Order Code RL30153
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Critical Infrastructures:
Background, Policy,
and Implementation
Updated February 4, 2002
John D. Moteff
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Critical Infrastructures: Background, Policy
and Implementation
Summary
The nation’s health, wealth, and security rely on the production and distribution
of certain goods and services. The array of physical assets, processes and
organizations across which these goods and services move are called critical
infrastructures (e.g. electricity, the power plants that generate it, and the electric grid
upon which it is distributed). Computers and communications, themselves critical
infrastructures, are increasingly tying these infrastructures together. There is concern
that this reliance on computers and computer networks raises the vulnerability of the
nation’s critical infrastructures to “cyber” attacks.
In May 1998, President Clinton released Presidential Decision Directive No. 63.
The Directive set up groups within the federal government to develop and implement
plans that would protect government-operated infrastructures and called for a
dialogue between government and the private sector to develop a National
Infrastructure Assurance Plan that would protect all of the nation’s critical
infrastructures by the year 2003. While the Directive called for both physical and
cyber protection from both man-made and natural events, implementation focused on
cyber protection against man-made cyber events (i.e. computer hackers). Those
advocating the need for greater cyber security felt that this was a new vulnerability not
fully appreciated by system owners and operators in either the private or public
sectors. However, given the impact of the September 11 attacks on the
communications, finance, and transportation infrastructures, physical protections of
critical infrastructures may receive more attention.
PDD-63 was a Clinton Administration policy document. Following the events
of September 11, the Bush Administration released two relevant Executive Orders
(EOs). EO 13228, signed October 8, 2001 established the Office of Homeland
Security. Among its duties, the Office shall “coordinate efforts to protect the United
States and its critical infrastructure from the consequences of terrorist attacks.” EO
13231, signed October 16, stated the Bush Administration’s policy and objectives for
critical infrastructure protection. These are similar to those stated in PDD-63 and
assumes continuation of many PDD-63 activities. E.O. 13231, however, specifically
focuses on information systems. E.O. 13231 also established the President’s Critical
Infrastructure Protection Board. The mission of the Board is to “recommend and
coordinate programs for protecting information systems for critical infrastructures.”
Prior to September 11, Congressional interest in critical infrastructure protection
also focused on cyber security. Legislation was passed in 2000 to improve agencies’
accountability for securing their computer systems. This year, as part of the anti-
terrorism legislation, Congress expanded the ability of federal agents to track
computer hackers. Bills have also been introduced to facilitate the sharing of
information between government and industry. Congressional interest in the physical
protection of critical infrastructures has increased as a result of September 11. Bills
have been introduced to increase the physical protections at airports, nuclear plants,
dams, ports, and water supplies. Increased cyber and physical security raises some
privacy concerns. Other issues include cost-effectiveness and liability.

---

Contents
Latest Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection . . . . . . . 3
Presidential Decision Directive No. 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Implementation of PDD-63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Selection of Sector Liaison Officials and Functional Coordinators . . . 7
Identifying and Selecting Sector Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appointment of the National Infrastructure Assurance Council . . . . . . 8
Selection of Agency CIAOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Internal Agency Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Critical Infrastructure Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Restructuring by the Bush Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Privacy/Civil Liberties? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Congressional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FY2001 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Lead Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Sector Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. National Plan for Information Systems Protection
Version 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table A.1. Critical Infrastructure Protection Funding by Department . . . . . . . . 30

---

Critical Infrastructures: Background, Policy,
and Implementation
Latest Developments
The House is scheduled to take up H.R. 3394 the first week of February. H.R.
3394, among other actions, authorizes the National Science Foundation and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to support research centers in cyber-
security. See Congressional Actions, page 26.

Introduction
Certain socio-economic activities are vital to the day-to-day functioning and
security of the country; for example, transportation of goods and people,
communications, banking and finance, and the supply and distribution of electricity
and water. These activities and services have been referred to as components of the
nation’s critical infrastructure. Domestic security and our ability to monitor, deter,
and respond to outside hostile acts also depend on some of these activities as well as
other more specialized activities like intelligence gathering and command and control
of police and military forces. A serious disruption in these activities and capabilities
could have a major impact on the country’s well-being.1
These activities and capabilities are supported by an array of physical assets,
processes, information, and organizations forming what has been called the nation’s
critical infrastructures. The country’s critical infrastructures are growing increasingly
complex, relying on computers and, now, computer networks to operate efficiently
and reliably. The growing complexity, and the interconnectedness resulting from
networking, means that a disruption in one may lead to disruptions in others.
Disruptions can be caused by any number of factors: poor design, operator error,
physical destruction due to natural causes, (earthquakes, lightening strikes, etc.) or
physical destruction due to intentional human actions (theft, arson, sabotage, etc.).
Over the years, operators of these infrastructures have taken measures to guard
against and to quickly respond to many of these risks.2 However, the growing
1As a reminder of how dependent society is on its infrastructure, in May 1998, PanAmSat’s
Galaxy IV satellite’s on-board controller malfunctioned, disrupting service to an estimated 80-
90% of the nation’s pagers, causing problems for hospitals trying to reach doctors on call,
emergency workers, and people trying to use their credit cards at gas pumps, to name but a
few.
2Following September 11, these protections will undoubtedly be reexamined.

