Department of Homeland Security

Transcription

1 11 Department of Homeland Security Lynn J. Daniels and Gerald L. Epstein American Association for the Advancement of Science HIGHLIGHTS The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) research and development portfolio would see a substantial increase in FY 2012, with respect to the fiscal year (FY) 2010 enacted budget, with a request of $1.05 billion, an increase of 18.8 percent or $167 million. The $109 million Transformational Research and Development (R&D) program would be transferred from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, where it would become an eighth technical division (Radiological/Nuclear). (This transfer was originally proposed in the FY 2011 budget request, which Congress did not act upon.) Following the transfer, no R&D funding would remain in the DNDO. With this transfer, the Science and Technology Directorate s research and development funding would grow by 20.2 percent, an increase of $173 million. In addition to Transformational R&D, specific additions include an increase of $18 million for cybersecurity research as well as $150 million for the construction of the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas. Without the construction funds however, the S&T Directorate budget for R&D would increase by only 2.7 percent. University programs funding would experience a 44 percent drop, from $65.6 million in FY 2010 to $36.6 million in FY The proposed cut would include the elimination of the National Transportation Security Center of Excellence and one or more Minority Serving Institution programs. The FY 2012 budget also would cut approximately $1.9 million from scholarship and fellowship funding. 111

2 Daniels and Epstein DHS R&D IN THE FY 2012 BUDGET Research and development remains a small but important part of the overall DHS budget, which would total $57.0 billion in 2012 (see Table II-6). Whereas the FY 2011 request for R&D funding requests represented a decrease from FY 2010 levels, the proposed DHS FY 2012 R&D budget of $1.05 billion would mark an increase of 18.8 percent or $167 million over the FY 2010 enacted budget. The importance of science and technology for meeting a wide range of homeland security missions was highlighted by a National Academies landmark study Making the Nation Safer, initiated soon after the September 11 attacks. 1 This study was released on the same day in 2002 that legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security was introduced in Congress. Whereas most of the new Department of Homeland Security consisted of agencies and offices moved from elsewhere in the federal government, the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) was largely original, reflecting the fact that R&D specifically for the purpose of preventing, mitigating, or responding to terrorist attacks upon the United States had not been a major federal mission prior to the September 11 attacks. Although some technologies pursued by DHS are similar to those developed by the military, the needs and the users for homeland security technologies are sufficiently different that the new Department needed to perform its own research and development. Following the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), the S&T Directorate has been structurally reorganized into four Group Leads to emphasize cross-s&t communication and teamwork. The four Group Leads are: Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responders, Acquisition Support and Operations Analysis (ASOA), and Research and Development Partnerships (RDP). Mission-Oriented Programs. The HSARPA Office is divided into seven technical divisions that address critical homeland security needs. The budget document is organized differently, however: research and development projects have been aligned with six thrust areas rather than with the particular divisions in which those projects were placed in 1 Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism, National Research Council, Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002) 112

3 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY the FY 2010 budget. This reorganization makes direct comparisons to FY 2010 enacted levels difficult. The thrust areas are: Apex R&D, consisting of cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary research projects with short turn-around; Border Security; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Defense (CBRNE); Counter Terrorist; Cyber Security; and Disaster Resilience. Radiological and nuclear countermeasures would continue to comprise the largest part of the DHS R&D portfolio in 2012, including both the DNDO and radiological and nuclear projects within the S&T Directorate. DNDO was carved out of the S&T Directorate in 2006 as a stand-alone entity; in FY 2011, its longer-term research mission the $109 million Transformational Research and Development program was to be transferred back to the S&T Directorate, where it would comprise a Radiological and Nuclear division. This transfer was not enacted by Congress and is proposed again in FY 2012, unchanged from when it was first proposed. Although the FY 2011 budget request showed some $158 million of R&D funding would remain in DNDO after the transfer, in the FY 2012 request some of the remaining applied research projects within DNDO including work on radiation detector systems, systems engineering, and nuclear forensics appear to have been redefined as non-r&d. Moreover, prior-year budgets have been adjusted to reflect this change. Within the CBRNE thrust, chemical and biological countermeasures would receive $193.9 million, a decrease of $12.9 million or 6.2 percent from the FY 2010 Chemical and Biological division R&D portfolio. Programs in this thrust area are for the detection and threat assessment of biological and chemical agents, including the SAFECON and TRUST cargo screening technologies. The total also includes $69.3 million for bioagent and chemical attack resiliency within the Disaster Resilience thrust, including research for decontamination and community restoration. The remaining component of the CBRNE thrust is Explosives, which would receive $133.1 million for FY 2012, an increase of $12.3 million or 10.2 percent over the FY 2010 Explosives division budget. This total includes $13.1 million for resiliency R&D with a focus on materials research to mitigate explosives damage to buildings. 113

