Order Code RS21270
Updated August 22, 2006
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 FY2007
R&D budget (excluding management/procurement) was requested at $1.1 billion, about
10% less than FY2006, and represents the first decline in DHS’s R&D funding since the
agency started funding R&D in 2002. DHS is mandated to coordinate all federal agency
homeland security R&D, which was requested at about $5.1 billion. Legislation to
improve implementation of DHS’s R&D programs includes H.R. 1817, H.R. 4941, H.R.
4942, and H.R. 5814. Policy issues relating to DHS’s R&D include priority-setting,
eliminating possible waste in research and technology programs, and improving program
performance results. This report will be updated.
Funding for Homeland Security R&D. Federal agency funding for homeland
security R&D was requested at about $5.1 billion for FY2007, about the same amount as
in FY2005 and FY2006. The American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) reports that the top three agency supporters are the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), specifically the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at 40% of
the total, DHS with about 23%, and the Department of Defense (DOD), with 21%.1 See
Table 1. Other funding agencies in descending order are the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the National Aeronautics, and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of
Energy (DOE), and the Department of Commerce (DOC). DHHS (NIH) manages most
of the federal civilian effort against bioterrorism.2 DHS R&D focuses largely on
technology-oriented projects, which for FY2007, focus on countermeasures against
1 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).
2 See CRS Report RL31719, An Overview of the U.S. Public Health System in the Context of
Emergency Preparedness.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). DOD’s homeland security R&D portfolio includes
work on countering chemical and biological threats, emergency preparedness, and R&D
supported by the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), a State Department/DOD
group that coordinates interagency R&D on new technologies to combat terrorism.3
USDA’s work includes physical protection for agricultural resources and maintaining
security of the food supply. NSF’s homeland security R&D focuses on protection of
critical infrastructures and key assets and includes cybersecurity R&D. EPA has focused
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, DOE’s
counterterrorism R&D included work on materials, detection of toxic agents, genomic
sequencing, DNA-based diagnostics, and microfabrication technologies.4 NASA’s
homeland security R&D deals with aviation safety and remote sensing.
Table 1. Federal Homeland Security R&D Funding by Agency
(Budget authority, dollars in millions, figures are rounded off)
Agency
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
%Chg. FY2006
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
to FY2007
USDA
$175
$155
$40
$161
$105
$100
-5.0%
DOC
20
16
23
59
62
68
9.7%
DOD
259
212
267
1,079
1,166
1,074
-7.9%
DOE
50
48
47
67
68
71
4.4%
DHHS
177
2,653
1,724
1,795
1,899
2,014
6.0%
(NIH)
(162)
(1,633)
(1,703)
(1,774)
(1,878)
(1,993)
(6.1%)
DHS
266
737
1,028
1,240
1,281
1,149
-10.3%
DOT
106
7
3
2
3
1
-67.0%
EPA
95
70
52
33
52
92
75.6%
NASA.
73
73
88
89
93
83
-9.9%
NSF
229
271
321
326
329
371
12.8%