---

CRS-2
dependency of these systems on information technologies and computer networks
introduces a new vector by which problems can be introduced.3
Of particular concern is the threat posed by “hackers” who can gain unauthorized
access to a system and who could destroy, corrupt, steal, or monitor information vital
to the operation of the system. Unlike arsonists or saboteurs, hackers can gain access
from remote locations. The ability to detect and deter their actions is still being
developed. While infrastructure operators are also taking measures to guard against
and respond to cyber attacks, there is concern that the number of “on-line” operations
is growing faster than security awareness and the use of sound security measures.
Hackers range from mischievous teenagers, to disgruntled employees, to
criminals, to spies, to foreign military organizations. While the more commonly
reported incidents involve mischievous teenagers (or adults), self-proclaimed
“electronic anarchists”, or disgruntled (former) employees, the primary concern are
criminals, spies, and military personnel from around the world who appear to be
perfecting their hacking skills and who may pose a potential strategic threat to the
reliable operations of our critical infrastructures.4
Prior to September 11, critical infrastructure protection was synonymous with
cyber security to many people. Consequently, much of this report discusses cyber
related activities and issues. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the
subsequent anthrax attacks, demonstrate the need to reexamine physical protections
and to integrate this into an overall critical infrastructure policy.5 To the extent this
happens, this report will capture it. However, specific physical protections associated
with individual infrastructures is beyond the scope of this report. For CRS products
related to specific infrastructure protection efforts, see For Additional Reading.
3Efforts to integrate the computer systems of Norfolk Southern and Conrail after their merger
in June, 1999 caused a series of mishaps leaving trains misrouted, crews misscheduled, and
products lost. See, “Merged Railroads Still Plagued by IT Snafus,” Computerworld, January
17, 2000,pp 20-21.
4The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency testified before the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs (June 24, 1998) that a number of countries are incorporating
information warfare into their military doctrine and training and developing operational
capability. It should be noted that the U.S. military is probably the leader in developing both
offensive and defensive computer warfare techniques and doctrine.
5Besides loss of life, the terrorist attacks of September 11 disrupted the services of a number
of critical infrastructures (including telecommunications, the internet, financial markets, and
air transportation). In some cases, protections already in place (like off-site storage of data,
mirror capacity, etc.) allowed for relatively quick reconstitution of services. In other cases,
service is still disrupted.

---

CRS-3
The President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure
Protection
President Clinton established the President’s Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) in July 1996.6 Its tasks were to: report to the
President the scope and nature of the vulnerabilities and threats to the nation’s critical
infrastructures (focusing primarily on cyber threats); recommend a comprehensive
national policy and implementation plan for protecting critical infrastructures;
determine legal and policy issues raised by proposals to increase protections; and
propose statutory and regulatory changes necessary to effect recommendations.
The PCCIP released its report to President Clinton in October 1997.7 While the
Commission found no immediate crisis threatening the nation’s infrastructures, it did
find reason to take action. The rapid growth of a computer-literate population
(implying a greater pool of potential hackers), the inherent vulnerabilities of common
protocols in computer networks, the easy availability of hacker “tools” (available on
many websites), and the fact that the basic tools of the hacker (computer, modem,
telephone line) are the same essential technologies used by the general population
indicated to the Commission that the threat and vulnerability exist.
The Commission’s general recommendation was that greater cooperation and
communication between the private sector and government was needed. Much of the
nation’s critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector. As seen
by the Commission, the government’s primary role (aside from protecting its own
infrastructures) is to collect and disseminate the latest information on intrusion
techniques, threat analysis, and ways to defend against hackers.
The Commission also proposed a strategy for action:
•
facilitate greater cooperation and communication between the private
sector and appropriate government agencies by: setting a top level policy-
making office in the White House; establishing a council that includes
corporate executives, state and local government officials, and cabinet
secretaries; and setting up information clearinghouses;
•
develop a real-time capability of attack warning;
•
establish and promote a comprehensive awareness and education program;
•
streamline and clarify elements of the legal structure to support assurance
measures (including clearing jurisdictional barriers to pursuing hackers
electronically); and,
•
expand research and development in technologies and techniques, especially
technologies that allow for greater detection of intrusions.
6Executive Order 13010.Critical Infrastructure Protection. Federal Register. Vol 61. No. 138.
July 17, 1996. pp. 3747-3750.
7President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Critical Foundations:
Protecting America’s Infrastructures, October 1997.

---

CRS-4
The Commission’s report underwent interagency review to determine how to
respond. That review led to a Presidential Decision Directive released in May 1998.
Presidential Decision Directive No. 63
Presidential Decision Directive No. 63 (PDD-63)8 set as a national goal the
ability to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure from intentional attacks (both
physical and cyber) by the year 2003. According to the PDD, any interruptions in the
ability of these infrastructures to provide their goods and services must be “brief,
infrequent, manageable, geographically isolated, and minimally detrimental to the
welfare of the United States.”9
PDD-63 identified the following activities whose critical infrastructures should
be protected: information and communications; banking and finance; water supply;
aviation, highways, mass transit, pipelines, rail, and waterborne commerce; emergency
and law enforcement services; emergency, fire, and continuity of government services;
public health services; electric power, oil and gas production, and storage. In
addition, the PDD identified four activities where the federal government controls the
critical infrastructure: internal security and federal law enforcement; foreign
intelligence; foreign affairs; and national defense.
A lead agency was assigned to each of these “sectors” (see Table 1). Each lead
agency was directed to appoint a Sector Liaison Official to interact with appropriate
private sector organizations. The private sector was encouraged to select a Sector
Coordinator to work with the agency’s sector liaison official. Together, the liaison
official, sector coordinator, and all affected parties were to contribute to a sectoral
security plan which will be integrated into a National Infrastructure Assurance
Plan (see Table 3 below). Each of the activities performed primarily by the federal
government also were assigned a lead agency who will appoint a Functional
Coordinator to coordinate efforts similar to those made by the Sector Liaisons.
8See, The Clinton’s Administration’s Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection:
Presidential Decision Directive 63, White Paper, May 22, 1998, which can be found on
[http://www.ciao.gov/ciao_document_library/paper598.html].
9Ibid.

---

CRS-5
Table 1. Lead Agencies
Department/Agency
Sector/Function
Commerce
Information and Communications
Treasury
Banking and Finance
EPA
Water
Transportation
Transportation
Justice
Emergency Law Enforcement
Federal Emergency Management
Emergency Fire Service
Agency
Health and Human Services
Emergency Medicine
Energy
Electric Power, Gas, and Oil
Justice
Law Enforcement and International
Security
Director of Central Intelligence
Intelligence
State
Foreign Affairs
Defense
National Defense
The PDD created the position of National Coordinator for Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. The National Coordinator reported
to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.10
Among his many duties the National Coordinator chaired the Critical Infrastructure
Coordination Group. This Group was the primary interagency working group for
developing and implementing policy and for coordinating the federal government’s
own internal security measures. The Group included high level representatives from
the lead agencies (including the Sector Liaisons), the National Economic Council, and
all other relevant agencies.
Each federal agency was made responsible for securing its own critical
infrastructure and was to designate a Critical Infrastructure Assurance Officer (CIAO)
to assume that responsibility. The agency’s current Chief Information Officer (CIO)
could double in that capacity. In those cases where the CIO and the CIAO were
different, the CIO was responsible for assuring the agency’s information assets
(databases, software, computers), while the CIAO was responsible for any other
assets that make up that agency’s critical infrastructure. Agencies were given 180
days from the signing of the Directive to develop their plans. Those plans were to be
fully implemented within 2 years and updated every 2 years.
10President Clinton designated Richard Clarke (Special Assistant to the President for Global
Affairs, National Security Council) as National Coordinator.

