. 

We were able to stretch fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure that 

we will be able to provide design guidance to NFPA next spring to 

incorporate into the standard. It won’t be quite as comprehensive 

as originally planned, but we are able to continue that. I would be 

happy to provide and follow up with a specific list of the projects 

that were either terminated or reduced in funding. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Could you provide that to the committee, 

please, as soon as possible? Thank you. 

Last two questions. Chief Coons, with respect to R&D, do you 

think that the Department adequately responds to the needs of 

first responders? 

Ms. COON. Did you mean Chief Kilduff? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. I am sorry. 

Chief KILDUFF. Well, we are talking about the FDNY R&D? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

Chief KILDUFF. Yes. From our point of view, we think that we 

cycle new equipment—a lot of PP through there. Everything that 

we—a lot of communications equipment we cycle through R&D. We 

pilot everything that we do. We don’t just randomly throw it out 

because somebody put a stamp of certification on it or some agency 

or some bureau or whatever says this is the hottest, newest, best 

product there is. 

Everything we do, we test it thoroughly. Then we select companies and we pilot the equipment for an extensive period of time. We 

also collect an extensive amount of data and evaluations on that 

equipment. So we find, from within, out R&D is a very effective 

unit. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. But do you feel that the Department’s R&D is 

appropriately supportive? 

Chief KILDUFF. Yes. Yes. 
48 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. Okay. If I might, and I am sorry, Mr. 

Chairman, for asking this twice. But I have noticed Ms. Doying has 

not had an opportunity to comment as much. I just think it is appropriate if we could give her an opportunity if there is anything 

else. I didn’t have a specific question, but if there was something 

else you wanted to—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, I was going to ask them all, in truth. Yes. 

Absolutely. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. But she can take the opportunity now if she wishes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Sure. Ms. Doying, was there anything else that 

you wanted to convey based upon all of the other testimony that 

is going on that maybe we haven’t asked you that you feel would 

be appropriate to share? 

Ms. DOYING. Well, I find it interesting that there is what, to my 

perception, is a common thread. This is that there is a lot of good 

work being done and it may just be a matter of smaller communities, which I represent, not having strong visibility of what is out 

there and available to them. It may sound a bit strange for me to 

say, but it is almost as though a strong public relations campaign 

about the good stuff that is out there is needed. I know that this 

is true for, for example, the IPAWS and the CMAS projects. 

You know, if the public doesn’t know the good work that is being 

done by local, State, regional, and Federal authorities, well then 

certainly the guys that are really busy trying to do their job—local 

government’s been under a huge constraint financially, so we have 

scaled back and scaled back. So for local leadership to have the energy to study the big things that are going on around them and 

grab hold of those big things and make use of them locally, it is 

difficult. It is a huge challenge. 

So it may sound a bit funny to say—you know, we go home and 

we watch TV in the recliner and we are told a lot of stuff and we 

missed the most important stuff while we were at work, because 

for some reason, it just wasn’t shared cross-jurisdictionally. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Yes. Again, anyone else 

want to add something with regard—any concerns that you might 

have, any suggestions that you have? 

Of course, Dr. Griffin, if you want to elaborate further on the 

equipment here. Is this equipment ready for prime time? Is it in 

development? Anyone else want to add whether this particular 

equipment here in front of us will be helpful, affordable, what have 

you, accessible? But, Dr. Griffin, do you want to elaborate further, 

first? Then I want to give everyone an opportunity to speak, because we do have some time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, please. Part 

of the paradox of our world is that if we do our job well, and this 

is particularly for Science and Technology and NIST and the first 

responder community, is that people don’t know. So when they pick 

up or purchase a radio from Motorola or Talis or Harris that provides an increased level of interoperability, what gets lost is the 

amount of work that goes into the standards and the development 

of that technology. 
49 

So part of it is marketing. Part of it is realizing that one of 

metrics of success is knowing that our standards are making a difference in the field. We try to listen to the first responders’ needs 

and transition equipment quickly. 

I am going to highlight really quickly the story of the backboard 

cover in front of you, sir. We received an inquiry through 

firstresponder.gov from some EMS providers in Florida, who were 

concerned about the cleanliness of backboards. They said are there 

ways that we could do something about that? What we are able to 

do is, was work with a small business and first responders developed requirements and within 9 months had a concept to commercially available backboard cover that slips right over the board and 

provides protection for not only the patients, but also our first responders. 

That is really how we are trying to think about the quick transition of equipment to the first responder community. That is disposable. It sells for $15. So it is affordable. 

Some of our other technologies—the fire fighter gear is in pilot. 

