Order Code RS21270
Updated July 21, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Research and Development: Funding,
Organization, and Oversight
Genevieve J. Knezo
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
After the 2001 terrorist attacks, planning and coordination mechanisms for research
and development (R&D) to counter terrorism were developed in the White House’s
Office of Homeland Security, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and in
individual agencies. Subsequently, P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act
consolidated some R&D and coordination in the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). FY2004 DHS R&D funding was increased above the requested level in House
floor action and in Senate Appropriations Committee action. FY2003 funding was
appropriated in P.L. 107-8. Policy issues include implementation; coordination of
priority-setting among DHS, other agencies, and existing R&D coordination bodies; and
appropriations. This report will be updated.
Funding for Federal Counterterrorism R&D
Federal funding for counterterrorism R&D has increased substantially in the last
three years. The President’s Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) estimated the
FY2004 budget request for all federal R&D to combat terrorism at $3.2 billion,1 about 6
times the FY2000 amount The new Department of Homeland Security will manage about
one-third of this budget. According to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)
Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, FY2002, 5.5% of the FY2003
budget request for combating terrorism was for R&D. See Table 1.
1 See [http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2004/2004.html]. See also CRS Report RL31576, Federal
Research and Development Organization, Policy, and Funding for Counterterrorism; and CRS Report
RL31354, Possible Impacts of Major Counter Terrorism Security Actions on Research, Development, and
Higher Education. For additional information about DHS, see Research and Development in the
Department of Homeland Security, CRS Report RL31914 and Department of Homeland Security: Issues
Concerning the Establishment of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), CRS
Report RS21542.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
Table 1. Research and Development (R&D) to Combat Terrorism, By
Agency, FY2000-FY2003 (Request), Dollars in Millions
Emergency
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
Response Fund,
FY2003
Agency
Actual
Actual
Enacted
FY2002*
Request
Agriculture (USDA)
$37.3
$51.7
$83.9
$91.3
$48.4
Commerce (DOC)
9.6
0
6.3
0
20.0
Energy (DOE)
59.7
66.2
64.9
19.0
99.8
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
unavailable
0
2.8
1.5
75.0
1,771.1 (NIH, $1.75B;
Health and Human
CDC, $40.0M;
Services (DHHS)
109.7
102.8
119.1
180.0 FDA, $50.0M)
Justice (DOJ)
45.2
11.4
66.1
0
36.1
National Science
Foundation unavailable
7.0
7.0
0
27.0
National Security
190.0
298.9
385.5
11.0
767.2
Transportation (DOT)
50.7
50.2
58.3
64.0
59.3
Treasury
2.1
1.2
1.1
0
1.1
Total
$511.3
$589.4
$795.2
$366.8
$2,905.2
Sources: OMB, Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, FY2001, p. 27 for column labeled
FY2000. The rest of the data is from the FY2002 OMB report, op. cit., p. 26.
*Funds were included in the FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriations law, P.L. 107-38
The FY2003 request for R&D to combat terrorism was described in OMB’s FY2002
terrorism report and is summarized below, beginning with the largest programs. The
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), with 60% of the total, manages most
of the federal civilian effort against bioterrorism. The FY2003 request for national
security R&D, at 26% of the total, was largely for the Department of Defense (DOD),
including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The Department
of Energy’s (DOE) counterterrorism R&D includes work on security, materials, detection
of toxic agents, genomic sequencing, DNA-based diagnostics, and microfabrication
technologies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focuses on toxic materials
research. The Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) R&D focuses on plant and animal
diseases. In the Commerce Department, R&D at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) deals with protecting information systems. The Technical Support
Working Group (TSWG), a State Department/DOD group, coordinates interagency work
on new technologies to combat terrorism (funding requested at $49 million).
Creation of a Department of Homeland Security and Other Laws
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296, November 25, 2002, created the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and, as one of its four directorates, a
Directorate on Science and Technology. Pursuant to P.L. 107-296, most of DHS’s
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) is under jurisdiction of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T), created by Title III. Dr. Charles McQueary,
an engineer, recently retired as President of General Dynamics Advanced Technology
Systems, was confirmed on March 19, 2003, to this position. Among his responsibilities
are to: coordinate DHS’s S&T missions; in consultation with other agencies, develop a
strategic plan for federal civilian countermeasures to threats, including research; except
for human health-related R&D, conduct and coordinate DHS’s intramural and extramural
R&D and coordinate with other federal agencies to carry out DHS R&D; establish