---

CRS-6
The PDD set up a National Infrastructure Assurance Council. The Council
was to be a panel that included private operators of infrastructure assets and officials
from state and local government officials and relevant federal agencies. The Council
was to meet periodically and provide reports to the President as appropriate. The
National Coordinator was to act as the Executive Director of the Council.
The PDD also called for a National Infrastructure Assurance Plan. The Plan
is to integrate the plans from each of the sectors mentioned above and should consider
the following: a vulnerability assessment, including the minimum essential capability
required of the sector’s infrastructure to meet its purpose; remedial plans to reduce
the sector’s vulnerability; warning requirements and procedures; response strategies;
reconstitution of services; education and awareness programs; research and
development needs; intelligence strategies; needs and opportunities for international
cooperation; and legislative and budgetary requirements.
The PDD also set up a National Plan Coordination Staff to support the plan’s
development. This function was performed by the Critical Infrastructure Assurance
Office (CIAO, not to be confused with the agencies’ Critical Infrastructure Assurance
Officers) and was placed in the Department of Commerce’s Export Administration.
CIAO supports the National Coordinator’s efforts to integrate the sectoral plans into
a National Plan, supports individual agencies in developing their internal plans, helps
coordinate a national education and awareness programs, and provides legislative and
public affairs support.
In addition to the above activities, the PDD called for studies on specific topics.
These included issues of: liability that might arise from private firms participating in
an information sharing process; legal impediments to information sharing;
classification of information and granting of clearances (efforts to share threat and
vulnerability information with private sector CEOs has been hampered by the need to
convey that information in a classified manner); information sharing with foreign
entities; and the merits of mandating, subsidizing or otherwise assisting in the
provision of insurance for selected infrastructure providers.
Most of the Directive established policy-making and oversight bodies making use
of existing agency authorities and expertise. However, the PDD also addressed
operational concerns. The Directive called for a national capability to detect and
respond to cyber attacks while they are in progress. Although not specifically
identified in the Directive, the Clinton Administration proposed establishing a
Federal Instruction Detection Network (FIDNET) that would, together with the
Federal Computer Intrusion Response Capability (FedCIRC) begun just prior to
PDD-63, meet this goal. The Directive explicitly gave the Federal Bureau of
Investigation the authority to expand its existing computer crime capabilities into a
National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC). The Directive called for the
NIPC to be the focal point for federal threat assessment, vulnerability analysis, early
warning capability, law enforcement investigations, and response coordination. All
agencies were required to forward to the NIPC information about threats and actual
attacks on their infrastructure as well as attacks made on private sector infrastructures

---

CRS-7
of which they become aware. Presumably, FIDNET11 and FedCIRC would feed into
the NIPC. According to the Directive, the NIPC would be linked electronically to the
rest of the federal government and use warning and response expertise located
throughout the federal government.. The Directive also made the NIPC the conduit
for information sharing with the private sector through equivalent Information
Sharing and Analysis Center(s) operated by the private sector.
While the FBI was given the lead, the NIPC also includes the Department of
Defense, the Intelligence Community, and a representative from all lead agencies.
Depending on the level of threat or the character of the intrusion, the NIPC may be
placed in direct support of either the Department of Defense or the Intelligence
Community.
Implementation of PDD-63
Selection of Sector Liaison Officials and Functional Coordinators.
All lead agencies and lead functional agencies appointed their Sector Liaison Officials
and Functional Coordinators.
Identifying and Selecting Sector Coordinators. The identification of
sector coordinators has proceeded with mixed results. The table below shows those
individuals or groups that have agreed to act as Coordinators.
Different sectors present different challenges to identifying a coordinator. Some
sectors are more diverse than others (e.g. transportation includes rail, air, waterways,
and highways; information and communications include computers, software, wire
and wireless communications) and raises the issue of how to have all the relevant
players represented. Other sectors are fragmented, consisting of small or local
entities. Some sectors, such as banking, telecommunications, and energy have more
experience than others in working with the federal government and/or working
collectively to assure the performance of their systems.
Besides such structural issues are ones related to competition. Inherent in the
exercise is asking competitors to cooperate. In some cases it is asking competing
industries to cooperate. This cooperation not only raises issues of trust among firms,
but also concerns regarding anti-trust rules. Also, having these groups in direct
communications with the federal government raises questions about their relationship
to the federal government as governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
USC Appendix) and how the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) applies to
them and the information that may be exchanged.
11From the beginning FIDNET generated controversy both inside and outside the government.
Privacy concerns, cost and technical feasibility were at issue. By the end of the Clinton
Administration, FIDNET as a distributed intrusion detection system feeding into a centralized
analysis and warning capability was abandoned. Each agency, however, is allowed and
encouraged to use intrusion detection technology to monitor and secure their own systems.

