Order Code RS21270
Updated February 24, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security Research and
Development Funding, Organization, and
Oversight
Genevieve J. Knezo
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act, consolidated some R&D in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose S&T Directorate’s FY2006 R&D
budget, according to OMB, is almost $1.4 billion, almost 20% more than FY2005,
enacted. This is the largest percentage increase for any federal agency R&D mission.
(The increase is less, about 3%, if funding for TSA, FY2005, is included in the
calculation.) DHS is mandated to coordinate total federal agency homeland security
R&D, which was requested at $4.0 billion. Policy issues include priority-setting within
DHS and other agencies, performance monitoring, and interagency coordination. This
report will be updated.
Funding for Homeland Security R&D. According to the latest data available
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agency homeland security
R&D was requested at $4.0 billion for FY2006, double the FY2003 amount.1 2 DHS will
manage about one-third of this budget.3 Other agencies, exclusive of the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have
requested about $662 million for homeland security R&D for FY2006. See Table 1. The
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that an
additional $0.6 billion will be spent on homeland security R&D facilities and equipment,
especially in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC),
Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National
1 See Table 1 in this report. For historical information see the OMB annual series, Report to
Congress on Combating Terrorism. Problems with data are explained in CRS Report RL32482,
Federal Homeland Security Research and Development Funding: Issues of Data Quality.
2 OMB, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 1.
3 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31914, Research and Development in the
Department of Homeland Security, and CRS Report RS21542, Department of Homeland
Security: Issues Concerning the Establishment of Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs). See also CRS Report RL31354, Possible Impacts of Major Counter
Terrorism Security Actions on Research, Development, and Education.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). DHHS, with almost 50% of total
homeland security R&D funding, manages most of the federal civilian effort against
bioterrorism. DHS R&D, at one-third of the total, focuses largely on technology-oriented
projects funded by the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate. DOD, is the next
largest supporter. Its budget includes the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), a State Department/DOD
group, that coordinates interagency R&D on new technologies to combat terrorism. (DHS
manages some of its own R&D contract solicitations and also participates in TSWG
solicitations.) The next largest supporter of homeland security R&D is the National
Science Foundation (NSF), for basic research, followed by the Department of Justice.
USDA R&D focuses on plant and animal diseases. EPA focuses on toxic materials
research. In the DOC, R&D at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
deals with protecting information systems. In the past, the DOE’s counterterrorism R&D
included work on security, materials, detection of toxic agents, genomic sequencing,
DNA-based diagnostics, and microfabrication technologies.4
Table 1. Non-published OMB Data on Homeland Security (HS)R&D Funding
by Agency, Budget Authority, Dollars in Millions
Agency
2003 Enacted
2003 Supplemental
2004 Estimate
2005 Estimate
2006 Request
Agriculture
$12
—
$22
$31
$67
Commerce
16
—
17
59
62
Defense
212
—
267
362
394
Energy
19
—
19
32
52
Health/Human Services
834
—
1,643
1,608
1,766
Homeland Security
619
—
816
1,017
1,227
Justice
161
25
49
61
109
Transportation
4
—
—
0
1
Treasury
—
—
3
3
3
EPA
53
—
30
25
40
NSF
269
—
318
324
328
Total R&D
2,198
25
3,185
3,522
4,048
Total Non-defense
$1,986
$25
$2, 918
$3,160
$3,654
HS R&D
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Based on individual agency data provided by OMB. FY2003 data provided
Jan. 2004; other years’ data provided Feb. 2005. In 2004, OMB characterized these data as “discretionary budgetary
resources,” which, according to OMB staff, is “budget authority.” Data exclude facilities and construction and overseas
combating terrorism R&D funding.
Creation of a Department of Homeland Security and Other Laws. The
Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296, created DHS, and, as one of its four
directorates, a Directorate on S&T. The Under Secretary for Science and Technology,
created by Title III, has responsibility for most of Most of DHS’s research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 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,
4 See CRS Report RL32481, Homeland Security R&D Funding and Activities in Federal
Agencies: A Preliminary Inventory, and CRS Report RS21617, Homeland Security: Extramural
R&D Funding Opportunities in Federal Agencies.