We are looking at different fibers. We are looking at different 

weaves. We are looking to try to hit a different set of requirements 

for the wildfire gear. That is why we have a thousand sets of gear 

that we are going to be looking at this summer to see which is the 

best fit for our wildland fire fighters. 

Then if you start to look at the self-contained breathing apparatus here, you can see that the older sort of steel cylinder and 

what we have done with a Kevlar wrap. That is work that we are 

still working with the commercial sector, with the idea that frankly 

we don’t purchase equipment for the first responders. We develop 

technology and then we have to make sure we have a strong working relationship with the commercial sector in order for them to 

have a place to buy it. 

So these are all examples about how we are trying to bring both 

process and good to the first responder community. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Saunders, would you like to add something? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Just briefly, to build on what both Chief Kilduff 

and Dr. Griffin mentioned. I agree strongly, if NIST is successful 

at what we do in terms of our measurement science contributions, 

that role will not be visible, but what you will see, or what the first 

responders will see, are standards for apparatus and equipment 

and systems that have a strong technical underpinning and can be 

tested with respect to how they perform. That is an important 

point that Chief Kilduff made. 

A standard is only useful if it is implemented. For, in this space 

in particular, that necessitates testing or, in some cases, certification of the equipment. That testing needs to be done by competent authorities, competent independent test labs or certification 

authorities. Then that information needs to be made available and 

characterized in practical terms so that first responders can actually make informed decisions about the types of equipment or the 

quality of equipment that they purchase. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Chief, would you like to add anything? 

Chief KILDUFF. Yes, sir. Thank you. Just as a point of information, we are developing a program right now that we will be working with NIST this summer out in Governor’s Island in the harbor 
50 

of New York. We are going to burn up a few buildings up there. 

Together with NIST testing ability, we are going to test fire dynamics. We are going to test ventilation principle, et cetera. 

So there is collaboration that goes on to set standards that will 

be presented to a National audience. It takes a little time, but it 

will be presented to a National audience. It is good work that goes 

on. 

I think what you have heard also today is important for the committee to take into consideration—that first responders, particularly the fire fighting and EMS communities are the folks that put 

their hands on the people when something happens. We are the 

ones that go to get the people when they are in danger or when 

they have been affected by an incident or an event or whatever it 

is—whether it is Joplin, or whether it is a hurricane, whatever the 

situation is, or that biochem release. This equipment here is going 

to enable us to go into that environment and get people out of the 

environment. 

We have spent an awful lot of time over the years, particularly 

since September 11, trying to secure the country, all for good reasons and extremely important. But now I think the first responder 

community I think is demonstrating every year, as we move away 

from September 11, away from that security mindset to some degree, that it is important to fund the folks that are helping people 

day-in day-out in those all-hazards event and everything else, not 

just terrorist-type of events. 

So that is where I would like to leave the focus of this. That is 

where our focus is. We want to collaborate with everybody here. We 

also sent dispatchers down to Arlington about a month ago to look 

at their OEM center there because we are investing hundreds of 

millions of dollars in a call center up in New York. We wanted to 

go down, because we knew they had some best practices down 

there. It is all collaboration, but it is all to create a network of information and intelligence, when necessary, to make people safer 

when they do enter those environments to, again, get the people 

out or assist the people, whatever needs to be done. 

So I just wanted to leave with that point of view. We are willing 

to collaborate with anybody and we fully expect that this is now 

going to shift to a regional, if not a National, perspective when it 

comes to this first responder capabilities. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Ms. Doying, the RNC, of course, the 

convention will be held in Tampa in August. Has the local Tampa 

Police Department reached out to Pasco County, the neighboring 

county north of Hillsboro County with regard to—if you would like 

to speak. Has there been cooperation, because obviously they are 

in need of your services? If you want to speak to that or anything 

else, you are welcome to. 

Ms. DOYING. Sure. Yes, the approach from the first response 

community towards the incoming folk for the Republican National 

Convention has been a collaborative region-wide approach. Actually, our State-wide partners are assisting with that. It is very, 

very collaborative. A lot of good equipment going on the street, people being outfitted and trained in the use of the best technology 

that will ensure protection of people that are arriving in the greater Tampa Bay area. 
51 

You know, I found that as the Chief talked, it really resonated 

with me that we are in a better place in the year of 2012. I have 

served for 20 years in emergency management in the State of Florida. What I have observed just in the last decade is a really strong 

movement towards standardized approaches to managing incidents. 

I have seen a very strong effort coming out of the Department 

of Homeland Security to ensure that the first response community 

is well supported and it is recognized that it is the first response 

community that serve the local citizen that is in danger and in 

need. I applaud and appreciate the efforts of the Department of 

Homeland Security. Coming from a small local community, we feel 

the effects. We definitely feel the effects of Science and Technology 

and of NIST. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Coon, would you like 

to add anything? 