---

CRS-8
Sector coordinators have been identified for most of the major privately operated
sectors. The Association of American Railroads is the most recent to accept the
duties of coordinator for the rail sector. The Department of Transportation would
like to also find coordinators for air and water transportation. FEMA has not
identified a single coordinator to represent the country’s emergency/fire service
providers. FEMA is also responsible for the area of continuity of government. Again,
no single coordinator has been identified, but FEMA had discussed continuity of
government issues with state and local governments in the context of the Y2K.12 Nor
has the Department of Health and Human Services identified a central coordinator for
the emergency medical community. The Department of Justice also has not identified
a single coordinator for emergency law enforcement but is using existing outreach
programs at the FBI and the NIPC to promote awareness and education activities.
Table 2. Sector Coordinators
Lead Agency
Identified Sector Coordinators
Commerce
A consortium of 3 associations:
Information Technology Assn. of
America; Telecommunications
Industry Assn.; U.S. Telephone Assn.
Treasury
Steven Katz - Citigroup
EPA
Assn. of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Energy
North American Electric Reliability
Council and National Petroleum
Council
Transportation
Association of American Railroads
Health and Human Services
FEMA
Justice
Appointment of the National Infrastructure Assurance Council. The
Clinton Administration released an Executive Order (13130) in July, 1999, formally
establishing the council. Just prior to leaving office, President Clinton put forward
the names of 18 appointees.13 The Order was rescinded by the Bush Administration
12The New Mexico Critical Infrastructure Assurance Council, an offshoot of the FBI’s
InfraGard efforts in the state, include the state government and other state and local agencies.
The Council is referenced in the National Plan for Information Systems Protection. See,
National Critical Infrastructure Plan, below.
13White House Press Release, dated January 18, 2000.

---

CRS-9
before the Council could meet. In Executive Order 1323114, President Bush
establishes a National Infrastructure Advisory Council (with the same acronym,
NIAC) whose functions are similar to those of the Clinton Council.
Selection of Agency CIAOs. All agencies made permanent or acting CIAO
appointments.
Internal Agency Plans. There has been some confusion about which
agencies were required to submit critical infrastructure plans. The PDD-63 directs
every agency to develop and implement such a plan. A subsequent Informational
Seminar on PDD-63 held on October 13, 1998 identified two tiers of agencies. The
first tier included lead agencies and other “primary” agencies like the Central
Intelligence Agency and Veteran’s Affairs. These agencies were held to the 180 day
deadline. A second tier of agencies were identified by the National Coordinator and
required to submit plans by the end of February, 1999. The “secondary” agencies
were Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Interior,
General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. All of these “primary” and “secondary”
agencies met their initial deadlines for submitting their internal plans for protecting
their own critical infrastructures from attacks and for responding to intrusions. The
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office assembled an expert team to review the plans.
The plans were assessed in 12 areas including schedule/milestone planning, resource
requirements, and knowledge of existing authorities and guidance. The assessment
team handed back the initial plans with comments. Agencies were given 90 days to
respond to these comments. Of the 22 “primary” and “secondary” agencies that
submitted plans, 16 modified and resubmitted them in response to first round
comments.
Initially the process of reviewing these agency plans was to continue until all
concerns were addressed. Over the summer of 1999, however, review efforts slowed
and subsequent reviews were put on hold as the efficacy of the reviews was debated.
Some within the CIAO felt that the plans were too general and lacked a clear
understanding of what constituted a “critical asset” and the interdependencies of those
assets. As a result of that internal debate, the CIAO redirected its resources to
institute a new program called Project Matrix. Project Matrix is a three step process
by which an agency can identify and assess its most critical assets, identify the
dependencies of those assets on other systems, including those beyond the direct
control of the agency, and prioritize. CIAO has offered this analysis to 14 agencies,
including some not designated as “primary” or “secondary” agencies, such as the
Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Participation by the agencies has been voluntary.
In the meantime, other agencies (i.e. those not designated as primary and
secondary) apparently did not develop critical infrastructure plans. In a much later
report by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (dated March 21, 2001),
14Executive Order 13231—Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age. Federal
Register. Vol. 66. No. 202. October 18, 2001. pp53063-53071. The NIAC is established on
page 53069.

---

CRS-10
the Council, which was charged with reviewing agencies’ implementation of PDD-63,
stated that there was a misunderstanding as to the applicability of PDD-63 to all
agencies. The Council asserted that all agencies were required to develop a critical
infrastructure plan and that many had not, because they felt they were no covered by
the Directive. Also, the Council found that of the agency plans that had been
submitted, many were incomplete, had not identified their mission-critical assets, and
that almost none had completed vulnerability assessments.
According to the National Plan released in January 2000 (see below), all “Phase
One” and “Phase Two” agencies (presumably this refers to the “primary” and
“secondary” agencies mentioned above) were to have completed preliminary
vulnerability analyses and to have outlined proposed remedial actions. Again,
according to the National Plan, those remedial actions were to be budgeted for and
submitted as part of the agencies’ FY2001 budgets submissions to the Office of
Management and Budget and every year thereafter. However, given the discussion
above, the comprehensiveness of these studies and plans are in question.
Neither of the Bush Administration executive orders make reference to these
critical infrastructure protection plans of the agencies.
National Critical Infrastructure Plan. The Clinton Administration, after
some delay, released Version 1.0 of its National Plan for Information Systems
Protection in January 2000.15 The Plan focused primarily on cyber-related efforts
within the federal government. A note in the Executive Summary states that a parallel
Critical Physical Infrastructure Protection Plan is to be developed and possibly
incorporated in Version 2.0, or later versions.16
Version 1.0 was divided between government-wide efforts and those unique to
the national security community. The Plan (159 pages) will not be summarized here
in any detail. The reader is referred to the CIAO website
[http://www.ciao.gov/Programs/programs.htm]. Essentially, the Plan identified 10
“programs” under three broad objectives (see Table 3, below). Each program
contained some specific actions to be taken, capabilities to be established, and dates
by which these shall be accomplished. Other activities, capabilities, and dates were
more general (e.g. during FY2001).
The Plan included a number of new initiatives identified by the Clinton
Administration. These are identified in the appendix of this report.
15Defending America’s Cyberspace. National Plan for Information Systems Protection.
Version 1.0. An Invitation to a Dialogue. The White House. 2000.
16Ibid. Executive Summary. p. 13.