All Other
48
47
32
42
41
47
12.6%
Total 1,499
3,290
3,626
4,893
5,099
5,070
-0.6%
Total, Non-DOD
$1,240
$3,078
$3,359
$3,814
$3,933
$3,996
1.6%
Note: Adapted from an AAAS table on “Federal Homeland Security R&D by Agency,” available at
[http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/fy07.htm], which uses data from OMB, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating
Terrorism and Budget of the U.S. Government FY2007. The AAAS table includes funding for the conduct of
R&D and R&D facilities, uses revised estimates of DHS R&D, and notes that DOD expanded its reporting of
homeland security funding beginning in 2005. Regular and supplemental appropriations are included. Problems
with obtaining R&D data are explained in CRS Report RL32482, Federal Homeland Security Research and
Development Funding: Issues of Data Quality and in U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating
Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data, Jan. 2006, GAO-06-161.
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 of 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). The Under Secretary’s responsibilities are to: coordinate
DHS’s S&T missions; in consultation with other agencies, develop a strategic plan for
3 See CRS Report RL31615, Homeland Security: The Department of Defense’s Role.
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
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; 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 is permitted to continue to conduct R&D
at Plum Island. 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 high consequence event preparedness
and response at Johns Hopkins. DHS and EPA jointly fund a cooperative center on
advancing microbial risk assessment at Michigan State; there are plans for a DHS-
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cooperative center on computational challenges
for homeland security. DHS also supports a university fellowship/training program,
which plans to train 200 students in 2007, down from 300 in 2006, and up to 15
postdoctoral fellows. Regarding intramural R&D, 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., 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
Technologies (SAFETY) Act of 2002, part of P.L. 107-296. DHS also issued a rule 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 NSF and
NIST R&D and training programs to combat terrorist attacks on computers.
For FY2007, DHS requested funding for R&D per se of $1.1 billion, about 10% less
than the estimated FY2006 level. This is the first reduction in the agency’s R&D budget
since DHS was created in 2002. The FY2007 amount totals about $1.5 billion if funds
for management costs and procurement for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) are included. The FY2006 appropriations law, P.L. 109-90, appropriated about
$1.4 billion for these activities. The requested FY2007 budget would increase R&D
support for explosives countermeasures, support of DHS components, communications
interoperability and compatibility, cybersecurity, and radiological and nuclear
countermeasures. All other areas of R&D would receive decreased funding. See Table
2. For FY2005, Congress increased funding for university programs, interoperable
communications, shipping and air cargo security technologies, and biodefense. The
FY2006 appropriations law increased R&D funding above the President’s requested
levels for biological countermeasures, explosives countermeasures, DNDO, rapid
prototyping, SAFETY Act, interoperable communications, and critical infrastructure. For
additional information, see CRS Report RL32863, Homeland Security Department:
FY2006 Appropriations and CRS Report RL33345, Federal Research and Development
Funding FY2007, (section on DHS).
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 also 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. An HSC Policy Coordination Committee on
R&D was created pursuant to Executive Order 13228. Former 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 R&D-related interagency activities in
testimony before the House Committee on Science on February 16, 2005. In 2006, GAO

---

CRS-5
issued a report dealing with Plum Island, DHS and USDA Are Successfully Coordinating
Current Work, but Long-Term Plans are Being Assessed (GAO-06-132).
Oversight Issues. Controversial issues about DHS’s R&D include preventing
conflicts of interest in awarding R&D funds since many DHS S&T portfolio managers
are hired from, and will return to, national laboratories which are among the contenders
for DHS R&D contracts and awards’ decisions, according to GAO, are often
undocumented (based on DHS Needs to Improve Ethics-Related Management Controls
for the Science and Technology Directorate, Dec. 2005, GAO-06-206); providing
Congress with more detailed information regarding priority setting and R&D budgeting
and spending (see H.Rept. 109-476 on DHS’s FY2007 appropriations request);
monitoring HSARPA’s mission and performance in transistioning homeland security
technology to the field;5 assessing possible waste in technology procurement;6 improving
the effectiveness of DHS’s S&T (only one program of six that were evaluated using
OMB’s Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) received a score of “highly
effective);”7 developing S&T priorities that meet responder needs and benefit from
external experts’ advice; monitoring the adequacy of cybersecurity R&D;8 and improving
linkages between providing rapid scientific and technical expertise and decisionmaking
and responding to weapons of mass destruction attacks and incidents.9 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 priority-setting and to improve inter- and
intra-agency coordination.
Executive Order 13311 transferred to DHS the President’s responsibilities to design
procedures to protect sensitive unclassified homeland security information that were
mandated by Sec. 892 of P.L. 107-296. DHS issued guidance for its own information
control procedures in Management Directive System MD Number: 11042.1, 01/05/05, but
has not yet released government-wide guidance on this controversial topic. For additional
information, see CRS Report RL33303, “Sensitive But Unclassified” Information and
Other Controls: Policy and Options for 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, which has not acted on it. It would require creation of the Technology
Clearinghouse mandated in P.L. 107-296, a homeland security technology transfer
program, and a working group, including the DOD Secretary, to advise the clearinghouse
to identify relevant military technologies. It would also require assessment of whether
5 Zack Phillips,”DHS Launches Major Review of R&D Wing as Lawmakers Call for More
Focus,” CQ Homeland Security, Mar. 22, 2006.
6 Scott Higham, et al., “Contracting Rush for Security Led to Waste, Abuse,” Washington Post,
May 22, 2005.
7 DHS, Science and Technology Directorate, FY2007, Strategic Context, p. 5.
8 Andrea L. Foster, “Panel of Researchers Urges Government to Step Up Spending on Study of
Cybersecurity,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 18, 2005.
9 James Jay Carafano and David Heyman, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland
Security, Special Report 02, The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 2004.

