Order Code RS21270
Updated November 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 FY2006 appropriations bill, H.R. 2360, enacted as P.L. 109-90, October 18, 2005,
appropriates $1.502 billion for R&D. The House passed H.R. 1817, an authorization
bill, which would expand DHS’s R&D. 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, and performance monitoring. This report will be updated.
Funding for Homeland Security R&D. According to 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), Commerce (DOC), and Energy
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
(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 HS
$1,986
$25
$2, 918
$3,160
$3,654
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, 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
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
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/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; five multi-year awards
ranging between $10 million to $18 million have been made for centers on: risk and
economic analysis of terrorism at the University of Southern California; agro-security at
the University of Minnesota and at Texas A&M; on behavioral and sociological aspects
of terrorism at the University of Maryland; and on advancing microbial risk assessment
funded jointly with EPA at Michigan State. 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
CRS-4
terrorism technologies. DHS issued rules for liability protection for manufacturers of
anti-terrorism technologies pursuant to the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security R&D Budget
(budget estimates in millions of dollars; figures are rounded off)
FY2003
FY2004 FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
Directorate (Dir.) or Program
actual
actual Enacted
Request
Enacted
Border & Transportation Security (BTS) Dir, including TSA
$163
$144
$178 Included in
Included in
consolidated consolidated
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) Dir.
0
0
0
items +
items +
conventional conventiona
Information Analysis and Infra. Dir.
0
0
0
missions
l missions
Science and Technology Dir., includes
[554]
[869]
[1,046]
[$1,287]
[$1,421]
— Biological countermeasures, including Nat’l Biodef.
363
455
363
363
380
Anly&Countermeasures Cntr ( NBACC) construction
4
35
—
0
— Nuclear & Radiological countermeasures
20
19
75
106
123
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
227
318
— Chemical ctrmeasures
—
23
53
102
95
— High Explosives ctrmeasures
7
7
20
15
44
— Threat & vulnerability assessment (TVTA)
36
59
66
47
43
— Critical Infrastructure Protection
—
12
27
21
41
— Cybersecurity, a new Sen. acct., was in Critical
—
10
18
17
17
Infrastructure in FY2004 and FY2005 request
— Counter MANPADS (anti-aircraft missiles),was in
0
17
61
110
110
Critical Infrastructure in FY2004
— Conventional missions/Support to DHS Components
—
21
55
94
80
(BTS, EPR, USGS, Secret Service, Immigration)
— Rapid Prototyping/TSWG
33
68
76
21
35
— Standards /state and local
20
32
40
36
36
— Emerging threats
17
11
11
11
8
— University programs/HS fellowships
3
22
70
64
63
— Office of Interoperability and Compatibility
—
—
21
21
27
— SAFETY Act
—
—
10
6
7
— R&D Consolidation ($ from other DHS agencies/accts.)
—
—
—
117
100
— Unobligated balances
—
22
—
—
0
— Technology development and transfer
0
0
0
0
0
— Mngt./Adm/Salaries
not available
44
69
81
[81]
Total S&T Directorate With Mngt./Adm./Salaries
554
913
1,115
1,368
1,502
— Coast Guard
21
21
19
[17]
[18]
— CBP R&D
1
—
—
Estimate of Total DHS R&D**
$738
$1,078
$1, 313
$1,368
$1,520
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 FY2005 Budget, and data in P.L. 109-90 and related
reports. 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, Feb. 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. The FY2006 appropriations bill, H.R. 2360, enacted as P.L. 109-90, October
18, 2005, appropriates $1.502 billion for these activities. See Table 2. For FY2005,
Congress increased funding for university programs, interoperable communications,
shipping and air cargo security technologies, and biodefense. The FY2006 appropriations
enactment increased funding above the President’s requested levels for R&D for
biological countermeasures, explosives countermeasures, Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), rapid prototyping, SAFETY Act, interoperable communications, and
critical infrastructure. Congress rejected moves to consolidate Coast Guard R&D in the
S&T Directorate and restricted funding of some DNDO funding until after the
appropriations committees approves the office’s expenditure plan. For additional
information, see CRS Report RL32863, Homeland Security Department: FY2006
Appropriations.
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 of P.L. 107-296). 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 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. DHS Under Secretary 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.
CRS-6
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
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 on January 26, 2005 before the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that the S&T Directorate
needs to better integrate threat assessment information into its work and to improve inter-
and intra-agency coordination:
... It is critical for ... [the] S&T [Directorate] 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. ... [It] must be
able to prioritize its investment decisions, and avoid duplicating technology initiatives
by other DHS components.... [T]he 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 (p. 15).
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 in DHS Management Directive System MD Number: 11042.1, 01/05/05, but
has not yet released government-wide guidance on this complex and controversial subject.
See CRS Report RL31845, “Sensitive But Unclassified” and Other Federal Security
Controls on Scientific and Technical Information: Background on the Controversy.
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, which has not acted on the bill. In addition to authorizing funding for some
R&D, it would require establishment of the Technology Clearinghouse mandated in P.L.
107-296 and of a homeland security technology transfer program and a working group,
including the Secretary of Defense, to advise the clearinghouse in identifying relevant
military technologies (Sec. 302). Sec. 303 would require assessment of whether DHS
procurements are candidates for the litigation and risk management protections of P.L.
107-296. Sec. 304 would require the Secretary to establish a university center of
excellence for border security. Sections 313 and 314 would authorize university and other
types of cybersecurity R&D. Sec. 510 would authorize DOE laboratories to participate
in proposal writing and activities of university centers for homeland security.
5 Scott Higham, et al., “Contracting Rush for Security Led to Waste, Abuse,” Washington Post,
May 22, 2005.
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
Security, Special Report 02, The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 2004.