---

CRS-11
Table 3. National Plan for Information Systems Protection
Version 1.0
Goal: Achieve a critical information systems defense with an initial operating
capability by December 2000, and a full operating capability by May 2003...that
ensures any interruption or manipulation of these critical functions must be brief,
infrequent, manageable, geographically isolated, and minimally detrimental to
the welfare of the United States.
Objectives
Programs
Prepare and
ID critical infrastructures and interdependencies and address
Prevent
vulnerabilities
Detect and
Detect attacks and unauthorized intrusions
Respond
Develop robust intelligence and law enforcement capabilities
consistent with the law
Share attack warnings and information in a timely manner
Create capabilities for response, reconstitution, and recovery
Build
Enhance research and development in the above mentioned areas
Strong
Foundations
Train and employ adequate numbers of information security
specialists
Make Americans aware of the need for improved cyber-security
Adopt legislation and appropriations in support of effort
At every step of the process ensure full protection of American
citizens’ civil liberties, rights to privacy, and rights to protection
of proprietary information
Version 2.0 of the National Plan is to cover the private sector. The Partnership
for Critical Infrastructure Protection (see below) is coordinating the private sector’s
input. The Bush Administration expects to release the next version of the National
Plan early next year. The extent to which Version 2.0 will address physical
protections remains to been seen.
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). PDD-63 envisaged
an ISAC to be the private sector counterpart to the FBI’s National Infrastructure
Protection Center (NIPC), collecting and sharing incident and response information
among its members and facilitating information exchange between government and
the private sector. While the Directive conceived of a single center serving the entire
private sector, the idea now is that each sector would have its own center. Progress
in forming sector ISACs has been mixed.

---

CRS-12
A number of the nation’s largest banks, securities firms, insurance companies and
investment companies have joined together in a limited liability corporation to form
a banking and finance industry ISAC. The group has contracted with an internet
service provider17 (ISP) to design and operate the ISAC. Individual firms feed raw
computer network traffic data to the ISAC. The ISP maintains a database of network
traffic and analyzes it for suspicious behavior and provides its customers with
summary reports. If suspicious behavior is detected, the analysis may be forwarded
to the federal government. Anonymity is maintained between participants and outside
the ISAC. The ISP will forward to its customers alerts and other information
provided by the federal government. The ISAC became operational in October, 1999.
The telecommunications industry has agreed to establish an ISAC through the
National Coordinating Center (NCC). The NCC is a government-industry partnership
that coordinates responses to disruptions in the National Communications System.
Unlike the banking and finance ISAC that uses a third party for centralized monitoring
and analysis, each member firm of the NCC will monitor and analyze its own
networks. If a firm suspects its network(s) have been breached, it will discuss the
incident(s) within the NCC’s normal forum. The NCC members will decide whether
the suspected behavior is serious enough to report to the appropriate federal
authorities. Anonymity will be maintained outside the NCC. Any communication
between federal authorities and member firms will take place through the NCC, this
includes incident response and requests for additional information18.
The electric power sector, too, has established a decentralized ISAC through its
North American Electricity Reliability Council (NAERC). Much like the NCC,
NAERC already monitors and coordinates responses to disruptions in the nation’s
supply of electricity. It is in this forum that information security issues and incidents
will be shared. The National Petroleum Council is still considering setting up an
ISAC with its members.
In January, 2001, the information technology industry announced its plans to
form an ISAC. Members include 19 major hardware, software, and e-commerce
firms, including AT&T, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, and Oracle. The ISAC will be
overseen by a board made up of members and operated by Internet Security Systems.

The country’s water authorities intend to develop an appropriate ISAC model
for their sector. Individual water authorities have existing lines of communications
with the FBI through which they could report suspicious behavior. The same could
be true for the other local and state emergency services sectors.
In addition to these individual sectors setting up or contemplating ISACs, the
private sector has formed a Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security to
share information and strategies and to identify interdependencies across sectoral
17The ISP is Global Integrity, a subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp.
(SAIC).
18 Federal agencies sit on the NCC, including the NSA. One could assume that knowledge of
incidents discussed in the NCC could find its way to federal investigatory authorities without
formally being reported.

---

CRS-13
lines. The Partnership is a private sector initiative and has filed as a 501(c)(6)
organization. A preliminary meeting was held in December 1999 and five working
groups were established (Interdependencies/Vulnerability Assessment, Cross-Sector
Information Sharing, Legislation and Policy, Research and Development, and
Organization). The working groups meet every other month. The federal
government is not officially part of the Partnership, but the CIAO acts as a liaison and
has provided administrative support for meetings. Sector Liaison from lead agencies
are considered ex officio members. Some entities not yet part of their own industry
group (e.g. some hospitals and pharmaceutical firms) or not specifically designated
as belonging to a critical infrastructure (the chemical industry) are participating in the
Partnership.
Also, besides the efforts of the lead agencies to assist their sectors in considering
ISACs, the NIPC offers private sector firms from across all industries a program
called INFRAGARD. The program includes an Alert Network. Participants in the
program agree to supply the FBI with two reports when they suspect an intrusion of
their systems has occurred. One report is “sanitized” of sensitive information and the
other provides more detailed description of the intrusion. The FBI will help the
participant respond to the intrusion. In addition, all participants are sent periodic
updates on what is known about recent intrusion techniques. The NIPC is working
to set up local INFRAGARD chapters that can work with each other and regional FBI
field offices. In January, 2001, the FBI announced it had finished establishing
INFRAGARD chapters in each of its 56 field offices.
It should also be noted that the FBI has had since the 1980s a program called the
Key Assets Initiative (KAI). The objective of the KAI is to develop a database of
information on “key assets” within the jurisdiction of each FBI field office. The
program was initially begun to allow for contingency planning against physical
terrorist attacks. According to testimony by a former Director of the NIPC, the
program was “reinvigorated” by the NIPC and expanded to included the cyber
dimension.19
Restructuring by the Bush Administration
As part of its overall redesign of White House organization and assignment of
responsibilities, the new Bush Administration spent the first 8 months reviewing its
options for coordinating and overseeing critical infrastructure protection. During this
time, the Bush Administration continued to support the activities begun by the Clinton
Administration.
The Bush Administration review was influenced by three parallel debates. First,
the National Security Council (NSC) underwent a major streamlining. All groups
within the Council established during previous Administrations were abolished. Their
responsibilities and functions were consolidated into 17 Policy Coordination
Committees (PCCs). The activities associated with critical infrastructure protection
were assumed by the Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness PCC. Whether,
19Testimony by Michael Vatis before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Technology and Terrorism. Oct. 6, 1999.