---

CRS-6
DHS procurements are candidates for the litigation and risk management protections of
P.L. 107-296, establish a university center of excellence for border security, authorize
academic and other types of cybersecurity R&D, and allow DOE laboratories to
participate in proposal writing and other activities of the university centers of excellence.
On June 14, 2006, the Homeland Security Committee reported two bills. An
amended H.R. 4941, the Homeland Security S&T Enhancement Act, among other things,
would require DHS to transfer anti-terrorism technology developed by federal agencies
or the private sector, develop standards for first-responder communications equipment,
require the government to share results of tests of equipment with first responders, require
DHS to develop a strategic plan for S&T activities, and work to develop guidelines for
researchers about the potential homeland security implications of their work. H.R. 4942,
Promoting Anti-Terrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act, would
require DHS’s S&T Directorate to support homeland security R&D with U.S. allies. H.R.
5814, an authorization bill, reported by the Homeland Security Committee on July 19,
2006, would streamline SAFETY Act procedures to develop anti-terrorism technology,
enhance biosurveillance systems, and create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity.
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security R&D Budget
(Budget authority in millions of dollars; figures are rounded off)
Directorate or Program
FY2005 Actual
FY2006 Estimate
FY2007 Request
Science and Technology Directorate1 5
$1,043
$1,262
$806
Biological Countermeasures
363
376
337
NBACC Construction2
35
0
0
Chemical Countermeasures
53
94
83
Explosives Countermeasures
20
44
87
Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures3 5
123
209
0
Threat Awareness
66
43
40
Standards
40
35
22
R&D Support of DHS Components
55
79
89
University and Fellowships
70
62
52
Emerging Threats4
11
8
0
Rapid Prototyping4
76
35
19
Counter MANPADS
61
109
5
Interoperability and Compatibility
21
26
30
SAFETY Act
10
7
5
Critical Infrastructure Protection
27
40
15
Cyber Security
18
17
23
R&D Consolidation1

0
99
0
Rescission of Unobligated Funds
-4
-20
0
Border and Transportation Security (TSA)1
178
0
0
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office3 5
0
0 328
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E1
19
19
15
Total DHS R&D
$1,240
$1,281
$1,149
Source: Adapted from AAAS, Table II-6, “DHS R&D Falls in 2007 Budget,” Feb. 28, 2006. AAAS used OMB data
and agency supporting documents to compile data. Table notes: 1. The FY2006 budget consolidated TSA R&D within
the S&T Directorate; 2. Construction funds for National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center; 3.
Radiological and nuclear countermeasures will transfer to the DNDO in 2007; 4. Will be consolidated into a new
Emergency and Prototypical Technology line in 2007; 5. R&D items only. Non-R&D components and line items are
excluded. For up-to-date details on appropriations action for DHS, see CRS Report RL33345, Federal Research and
Development Funding: FY2007, Table 7. Unlike AAAS data, CRS data include funding for R&D management and some
R&D procurement.

---