Ms. COON. Just one point to support what Ms. Doying said, actually earlier. When we look at crisis management, just as we don’t 

expect people to act in a crisis beyond the aptitudes that they are 

already performing well, in day-to-day, we don’t—we shouldn’t expect that. We just want to be able to support people to do what 

they do well. 

I think, in this case, S&T does well with what they are doing in 

technologies. The key here is that I believe, to Ms. Doying’s point 

about the PR campaign, FEMA plays a critical role in this—that 

FEMA can be that facilitator among circulating technologies—what 

is working—what is not working. They have field and regional offices that are working on these issues all the time. 

That to me might be a—if we look at what can be done more effectively or more efficiently, it is creating that role. Whether it is 

the PR campaign, which I think is a great way to categorize it, or 

something to be able to communicate and create that liaison role 

between what is happening in Science and Technology, the first responders. FEMA really is a very strong element and that infrastructure is already in place and we need to utilize that more effectively. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. It was a great testimony—very informative—very valuable. 

I think it has been a very productive hearing. 

I also want to note that Chairman Lungren has been detained 

in the Judiciary Committee. I know he shares our interest in this 

topic. His questions will be entered in the record, so if you could 

respond to those questions. 

I thank all the witnesses, of course, for their valuable testimony, 

and the Members for their questions. The Members of the subcommittees should be reminded that additional questions—they 

probably will ask you additional questions in writing and we ask 

that you respond in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 

days. 

Without objection, the subcommittees stand adjourned. Thank 

you very much, again. 

[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(53) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN GUS BILIRAKIS FOR ROBERT GRIFFIN

Question 1. For some time, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate had 

grappled with how to best interact with the Nation’s many and diverse State and 

local first responders to ensure that their technology needs were being met. S&T 

has clearly amended its process in the past few years in a way that seems to have 

alleviated some of those partnership issues and fostered much more inclusiveness. 

Do you believe that S&T is in the most optimal place now when it comes to engaging first responders and ensuring that their requirements are heard? Or is there 

any room for improvement? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. Please provide additional information about the process the Science 

and Technology Directorate uses to identify capability requirements from the first 

responder community and prioritize those requirements into research projects. 

Specifically, how are requirements validated and prioritized for funding by the Directorate? What specific criteria are used? Do projects or solutions that have broad 

applicability to different types of First Responder communities have a higher priority? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. How is the First Responder Integrated Product Team (IPT) integrated into the overall IPT process for the remaining divisions within S&T? Are requirements that are identified within the First Responder IPT cross-walked against 

requirements that may be developed in other IPTs to identify duplications or overlaps that may present opportunities for efficiencies or synergies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. The Interagency Board (IAB), with whom you partner, develops a list 

every year of research and development (R&D) priorities for first responder equipment. The list is based on a survey of first responders in categories such as urgent 

need, mission performance, and life safety. 

How do S&T’s R&D priorities and investments reflect this annual list produced 

by the IAB? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. You have indicated that you work closely with the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) on standards development for the technologies 

in your portfolio. 

How many of your projects are coordinated with NIST and with standards-developing bodies? All of them? I am wondering whether any Federally-funded technology 

does or should have standards developed concurrently with the technology itself. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5. What are the options for first responders when it comes to assessing 

whether a piece of equipment is a good purchase? I know S&T has the SAVER program, and FEMA has the Authorized Equipment List. Can you please provide the 

committee with a list of all of the different programs like this that are available 

to evaluate first responder technologies, describe how they are different, and tell us 

where the gaps still are? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DANIEL LUNGREN FOR ROBERT GRIFFIN

Question 1. I was interested to hear you mention in your testimony that at least 

one of the projects you have worked on is covered by the SAFETY Act. As you know, 

I am a big believer in the value that the SAFETY Act law has brought to homeland 

security through liability limitations. 

Can you please describe how much and in what ways you coordinate with the 

SAFETY Act Office at S&T to try to push more first responder technologies through 
54 

their process toward designation or certification, which could increase their usage 

in the field? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. While DHS makes significant acquisitions of technology for its components, little guidance is provided in the annual budget forecast about capabilities 

that merit development funding, and what future funds might be devoted to commercializing such capabilities. This makes it challenging for policymakers, State and 

local governments, the private sector, and research and development organizations 

to prepare for future needs and impacts of DHS investment decisions. Congress has 

asked DHS to develop a multi-year budget forecasting process similar to the 5-year 

process undertaken by the Department of Defense. 

Can you tell us how S&T is contributing to multi-year planning efforts, and explain how multi-year planning can help you be a better steward of taxpayer dollars? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