---

CRS-14
or to what extent, the NSC should remain the focal point for coordinating critical
infrastructure protection (i.e. the National Coordinator came from the NSC) was
unclear. Richard Clarke, himself, wrote a memorandum to the incoming Bush
Administration that the function should be transferred directly to the White House.20
Second, there was a continuing debate about the merits of establishing a
government-wide Chief Information Officer (CIO), whose responsibilities would
include protection of all federal non-national security-related computer systems and
coordination with the private sector on the protection of privately owned computer
systems. The Bush Administration announced mid-year its desire not to create a
separate federal CIO position, but to recruit a Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget that would assume an oversight role of agency CIOs. One
of reason’s cited for this was a desire to keep agencies responsible for their own
computer security.21
Third, there was the continuing debate about how best to defend the country
against terrorism, in general. Some include in the terrorist threat cyber attacks on
critical infrastructure. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (the
Hart-Rudman Commission) proposed a new National Homeland Security Agency.
The recommendation built upon the current Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) by adding to it the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, Customs Service, and
other agencies. The Commission recommended that the new organization include a
directorate responsible for critical infrastructure protection.
On May 8, the Bush Administration announced it intention to create a new office
within FEMA called the Office of National Preparedness. The Office would act to
coordinate all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction
consequence management. The announcement also noted that Vice-President Cheney
would oversee the development of a plan to address terrorism threats using weapons
of mass destruction (WMD). It appears that WMD are limited here to biological,
nuclear, or chemical weapons and does not include cyber attacks against critical
infrastructures.
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks President Bush signed two
Executive Orders relevant to critical infrastructure protection. E.O. 13228, signed
October 8, 2001 established the Office of Homeland Security, headed by the
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.22 Its mission is to “develop and
coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the
United States from terrorist threats and attacks.” Among its functions is the
coordination of efforts to protect the United States and its critical infrastructure from
the consequences of terrorist attacks. This includes strengthening measures for
protecting energy production, transmission, and distribution; telecommunications;
20Senior NSC Official Pitches Cyber-Security Czar Concept in Memo to Rice. Inside the
Pentagon. January 11, 2001. p 2-3.
21For a discussion of this and the status of federal CIO legislation, see CRS Report RL30914,
Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities and Challenges, by Jeffery Siefert.
22President Bush selected Tom Ridge to head the new Office.

---

CRS-15
public and privately owned information systems; transportation systems; and, the
provision of food and water for human use. Another function of the Office is to
coordinate efforts to ensure rapid restoration of these critical infrastructures after a
disruption by a terrorist threat or attack.
Finally, the EO also established the Homeland Security Council. The Council,
made up of the President, Vice-President, Secretaries of Treasury, Defense, Health
and Human Services, and Transportation, the Attorney General, the Directors of
FEMA, FBI, and CIA and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.
Other White House and departmental officials are invited to attend Council
meetings.23 The Council advises and assists the President with respect to all aspects
of homeland security. The agenda for those meetings shall be set by the Assistant to
President for Homeland Security, at the direction of the President. The Assistant is
also the official recorder of Council actions and Presidential decisions.
The second Executive Order (E.O. 13231) signed October 16, 2001, stated that
it is U.S. policy “to protect against the disruption of the operation of information
systems for critical infrastructure...and to ensure that any disruptions that occur are
infrequent, of minimal duration, and manageable, and cause the least damage
possible.”24 This Order also established the President’s Critical Infrastructure
Protection Board. The Board’s responsibility is to “recommend policies and
coordinate programs for protecting information systems for critical infrastructure...”
The Order also established a number of standing committees of the Board that
includes Research and Development (chaired by a designee of the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology), Incident Response (chaired by the designees of
the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense), and Physical Security (also
chaired by designees of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense). The
Board is directed to propose a National Plan on issues within its purview on a
periodic basis, and, in coordination with the Office of Homeland Security, review and
make recommendations on that part of agency budgets that fall within the purview of
the Board.
The Board is to be chaired by a Special Advisor to the President for
Cyberspace Security.25 The Special Advisor reports to both the Assistant to the
President for National Security and the Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security. Besides presiding over Board meetings, the Special Advisor may, in
consultation with the Board, propose policies and programs to appropriate officials
to ensure protection of the nation’s information infrastructure and may coordinate
with the Director of OMB on issues relating to budgets and the security of computer
networks.
23For more information on the structure of the Homeland Security Council and the Office of
Homeland Security, see CRS Report RL31148. Homeland Security: The Presidential
Coordination Office, by Harold Relyea.
24Executive Order 13231—Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age. Federal
Register. Vol. 86. No. 202. Oct. 18, 2001.
25President Bush designated Richard Clarke.

---

CRS-16
Finally, the Order also established the National Infrastructure Advisory
Council. The Council is to provide advice to the President on the security of
information systems for critical infrastructure. The Council’s functions include
enhancing public-private partnerships, monitoring the development of ISACs, and
encouraging the private sector to perform periodic vulnerability assessments of critical
information and telecommunication systems.
In many respects, the Bush Administration policy statements regarding critical
infrastructure protection are a continuation of PDD-63. The fundamental policy
statements are the essentially the same: the protection of infrastructures critical to the
people, economy, essential government services, and national security. Also, the goal
of the government’s efforts are to ensure that any disruption of the services provided
by these infrastructures be infrequent, of minimal duration, and manageable. The
infrastructures identified as critical are essentially the same. There is to be an
interagency group (the Homeland Security Council and the President’s Critical
Infrastructure Protection Board in EO 13228 and 13231, respectively, replaces the
Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group of PDD-63) to develop policies and
coordinate activities. Functional areas of concern are similar (i.e. research and
development, response coordination, intelligence, etc.). The President shall be
advised by a Council made up of private sector executives, academics, and State and
local officials. The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center (at the FBI) are left in place, as are the liaison efforts
between lead agencies and the private sector and State and local governments, and the
structures set up for information sharing.
There are two primary differences, however. First, the Office of Homeland
Security has overall authority for coordinating critical infrastructure protection against
terrorist threats and attacks. Those responsibilities associated with information
systems of critical infrastructures are delegated to the President’s Critical
Infrastructure Protection Board. Furthermore the Board’s responsibilities for
protecting the physical assets of the nation’s information systems are to be defined by
the Assistant to President for National Security and the Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security. While PDD-63 focused primarily on cyber security, it gave the
National Coordinator responsibility to coordinate the physical and cyber security for
all critical infrastructures.
Second, the “National Coordinator” is now a Special Advisor to the President
rather than a member of the National Security Council staff. However, the Special
Advisor still reports to Assistant to President for National Security in addition to the
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. It is not clear what additional
authority the new position grants the individual serving as Special Advisor. The E.O.
specifically grants the Special Advisor the authority to coordinate with the Director
of OMB on budgetary matters.
Issues