---

CRS-3
national R&D priorities to prevent importation of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear and related weapons and terrorist attacks; collaborate with DOE regarding using
national laboratories; collaborate with the Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and
Human Services to identify “select agents,”but not to assume their responsibilities to
enforce “select agent” rules; develop guidelines to disseminate DHS’s research and
transfer technology; and support U.S. S&T leadership. The law authorized a 20-member
Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee to advise and
recommend research. Members are to include representatives of emergency
first-responders, citizen groups, economically disadvantaged communities, and experts
in emergency response, research, engineering, business, and management. To the extent
possible, DHS’s research is to be unclassified.
Title III transferred to DHS DOE programs in chemical and biological security R&D;
nuclear smuggling and proliferation detection; nuclear assessment and materials
protection; biological and environmental research related to microbial pathogens; the
Environmental Measurements Laboratory; and the advanced scientific computing research
program from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. DHS was mandated to
incorporate a newly created National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center and USDA’s
Plum Island Animal Disease Center, but USDA may continue to conduct R&D at the
facility. DHS has responsibility for Coast Guard and Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) R&D. The DHS Secretary is to collaborate with the DHHS
Secretary in setting priorities for DHHS’s human health-related R&D on
“countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear and other emerging
terrorist threats.”
Analysis and evaluation units were authorized in DHS. Pursuant to Title III, the
Under Secretary may establish or contract with one or more Federally Funded R&D
Centers (FFRDC) for independent analysis of homeland security issues. A Homeland
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) will administer an Acceleration
Fund, to support innovative homeland security RDT&E in businesses, FFRDCs, and
universities. Extramural funding is to be competitive and merit-reviewed, but distributed
to as many U.S. areas as practicable. One or more university-based centers for homeland
security is to be established. Regarding intramural R&D, the Under Secretary may use
any federal laboratory and may establish a headquarters laboratory to “network” federal
laboratories. A Homeland Security Institute FFRDC was authorized to: conduct risk
analysis and policy research to determine vulnerabilities of, and alternative security
approaches for, critical infrastructures; improve interoperability of tools for field operators
and first responders; and test prototype technologies. The Institute may use the National
Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), which was transferred from
DOE. A Technology Clearinghouse was authorized to transfer information about
innovative solutions for homeland security and will coordinate with TSWG.
Among the functions of the Special Assistant to the Secretary, created by Sec. 102
of P.L. 107-296 is working with the private sector to develop innovative technologies for
homeland security. The DHS Secretary, with the National Security Council and OSTP,
is to establish uniform procedures to handle critical infrastructure information that is
voluntarily submitted to the Government in good faith that will not be subject to
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. DHS issued a proposed rule on this
(see Federal Register, Apr. 15, 2003, pp. 18524 -18529). P.L. 107-296 codified an
existing Office of Science and Technology in the National Institute of Justice and
authorized local technology centers to support training and RDT&E for equipment (Sec.