---

CRS-3
conduct and/or coordinate DHS’s intramural and extramural R&D and coordinate with
other federal agencies; set national R&D priorities to prevent importation of chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear and related (CBRN) weapons and terrorist attacks;
collaborate with DOE regarding using national laboratories; collaborate with the
Secretaries of USDA and DHHS to identify biological “select agents”; develop guidelines
for technology transfer; and support U.S. S&T leadership. If 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. Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) R&D are now
located within DHS. DHS’s Secretary is to collaborate with the DHHS Secretary to set
priorities for DHHS’s human health-related CBRN R&D.
Title III authorized establishment of the Homeland Security Advanced Research
Projects Agency (HSARPA) to support applications-oriented innovative homeland
security RDT&E in industry, FFRDCs, and universities. Extramural funding is to be
competitive and merit-reviewed, but distributed to as many U.S. areas as practicable. The
law mandated one or more university-based centers of excellence for homeland security;
the first such center, on Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events at the
University of Southern California, was announced in November 2003. Two more were
announced in April 2004, at the University of Minnesota and Texas A&M, dealing with
agro-security. The University of Maryland won the recent award for a center to study the
behavioral and sociological aspects of terrorism, funded at $12 million. Another
university center is proposed on High Consequence Event Preparedness and Response and
one on microbial risk assessment to be funded by DHS and EPA. DHS also supports a
university fellowship/training program.
Regarding intramural R&D, the DHS may use any federal laboratory and may
establish a headquarters laboratory to “network” federal laboratories. DHS relies mostly
on the following DOE laboratories: Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Pacific
Northwest and Oak Ridge. A Homeland Security Institute (HSI), an FFRDC operated by
Analytic Services Inc. (ANSER), funded in May 2004, is authorized to conduct risk
analysis and policy research on vulnerabilities of, and security for, critical infrastructures;
improve interoperability of tools for field operators and first responders; and test
prototype technologies. A clearinghouse was authorized to transfer information about
innovative solutions and will coordinate with TSWG. In addition, DHS created the
Interagency Center for Applied Homeland Security Technology (ICAHST), which
validates technical requirements and conducts evaluations for threat and vulnerability
testing and assessments.

---

CRS-4
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security R&D Budget
( budget estimates in millions of dollars; figures are rounded off)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006,
Directorate (Dir.) or Program
actual
actual
Enacted
Request
Border & Transportation Security (BTS) Dir, includes TSA R&D
$163
$144
$178
Included in
consoli
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) Dir.
0
0
0
dated items +
conventional
Information Analysis and Infra. Dir.
0
0
0
missions
Science and Technology Dir., includes
— Biological countermeasures, including Nat’l Biodef.
363
455
363
363
Anly&Countermeasures Cntr ( NBACC) construction
4
35


—
— Nuclear & Radiological countermeasures
75
106
123
20
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
227
— Chemical ctrmeasures
—
23
53
102
— High Explosives ctrmeasures
7
7
20
15
— Threat & vulnerability assessment (TVTA)
36
59
66
47
— Critical Infrastructure Protection
—
12
27
21
— Cybersecurity, a new Sen. acct., was in Critical Infrastructure in
—
10
18
17
FY2004 and FY2005 request
— Counter MANPADS (anti-aircraft missiles),was in Critical
0
17
61
110
Infrastructure in FY2004
— Conventional missions/Support to DHS Components (BTS, EPR,
—
21
55
94
USGS, Secret Service, Immigration), includes Coast Guard R&D
starting in FY2005
— Rapid Prototyping /TSWG
33
68
76
21
— Standards /state and local
20
32
40
36
— Emerging threats
17
11
11
11
— University programs /HS fellowships
3
22
70
64
— Office of Interoperability and Compatibility
—
—
21
21
— SAFETY Act
—
—
10
6
— R&D Consolidation ($ from other DHS agencies/accts.)
—
—
—
117
— Unobligated balances
—
22
—
—
— Mngt./Adm/Salaries
not available
44
69
81
Total S&T Directorate With Mngt./Adm./Salaries
554
913
1,115
1,368
Coast Guard
21
21
[19]
[17]
Estimate of Total DHS R&D**
$738
$1,078
$1, 293
$1,368
OMB data on R&D facilities and equipment (F&E)***
-
[257]
[155]
[210]
Total OMB estimate for DHS R&D, including F&E
-
$1,097
$1,185
$1,467
Sources and notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Based data in FY2006 OMB budget request; DHS Science and Technology
Congressional Budget Justification, FY2006, and Table 16, in AAAS, Congressional Action on Research and Development in the FY
2005 Budget, 200. The term “estimate,” that AAAS uses is the agency estimate of appropriations and allocations that will be used. Data
in [] are non-additive, for comparison only. Data are based on OMB R&D data and supplemental agency budget data. The FY2004
homeland security appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 108-280) expressed concern about the potential for duplication, waste, and
inadequate management oversight, and directed DHS to “consolidate all Departmental research and development funding within the science
and technology programs in the FY2005 budget request.” **Author’s estimates. ***Some of these data may already be counted in other
lines in the rows of this table. F&E data are from Analytical Perspectives, p. 67.These data may be overstated because they may include
disaster mitigation grant funding, which is not usually characterized as R&D.