Roles and Responsibilities. One of the issues associated with PDD-63 was
whether it duplicated, superseded, or overturned existing information security
responsibilities. Although the Directive dealt with infrastructures issues beyond just
computer systems and also considered physical protections, its implementation

---

CRS-17
focused on “cyber” threats and vulnerabilities. In this respect, it was an extension of
the government’s existing efforts in computer security. The Directive sought to use
existing authorities and expertise as much as possible in assigning responsibilities.
Nevertheless, the Directive did set up new entities that, at least at first glance,
assumed responsibilities previously assigned to others.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13) placed the responsibility
for establishing government-wide information resources management policy with the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Those policies are outlined in
OMB Circular A-130. Appendix III of the Circular incorporates responsibilities for
computer security as laid out in the Computer Security Act of 1987.26 The Computer
Security Act requires all agencies to inventory their computer systems and to establish
security plans commensurate with the sensitivity of information contained on them.
Agencies are suppose to submit summaries of their security plans along with their
strategic information resources management plan to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The agencies are to follow technical, managerial, and administrative
guidelines laid out by OMB, the Department of Commerce, the General Services
Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management and should include (as
detailed in the OMB Circular) incidence response plans, contingencies plans, and
awareness and training programs for personnel. The Director of OMB was given the
authority by the Computer Security Act to comment on those plans.
Under PDD-63, agencies submitted plans (not dissimilar in content to those
called for in the Computer Security Act of 1987 and detailed in OMB Circular A-130
Appendix III) to the CIAO. The Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group
assembled an expert review team to review these plans (an “ad hoc” team was set up
at CIAO). It was not readily apparent who had the primary role to review and
comment of an agency’s security plan?27 Who determined whether an agency’s
obligation to creating an adequate plan have been met?
It is not yet clear if E.O. 13231 will lead to the same issues. The E.O.
specifically reaffirms OMB’s role in developing and overseeing the implementation
of government-wide information security policy (and the roles of the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence in the case of national security-
related systems). The E.O. goes on to reiterate the responsibility of the Director of
OMB (or the Assistant to the President for National Security in the case of national
security-related systems) to report to the President and the agency head any
26Appendix III does not apply to information technology that supports certain critical national
security missions as defined in 44 USC 3502(9) and 10 USC 2315. Policy for these national
security systems, i.e. telecommunications and information systems containing classified
information or used by the intelligence or military community, has been assigned by national
security directives to the Department of Defense.
27It should be noted that the General Accounting Office has reported that the oversight of
agency computer security measures to date has been inadequate. See, U.S. General
Accounting Office, Information Security. Weaknesses Continue to Place Critical Federal
Operations and Assets at Risk. GAO-01-600T. April 5, 2001.Testimony before the Oversight
and Investigations Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Commerce. House of
Representatives.

---

CRS-18
deficiencies in security practices. The Board is instructed to assist the Director of
OMB in this function. However, the E.O. also explicitly allows the Chair (i.e. the
Special Advisor to the President), and the Board, to propose policies and programs
to “appropriate” officials to ensure the protection of information systems of critical
infrastructures. Will these lines of authority be clearly exercised?
Incident response is another area where roles and responsibilities are not defined
clearly. Among the responsibilities assigned to the Department of Commerce by
OMB Circular A-130 Appendix III is the coordination of agency computer incident
response activities to promote sharing of incident response information and related
vulnerabilities. This function has now migrated over to the General Services
Administration which has established a Federal Computer Incident and Emergency
Response Capability (FedCIRC). Consistent with OMB Circular A-130, the
Government Information Security Reform Act, passed as Title X, Subtitle G in the
FY2001 Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 106-398) requires agencies to report
incidents to appropriate officials at GSA. But, PDD-63 stated and the National Plan,
Version 1.0 reiterated, that the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) will
provide the principal means of facilitating and coordinating the federal government’s
response to an incident, mitigating attacks, investigating threats, and monitoring
reconstitution efforts. Are the lines of authority clearly established between the
different organizations many of which are tasked with doing things that sound
similar?28 What authority or influence will the FBI, as manager of the NIPC, have
over these organizations? Also, the NIPC is responsible for warning, responding to,
and investigating intrusions. Are these functions compatible?29 E.O. 13231 reiterates
the NIPC’s involvement in incident coordination and crisis response, in coordination
with the Board, but makes no specific mention of FedCIRC. Also, it is not clear to
what extent the NIPC is involved in coordinating the response to physical attacks on
critical infrastructures. E.O. 13228 grants the Office of Homeland Security the
leading role in responding to physical attacks on critical infrastructures other than the
physical assets of information systems. E.O. 13228 raises its own issues regarding the
relationships between the Office of Homeland Security, FEMA, and the National
Security Council.30
Another area in question is the future role of the CIAO. The CIAO acted as the staff
for the National Coordinator under PDD-63. E.O. 13231 makes reference to the
continued role of the CIAO in information infrastructure protection, especially in the
area of outreach to the private sector and coordination with information sharing
centers. It also is directed to provide administrative support to the new NIAC.
28In recent testimony to Congress, the General Accounting Office noted that the mission of the
NIPC has not been fully defined, leading to differing interpretations by different agencies.
Also, the manpower support from and information sharing with other agencies has not
materialized as envisioned. See, General Accounting Office, Critical Infrastructure
Protection: Significant Challenges in Developing Analysis, Warning, and Response
Capabilities. GAO-01-769, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism,
and Government Information, Senate Judiciary Committee. May 22, 2001.
29This point is alluded to by Michael O’Neil, “Securing Our Critical Infrastructure: What
Lurks Beyond Y2K,” Legal Times, Week of Jan. 25, 1999.
30See CRS Report RL31148. Homeland Security. Op. Cit .pp 7-8.