---

CRS-4
232 and 235). The DHS Secretary was given special acquisitions authority for basic,
applied, and advanced R&D (Sec. 833). Sec. 1003 authorized NIST to conduct R&D on
improving information security. The DHS Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection was authorized to establish a “NET Guard,’‘ comprised of S&T
volunteers, to assist in recovery from attacks on information systems (Sec. 224). OSTP’s
Director was mandated to report to Congress on effects of changes in visa procedures on
the issuance of student visas (Sec. 428). According to Sec. 1712, OSTP’s Director is to
advise the President on homeland security, and to consult and cooperate with the Office
of Homeland Security (OHS). (See below for information about OHS.)
P.L. 107-305, “The Cyber Security Research and Development Act,” (H.R. 3394),
authorized $903 million over five years for new research and training programs by the
National Science Foundation and NIST to prevent and combat terrorist attacks on private
and government computers. The House Science Committee held a hearing on May 14,
2003 on cybersecurity R&D.
DHS estimated FY2003 R&D funding at $761 million. FY2004 requested funding
totaled $907 million, with $803 million for the S&T directorate. According to the budget
request, 5% of DHS R&D funding would be for basic research, 13% for applied research,
66% for development, and $16% for facilities and equipment. R&D funding for programs
transferred from other agencies was estimated at about $200 million. See Table 2. The
House voted to approve FY 2004 appropriations for DHS R&D at almost $1.1 billion; the
Senate Appropriations committee approved appropriations at about $1 billion. Funding
for the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) funding was
requested at $350 million. This funding would come from other program elements and
was not specified in report language.
Coordination Mechanisms Created Before Authorization of DHS
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is a statutory office in the
Executive Office of the President (EOP); its Director advises the President and
recommends federal R&D budgets. OSTP’s Director has chaired the National Security
Council’s Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction R&D Subgroup
(comprised of 16 agencies), which helps plan R&D relating to chemical, biological,
nuclear, and radiological threats. OSTP provides technical support to the DHS and
manages the interagency National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which
created a new Committee on Homeland and National Security to set help set R&D
priorities in eight functional areas. OSTP’s interagency work has focused on such topics
as anthrax, regulations to restrict access to research using biological “select agents,”
access to “sensitive but unclassified” scientific information, policy for foreign student
visas, access to “sensitive” courses, and advanced technology for border control. Pursuant
to Executive Order 13231, OSTP was to work with the interagency President’s Critical
Infrastructure Board to recommend priorities and budgets for information security R&D.
The OHS had been created in the EOP on October 8, 2001 by Executive Order 13228.
It was replaced by the new Homeland Security Council (HSC), created by P.L. 107-296,
to provide policy and interagency guidance. It is unclear if the HSC Policy Coordination
Committee on R&D, created pursuant to Executive Order 13228, still functions.
The working group on bioterrorism prevention, preparedness, and response,
established by Section 108 of P.L. 107-188, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, consists of the DHHS and DOD Secretaries and

---

CRS-5
other agency heads. One of its functions is to recommend “research on pathogens likely
to be used in a biological threat or attack on the civilian population ....”
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security: R&D in the FY 2004 Budget
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2004 House FY2004 Senate
Estimate
Request*
Floor
Comm.
DHS R&D:
Border & Transportation Security (TSA)
110
75
126
30
Emergency Preparedness
0
0
0
15
Information Analysis and Infra.
15
5
5
5
Science and Technology
521
803
900
866
Biological countermeasures
—
365
293
244
Nuclear & Radiological countermeasures
—
137
130
131
Chemical ctrmeasures
—
55
52
55
High Explosives ctrmeasures
—
10
10
10
Threat & vulnerability assessments
—
90
86
98
Conventional missions
—
55
112
64
Rapid Prototyping / TSWG
—
30
80
70
Standards / state and local
—
25
39
25
Emerging threats
—
22
21
22
Critical infrastructure protection
—
5
5
72
University programs / HS fellowships
—
10
35
55
Salaries & expenses 1/
—
0
39
not given
Nat’l Biodef. Anly & Countermeasures 3/
––
0
0
20
Coast Guard
23
23
23
0 2/
Total DHS R&D
669
907
1054
1001
Selected non-R&D items:
0
890
890
0
Biodefense countermeasures (BioShield)
Total DHS Discretionary Budget
28875
28372
29411
28521
Source based on: AAAS R&D Funding Update, DHS in FY2004 House Appropriations, June 25, 2003.
AAAS estimates based on FY 2004 appropriations bills. Includes conduct of R&D and R&D facilities.
FY 2003 and FY 2004 request figures based on OMB R&D data and supplemental agency budget data.
Figures are rounded to the nearest million. Changes calculated from unrounded figures.
* FY 2004 request figures have been revised since the February 2003 release of the President’s budget.
1/ The House Homeland Security would move salaries and expenses for federal employees in the S&T
Directorate from program line items to a consolidated Salaries & Expenses account. 2/ The Senate bill would
move CG R&D activities to the S&T Directorate under Conventional Missions. 3/Funded in Biological Counter-
measures in FY2003, FY2004 request, and FY2004 House, but as a separate line item in FY2004 Senate bill.
These figures reflect amendments on the House floor.
Critiques Before Creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Before passage of P.L. 107-296, some critics said that effective counterterrorism R&D
required better coordination than OHS, OSTP, NSTC and other groups could provide, and
that R&D priorities should reflect intelligence and threat estimates, and balance between
long-range and short-term R&D to hasten deployment of technological responses. The
Administration called for consolidating core R&D in a homeland security agency ( in
National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002). The National Academies advocated
creating a Secretary for Technology and a homeland security “think tank” (in Making the
Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism, June 2002).