4 Daniels and Epstein Cybersecurity R&D would receive an increased focus in response to the President s National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). The former DHS Cybersecurity Office has been elevated to a division within HSARPA and would receive $64.1 million in FY 2012, an increase of $18 million. This would include funding for user identity and data privacy technology, secure protocols, and software assurance research. The remaining thrust areas in order of decreasing size are Border Security, Counter Terrorist, and Apex research and development. Apex R&D currently funds a single project Science & Technology Operational Research Enhancement (STORE) that seeks to better integrate technologies with the United States Secret Service. Cross-cutting Programs. The Science and Technology Directorate s R&D funding also supports a number of offices that cut across individual mission areas. The Homeland Security Enterprise and First Responder Group was created in order to respond to the needs of first responders with a focus on equipment standards and interoperability; this Group contains the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility. The Acquisition Support and Operations Analysis Group was created in order to leverage the S&T Directorate s technical capabilities to develop testable operational requirements for acquisitions; this Group now contains the Test and Evaluation and Standards Office. Neither the Transition nor Innovation Office have been retained under the restructuring; projects formerly within these offices have been realigned into their appropriate R&D thrust area. The Test and Evaluation and Standards office oversees the Department s test and evaluation programs and also provides technical assistance to state, local, and federal first responders in acquiring safe, reliable, and effective equipment. The programs within the Standards thrust would receive $16.5 million in FY 2012; Testing and Evaluation would receive $6.64 million. The combined budget of these two thrusts would experience a 20.2 percent cut from the FY 2010 Test and Evaluation and Standards Office. Technology Transition thrust projects facilitate the transfer of S&T solutions to other DHS components, industry, and other federal agencies. These programs would receive $10.4 million in FY

5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Laboratory Facilities and University Programs. The Research and Development Partnerships Group was created to facilitate outreach to the private sector and academia and it supports the Laboratory Facilities and University Programs budgets. Laboratory Facilities, budgeted at $276.5 million for FY 2012, would be funded at a level that exceeds all thrust areas except CBRNE. The FY 2012 budget request represents an increase of over $100 million, or 57 percent. However, $150 million of that amount represents funds for the construction of the National Bioand Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF); without these funds, Laboratory Facilities would see a 28.2 percent budget cut. The construction funding request for NBAF comes after the completion of a biosafety and biosecurity risk mitigation assessment for the facility in October The NBAF would replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) and was originally to be financed using sales proceeds from the disposal of PIADC. However, sales estimates were considerably overestimated, and the FY 2012 budget requests direct appropriations of $150 million. Until NBAF is completed, however, Plum Island continues to be operational and receives funding through the Laboratory Facilities budget. The General Services Administration (GSA) is currently working with DHS to put this property on the market. Proceeds from the sale will then be made available for reimbursement through an offsetting account. The remainder of Laboratory Facilities funding in FY 2012 would support the operation of DHS laboratories: the National Biodefense Assessments and Countermeasures Center (NBACC), for which construction was recently completed in Frederick, MD; the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory in New York City, which was transferred into DHS at the Department s onset from the Department of Energy; and the Transportation Security Laboratory in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which was transferred into DHS from the Federal Aviation Administration. The DHS University Programs budget is proposed to be funded in FY 2012 at $36.6 million, $29 million or 44 percent less than its FY 2010 level. University Programs supports university-based Centers of Excellence (COE), which are multi-year university consortia to perform R&D on homeland security-related topics. Also funded in this line are efforts to promote research, education, and training at Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in areas critical to homeland security. This line also 115

