Order Code RS21270
Updated June 9, 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 research and
development (R&D) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose FY2006
R&D budget was requested at $1.368 billion, about 4% more than FY2005, enacted.
The House passed H.R. 1817, an FY2006 authorization bill, which would expand DHS’s
R&D, and H.R. 2360, which would appropriate $1.340 billion for these activities.
Senate action is pending. DHS is mandated to coordinate all federal agency homeland
security R&D, which was requested at $4.0 billion. Policy issues relating to DHS’s
R&D include priority-setting, eliminating possible waste in technology programs,
performance monitoring, and interagency coordination. This report will be updated.
Funding for Homeland Security R&D. According to the latest available Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) data, 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 have requested about $662 million for
homeland security R&D for FY2006. The other largest agency supporters are the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Defense
(DOD). 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 Departments of Agriculture (USDA),
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
Commerce (DOC), and Energy (DOE), and in the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and National 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 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 Science and Technology (S&T). The Under Secretary for
S&T, created by Title III, has responsibility for 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
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
countermeasures to threats, including research; except for human health-related R&D,
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 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 creation
of university-based centers of excellence for homeland security. The first center, on Risk
and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, was funded at the University of Southern
California. Subsequently two centers in agro-security were announced for the University
of Minnesota and Texas A&M; and the University of Maryland won the recent award for
a center to study the behavioral and sociological aspects of terrorism, funded at $12
million. Proposals are being considered for a center on High Consequence Event
Preparedness and Response. 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
innovations. 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.
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, is to work with the private sector to develop innovative homeland
terrorism technologies. DHS issued rules for liability protection for manufacturers of
anti-terrorism technologies pursuant to the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective

CRS-4
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security R&D Budget
( budget estimates in millions of dollars; figures are rounded off)
FY2006
FY2003
FY2004 FY2005
FY2006
House
Directorate (Dir.) or Program
actual
actual Enacted
Request
Appro-
priations
Border & Transportation Security (BTS) Dir, including TSA
$163
$144
$178
Included in
consolidated
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) Dir.
0
0
0
items +
conventional
Information Analysis and Infra. Dir.
0
0
0
missions
Science and Technology Dir., includes
[554]
[869]
[1,046]
[1,287]
[1,259]
— Biological countermeasures, including Nat’l Biodef.
363
455
363
363
360
Anly&Countermeasures Cntr ( NBACC) construction
4
35



0
— Nuclear & Radiological countermeasures
75
106
123
20
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
227
146
— Chemical ctrmeasures

23
53
102
90
— High Explosives ctrmeasures
7
7
20
15
55
— Threat & vulnerability assessment (TVTA)
36
59
66
47
47
— Critical Infrastructure Protection

12
27
21
36
Cybersecurity, a new Sen. acct., was in Critical

10
18
17
17
Infrastructure in FY2004 and FY2005 request
— Counter MANPADS (anti-aircraft missiles),was in

0
17
61
110
110
Critical Infrastructure in FY2004
— Conventional missions/Support to DHS Components


21
55
94
80
(BTS, EPR, USGS, Secret Service, Immigration), includes
Coast Guard R&D starting in FY2005
— Rapid Prototyping /TSWG

33
68
76
21
30
— Standards /state and local
20
32
40
36
36
— Emerging threats
17
11
11
11
11
— University programs /HS fellowships
3
22
70
64
64
— Office of Interoperability and Compatibility


21
21
42
— SAFETY Act


10
6
10
— R&D Consolidation ($ from other DHS agencies/accts.)



117
117
— Unobligated balances

22


0
— Technology development and transfer
0
0
0
0
10
— Mngt./Adm/Salaries
not available
44
69
81
[81]
Total S&T Directorate With Mngt./Adm./Salaries
554
913
1,115
1,368
1,340
Coast Guard
21
21
19
[17]
[17]
CBP R&D
1
--
--
Estimate of Total DHS R&D**
$738
$1,078
$1, 313
$1,368
$1,340
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: Includes conduct of R&D and R&D facilities. 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. 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. 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.” **Some of the data are the
author’s estimates. ***Some of these data may already be counted in other rows of this table. F&E data are from OMB’s
Analytical Perspectives, FY2006, p. 67. See also CRS Report RL32863, on DHS appropriations.

CRS-5
Technologies (SAFETY) Act of 2002, part of P.L. 107-296. DHS also 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, February 20, 2004, pp. 8073-8089). Sec. 1003 of P.L.
107-296 authorized NIST to conduct R&D to improve information security. 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.
For FY2006, DHS requested an R&D budget of $1.368 billion, about 4% more than
FY2005. On May 17, 2005, the House passed H.R. 2360, which would appropriate
$1.340 billion for these activities. Senate action is pending. See Table 2. For FY2005,
Congress increased funding for university programs, interoperable communications,
shipping and air cargo security technologies, and biodefense. The FY2006 House bill
would increase funding above the President’s requested levels for R&D for explosives
countermeasures, rapid prototyping, SAFETY Act, interoperable communications, critical
infrastructure, and technology development and transfer. Major increases over FY2005
would be for R&D in chemical countermeasures and counter MANPADS.
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 OSTP Director is responsible for advising the President on
homeland security (Sec. 1712). The Director has chaired the National Security Council’s
Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction R&D Subgroup, comprised of 16
agencies. OSTP manages the interagency National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC)’s 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.
Oversight Issues. Controversial issues about DHS R&D include assessing
possible waste in technology procurement;5 establishing performance goals and measures
for the S&T Directorate; developing S&T priorities that meet responder needs and benefit
5 Scott Higham, et. al., “Contracting Rush for Security Led to Waste, .Abuse,” Washington Post,
May 22, 2005.

CRS-6
from external experts’ advice; monitoring the adequacy of cybersecurity R&D;6 clarifying
EPA’s and DHS’s respective responsibilities for homeland security-related R&D;7 and
improving linkages between providing rapid scientific and technical expertise and
decisionmaking and responding to weapons of mass destruction attacks and incidents.8
DHS’s Acting Inspector General testified that the S&T Directorate needs to better
integrate threat assessment information into its work and to improve intra-agency
coordination:
...[T]he Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) ... is required to coordinate with
other executive agencies .... It is critical for ... 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 ... 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.9
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, 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.

Legislation. The House passed H.R. 1817, a DHS authorization bill, on May 18,
2005; it was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. In addition to authorizing funding for some R&D programs; H.R. 1817 requires
establishment of the Technology Clearinghouse mandated in P.L. 107-296 and mandates
establishment of a homeland security technology transfer program and a working group,
including the Secretary of Defense, to advise and assist the clearinghouse in identifying
relevant military technologies (Sec. 302). Sec. 303 requires identification and assessment
of whether DHS procurements related to terrorism are candidates for the litigation and
risk management protections of P.L. 107-296. Sec. 304 requires the Secretary to establish
a university center of excellence for Border Security with its activities to be prioritized
based on risk assessment. Sections 313 and 314 authorize university grant programs and
other types of cybersecurity R&D. Sec. 510 authorizes DOE laboratories to participate
in proposal writing and activities of university centers for homeland security.
6 Andrea L.Foster, “Panel of Researchers Urges Government to Step Up Spending on Study of
Cybersecurity,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 18, 2005.
7 Caitlin Harrington, “EPA Ordered to Work Out Jurisdiction Questions With DHS,” CQ
Homeland Security,
Dec. 7, 2004.
8 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].
9 Statement of Richard L. Skinner, Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Jan. 26, 2005, p. 15.