---

CRS-5
P.L. 107-296 gave the DHS Secretary special acquisitions authority for basic,
applied, and advanced R&D (Sec. 833). The Special Assistant to the Secretary, created
by Sec. 102 of the law works with the private sector to develop innovative technologies
for homeland security. On October 10, 2003, DHS issued rules for liability protection for
manufacturers of anti-terrorism technologies pursuant to the Support Anti-Terrorism by
Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act of 2002, part of P.L. 107-296. DHS
issued a rule and 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 (Federal Register, Feb. 20, 2004, pp. 8073-8089). Sec. 1003
of P.L. 107-296 authorized NIST to conduct R&D on improving information security.
The OSTP Director is responsible for advising the President on homeland security (Sec.
1712). P.L. 107-305, “The Cyber Security Research and Development Act,” authorized
$903 million over five years for R&D and training programs by NSF and NIST to prevent
and combat terrorist attacks on private and government computers.
DHS requested an estimated $1.4 billion for R&D for FY2006, with $1.3 billion for
the S&T directorate, which, according to OMB, is almost 20% more than the FY2005
enacted amount. See Table 2. (The increase is less, about 3%, if funding for TSA,
FY2005, is included in the calculation.) About 35% of DHS’s R&D funding would be
for basic and applied research, up from 30% for FY2004. The rest would go largely for
development, facilities, and equipment. For FY2005, Congress increased funding for
university programs, interoperable communications, shipping and air cargo security
technologies, and biodefense.
Interagency Coordination Mechanisms. OSTP is a statutory office in the
Executive Office of the President; its Director advises the President and recommends
federal R&D budgets. The 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 DHS and manages the
interagency National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which created a
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 worked with the interagency President’s Critical Infrastructure Board
to recommend priorities and budgets for information security R&D. The working group
on bioterrorism prevention, preparedness, and response, established by Sec. 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 other agency heads. The
Homeland Security Council (HSC), created by P.L. 107-296, provides policy and
interagency guidance. A HSC Policy Coordination Committee on R&D was created
pursuant to Executive Order 13228. Dr. McQueary testified that, by the fall of 2004, all
U.S. government R&D “relevant to fulfilling the Department’s mission will have been
identified and co-ordinated as appropriate.” He inventoried DHS’s many informal and
formal R&D-related interagency activities in testimony before the House Committee on
Science, February 16, 2005. Effectiveness in coordinating this R&D may be an issue of
continuing concern.

---

CRS-6
Oversight Issues. Controversial issues about DHS R&D include the following.
(1) Monitoring the establishment and accomplishments of performance goals and metrics
for the S&T Directorate’s programs and portfolios. (2) Adequacy of use of non-
governmental experts to identify program priorities, including for internal R&D,
HSARPA, the university center(s), and laboratories. (3) Utilization of the statutorily
mandated external 20-member Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory
Committee, comprised of representatives of emergency first-responders, experts in
research, engineering, business, and management authorized to advise and recommend
research. Other issues include criticisms that cybersecurity R&D may be inadequate;5 that
EPA and DHS may need to clarify respective responsibilities for homeland security-
related R&D;6 and that improvements may needed in DHS to better link the provision of
rapid scientific and technical expertise and decisionmaking to responses to weapons of
mass destruction attacks and incidents.7
Executive Order 13311 transferred to DHS the President’s responsibilities to define
and design procedures to protect sensitive unclassified homeland security information
(Sec. 892 of P.L. 107-296). DHS issued guidance for its own information control
procedures (DHS Management Directive System MD Number: 11042 Issue Date:
5/11/2004), but has not yet released agency-wide guidance on this complex subject; its
work may raise controversy. See CRS Report RL31845, Sensitive But Unclassified and
Other Federal Security Controls on Scientific and Technical Information.
DHS’s Acting Inspector General testified that the S&T Directorate needs to better
integrate threat assessment information to its work and to improve intra-agency
coordination:
...[T]he Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) ... is required to coordinate with
other executive agencies, particularly those within DHS, to (1) develop an integrated
national policy and strategic plan for identifying and procuring new technologies, (2)
reduce duplication and identify unmet needs, and (3) support IAIP in assessing and
testing homeland security vulnerabilities and possible threats. TSA, the Coast Guard,
and IAIP have developed risk assessment tools and performed analyses of critical
infrastructure. It is critical for the S&T to have a clear understanding of the terrorist
threat picture facing the nation and the current technical capabilities and ongoing
research and development initiatives of other DHS elements. To be effective, it must
be able to prioritize its investment decisions, and avoid duplicating technology
initiatives by other DHS components, especially in the area of risk assessment. To that
end, the extent that the new Secretary oversees these efforts and makes intra-agency
coordination a reality, will determine his effectiveness in ensuring that DHS’
investments are adequately matched to risk.8
5 Andrea L.Foster, “Panel of Researchers Urges Government to Step Up Spending on Study of
Cybersecurity,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 18, 2005.
6 Caitlin Harrington, “EPA Ordered to work Out jurisdiction Questions With DHS,” CQ
Homeland Security, Dec. 7, 2004.
7 James Jay Carafano and David Heyman, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland
S e c u r i t y , S p e c i a l Report 02, T he Heritage Foundation, De c . 2 0 0 4
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/sr02.cfm].
8 Statement of Richard L. Skinner, Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Jan. 26, 2005, p. 15.

---