6 Daniels and Epstein funds fellowships to encourage U.S. students to pursue scientific and technical degrees. The proposed cut in University Programs funding would eliminate funding for the National Transportation Security Center of Excellence (NTSCOE). Currently there are twelve Centers, one of which is funded jointly with EPA. The newest center was created in 2010 following a re-competition, focusing on risk and economic analysis of terrorist events. The proposed reduction in funding will also eliminate $1.9 million from the Scholarship and Fellowship program. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The DHS S&T Directorate was created in March 2003 with an R&D budget of $918 million for its first full year 2 but without a concise, overarching statutory mission. Subsequently, S&T ran into trouble with Congress early in its tenure. In the spring of 2005, Congressional dissatisfaction with S&T led Congress to take the nuclear detection mission away from the Directorate and give it to a newly-created Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. In June 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee called the Directorate a rudderless ship. In 2007, Congress slashed S&T s funding dramatically. The final 2007 appropriations bill rescinded $125 million in unspent R&D funds, cut most research programs, and required S&T to submit a five-year research plan with priorities, performance measures, and resource needs for each R&D area. This plan was submitted and most recently updated in August Following structural changes implemented by current Under Secretary for Science and Technology Tara O Toole, congressional criticism of S&T has been muted. In March 2011, members of the House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation expressed approval of the progress that S&T had made toward becoming a more mature and productive R&D organization, with concerns focusing more on actual research conducted by S&T rather than organizational or mission-related criticisms. Following the slashing of S&T funding, the 2007 and 2008 R&D totals budget requests were well below appropriations of previous years. However, DHS continued to work through a backlog of unspent funds; at the end of FY 2007, even after rescissions and budget cuts, the S&T 2 Cindy Williams et al., Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America, a Report of a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, June 2009, p

7 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Directorate still had nearly $300 million in unspent funds to carry over to FY So while DHS appropriations history is uneven, the actual outflow of money is smoother as appropriations stretched out into outlays over several years. After two years of R&D funding increases in FY 2009 and 2010 followed by a 10.4 percent reduction in the FY 2011 continuing resolution, S&T R&D funding is proposed to see a substantial increase in FY In FY 2008, the most recent year figures are available; 3 DHS spent the plurality of its R&D funds in industrial firms (43.1 percent), with federal intramural laboratories receiving the second largest share (25.1 percent). Another 20.1 percent went to federally funded research and development centers (national laboratories, mostly DOE labs). Only 6.3 percent of DHS R&D was spent in universities and colleges in FY CURRENT ISSUES Congressional appropriators continue to face the general challenge of how to allocate funding to DHS as compared to other agencies and what share of the DHS budget should be invested in R&D. Specifically, DHS continues to struggle with how to balance funding between basic and applied research as well as the relative funding given to academia, industry, and government laboratories. The S&T Directorate has been criticized for a focus on short-term customer-driven technologies rather than thinking towards longer-term research. This was addressed during confirmation hearings for current Under Secretary Tara O Toole. She testified that DHS operational needs continue to demand significant investments in near-term technology development, adding that the S&T enterprise would benefit from additional investments in fundamental scientific discovery. Given the uncertainty in the nature of the terrorist threat facing the United States, the variety of modes of attack, and the imprecision with which R&D investments can translate to reduced risk or enhanced security, the task of developing a methodology for objectively determining R&D funding levels is formidable. The difficulty for Congress in determining funding priorities is worsened by a perceived lack of transparency and responsiveness on the part of DHS. It has been 3 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (NSB 10-01), Appendix Table

8 Daniels and Epstein increasingly difficult to track budgetary trends as well as identify R&D priorities due to frequent restructuring within the S&T Directorate. The FY 2011 budget request allocated funds according to the divisions and offices within the S&T Directorate; however, the current year FY 2012 budget request realigns projects with research thrust areas. Thus, while many programs included specific itemized budget requests in FY 2011, many of these same projects appear as non-itemized components of a larger thrust area in the FY 2012 budget request. Without the ability to track these budgetary trends, the strategy and research priorities of the S&T Directorate continue to be difficult to ascertain. This lack of transparency has also led to difficulty with transitioning technologies to the private sector. Although progress has been made toward improving the technology transition process, the S&T Directorate has been criticized for a lack of timeliness in communicating with the private sector and a lack of clarity in its research priorities. Without a long-term strategic vision and improved outreach, the business community remains hesitant to invest in S&T technologies. The S&T Directorate has begun to address these issues by placing a strong focus on technology foraging scanning the output of academia and industry for technologies that match DHS needs and developing closer relationships with its customer base in the private sector. Further, in order to develop a more transparent, strategic R&D vision, the S&T Directorate has committed to an annual review of its R&D portfolio that includes the input of outside experts as well as DHS representatives. A final concern with the S&T Directorate is the lack of a fully-integrated acquisitions process. Testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) at a March 2011 House hearing criticized the S&T Directorate for acquisitions decisions that failed to adequately test technologies prior to purchase as well as the lack of a rapid acquisition process to meet emergency needs. During the recent restructuring of the S&T Directorate, the Acquisitions Support and Operations Analysis Group was created in order to provide a more coordinated testing, evaluation, standards, and acquisitions process. 118