---

CRS-6
The Brookings Institution in Assessing the Department of Homeland Security, July 15,
2002, urged caution because homeland security R&D priorities were unclear.
Oversight Issues
Some DHS S&T activities were to be transferred to DHS by March 1, 2003, and
others by June 1, 2003, according to the Administration’s reorganization plan issued on
November 25, 2002. Under Secretary McQueary noted, in a speech before the AAAS on
April 11, 2003 and in congressional testimony, that DHS S&T priorities include
intramural work in the National Laboratory for Homeland Security; soliciting innovative
ideas from academia and industry via work in HSARPA; promoting standards for design
and manufacture of homeland security technologies; participating with TSWG to support
prototyping of new technologies; and strategic R&D partnerships with the academic
community, including academic fellowships. Key DHS S&T initiatives focus on: border
protection and monitoring (including prevention of illegal entry of nuclear devices),
biological protection (including working with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to develop surveillance systems and to deploy sensors to monitor the release
of pathogens and agents), and information analysis (including tools and cybersecurity
research). It is unclear how DHS will set priorities for its support agencies, including
HSARPA, the university center(s), the Homeland Security Institute, and laboratories.
Coordination of federal homeland security R&D may be an issue. DHS’s FY2004
R&D budget request includes about $800 million for new programs and $200 million for
transferred programs, this is one-third of the budget request for R&D to combat terrorism.
DHS has some authority to coordinate and help set priorities for other federal homeland
security R&D, including in human health. The extent of that responsibility remains to be
demonstrated. The heads of other agencies that handle R&D have no formal role in
DHS’s R&D priority-setting and coordination, and the role of the DHS Secretary in
setting priorities for those agencies is undetermined. DHS’s effectiveness in planning and
coordinating R&D may depend upon the Secretary’s ability to exert influence on other
agencies and his interactions with existing counterterrorism coordination mechanisms in
OSTP, NSTC, and interagency committees. There is the issue of whether DHS scientists
will be housed together or will remain separate and operate essentially as a “virtual
group.” Physical proximity may promote mission effectiveness, but has the potential to
separate DHS scientists from their counterparts and the possibility of distorting scientific
communication, which many say is essential to progress.
There are also issues of how Congress will conduct oversight of the DHS’s
multifaceted R&D activities, and the level of appropriations that will be made available
to fund the authorized programs.
In response to criticism of P.L. 107-296, legislation was enacted (P.L. 108-7), to
revise eligibility criteria so that more institutions can compete for funding for DHS’s
academic-based homeland security center(s). The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity,
Science, and Research & Development of the House Select Committee on Homeland
Security held an oversight hearing on “Homeland Security Science and Technology:
Preparing for the Future,” on May 21, 2003. Additional hearings are scheduled.

---