Hearing of the House Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies of the Homeland Security Committee - Examining DHS Science and Technology Directorate's Engagement with Academia and Industry"

Hearing

May 19, 2015 (Washington) -- Today, Committee on Homeland Security Ranking Member Bennie G.
Thompson (D-MS) delivered the following prepared remarks for the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Security Technologies subcommittee hearing entitled "Examining DHS Science and
Technology Directorate's Engagement with Academia and Industry":

"Many of my concerns about the Science and Technology Directorate stem from our work in the
Committee a few years ago during my Chairmanship, when we all worked together over a period of two
years to pass a comprehensive, bipartisan Science and Technology authorization bill. That bill sought to
provide much-needed direction for the research and development efforts of the Department.

Within S&T, conducting R&D on technologies is a key component of DHS's efforts to detect, prevent, and
mitigate terrorist threats. Many components of DHS conduct different types of R&D for their respective
missions, but GAO tells us that DHS does not have a unified department-wide policy defining R&D, or
guidance directing components to report R&D activities and investments.

We have had questions over the years on how we can determine the Department's total investment in
R&D across all the components, and how S&T can effectively oversee components' R&D efforts to align
them with agency-wide R&D goals and priorities. If we are going to authorize S&T this year, we should
establish policies and guidance for defining R&D across the department, and having clear processes and
procedures for overseeing R&D, that would provide more oversight of R&D investments across the board.

Though I have met with Under Secretary Brothers, it is still unclear to me whether there is a system to
monitor research milestones and collect feedback from customers and end-users on the effectiveness of
the services delivered by the Directorate. These milestones and feedback would allow this Committee to
offer an objective assessment of the successes and failures of the agency. Without objective
measurement tools, it is impossible for Congress to assess what should be changed or what should be
kept.

Today, we are going to hear from industry associations and academia on how they interact with the
research and development efforts of the Directorate. I hope to hear some suggestions on how those
relationships - among the Directorate, industry, and academia - can be improved, particularly in the Small
Business Innovation Research program, or SBIR.

Finally, I believe we are at a crossroads because in this budget atmosphere of sequestered funding, the
Directorate will be challenged to prioritize or eliminate programs that help protect the American people
today. In 2012, just a few years ago, the House passed extreme budget cuts to the FY12 S&T funding
levels with the support of many of my Republican colleagues -- and they were harsh by any standard.

There are some who are predicting that we are on the way to more cuts, similar to the FY12 sequester.

Officials with cybersecurity responsibilities have seen large increases in their budgets, but Research and
Development in the S&T budget could be an easy target for offsets, as we have seen before. These
potential cuts will have consequences, because if you have less money for science and technology, you
can only do less scientific and technological research.

I caution that the S&T Directorate should be prepared for such a possibility in today's budget atmosphere.'
Mr. Chairman, I hope the Committee will take these matters seriously as we learn how the directorate
interacts with industry and Academia, and its operational programs going forward.

Source