---

CRS-19
However, E.O. 13231 also allows the Special Advisor to create yet a different staff
within the White House. Furthermore, the E. O. authorizes a staff for the President’s
Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. How are these three staffs reconciled?
There was another bureaucratic issued raised by PDD-63. Prior to the Computer
Security Act of 1987, the Reagan Administration established the National
Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee.31 The Committee
consists of 22 civilian and defense agencies. The National Security Agency was
named National Manager. The Committee was tasked with setting operating policies
governing the nation’s telecommunications system, its classified information systems,
and “other sensitive information.” The Computer Security Act of 1987 was enacted
in part out of congressional concern that the Committee might over-classify
government-held information32. Did PDD-63, does the Bush Administration’s E.O.s,
by couching critical infrastructure protection in national security terms and combining
DOD and NSA professionals with civilian professionals in operative functions, blur
the distinction between classified and unclassified (or national security and civilian)
systems which was a primary focus of the Computer Security Act of 1987?33 Does
taking information infrastructure protection out of the NSC and putting it in the White
House address this issue?
Costs. An estimate of the amount of money spent by the Federal government
on critical infrastructure protection is included in the President’s Annual Report to
Congress on Combating Terrorism. The Bush Administration estimated that it
requested $2.6 billion for critical infrastructure protection for FY2002. This is an
estimate based on inputs supplied to OMB from the agencies. According to the
report, spending on critical infrastructure protection has been increasing over for the
last 4 years (see Appendix). Funding for most critical infrastructure protection
activities is located in larger accounts and not readily visible in either agency budgets
or in Congressional appropriations. The estimate includes both physical and cyber
protections. In the previous year’s report, critical infrastructure protection activities
were broken down further (e.g. system protections, training). The 2001 report does
not break activities down further.
Many of the agencies’ activities are part of on-going administrative duties.
These activities, if not previously done (which appears to be the case in many
agencies), will require the reallocation of personnel time and effort, presumably at the
expense of other activities or supported by additional resources. The resources
required to meet PDD-63 requirements are supposed to be part of the agencies’
internal plans. Some of the costs will not be known until after vulnerability
assessments are done and remedial actions determined.34 Also, each agency must
31National Security Decision Directive, NSDD-145. September 17, 1984.
32House Report 100-153(I).
33 This point is made by the Electronic Privacy Information Center in its report, Critical
Infrastructure Protection and the Endangerment of Civil Liberties (1998) and can be found
on the Center’s webpage at [http://www.epic.org/security/infowar/epic-cip.html].
34The Government Information Security Reform Act (Title X, Subtitle G in the FY2001
(continued...)

---

CRS-20
develop and implement education and awareness training programs. Agency costs
may not be insignificant. According to OMB, the IRS alone estimated a vulnerability
analysis of its systems will cost $58 million.35 The Plan outlines efforts at the
Department of Energy to improve its network security. Total costs were expected
to be $80 million ($45 million for operational security measures). There are also
those expenditures associated with the PDD-63 initiatives, such as the education and
training programs (Federal Cyber Service).
In addition, the Bush Administration has begun assessing the technical, fiscal,
and political feasibility of developing a parallel but separate government-only
information network (dubbed Govnet). The purpose of the network would be to have
increased security without hampering the operations of the commercial network. If
the Bush Administration decides to pursue a separate government information
network, additional resources would be required.36
Potential private sector costs are also unknown at this time.37 Some sectors are
already at the forefront in both physical and computer security and are sufficiently
protected or need only marginal investments. Others are not and will have to devote
more resources. The ability of certain sectors to raise the necessary capital may be
limited, such as metropolitan water authorities which may be limited by regulation, or
emergency fire which may function in a small community with a limited resources.
Even sectors made up of large well capitalized firms are likely to make additional
expenditures only if they can identify a net positive return on investment.
Affecting these business decisions will be issues of risk and liability. As part of
its outreach efforts, the CIAO has helped the auditing, accounting, and corporate
directors communities identify and present to their memberships the responsibilities
governing board of directors and corporate officers have, as part of their fiduciary
responsibilities, in managing the risk to their corporation’s information assets. The
Institute of Internal Auditors, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
the Information Systems Audit and Control Association and the National Association
of Corporate Directors have formed a consortium and held “summits” around the
country in an outreach effort. The main point of their discussion can best be summed
up by the following expert from a paper presented at these summits:
34(...continued)
Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 106-398) requires agencies to report deficiencies in their
information security programs as part of their performance review and to include in their
report, how much it will cost to correct the deficiency. This, however, applies only to
protection of information systems, and not to other critical assets of the agency.
35Conversation with OMB officials, 11 February, 1999.
36See, “Secure Network Proposal Stirs Debate Among Telecom Companies” in the Oct. 15,
2001 Daily Briefing on the GovExec.com web page
[www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1001/101501tj1.htm].
37The cyber security market is estimated at $10 billion in products and services (see “Picking
the Locks on the Internet Security Market.” Redherring.com. July 24, 2001). This probably
includes, however, some government expenditures. It also does not include physical security
measures.

---

CRS-21
“The consensus opinion from our analysts is that all industries and companies
should be equally concerned about information technology security issues
because it is an issue that has an enormous potential to negatively impact the
valuation of a company’s stock...it must be the responsibility of corporate
leaders to ensure these threats are actually being addressed on an ongoing basis.
At the same time, the investment community must keep the issue front and
center of management.”38
There is also the question of downstream liability, or third party liability. In the
denial-of-service attacks that occurred in early 2000, the attacks were launched from
“zombie” computers; computers upon which had been placed malicious code that was
subsequently activated. What responsibility do the owners of those “zombie”
computers have to protect their systems from being used to launch attacks elsewhere?
What responsibility do service providers have to protect their customers? According
to some, it is only a matter of time before the courts will hear cases on these
questions.39
Costs to the private sector may also depend on the extent to which the private
sector is compelled to protect their critical infrastructure versus their ability to set
their own security standards. The current thinking is the private sector should
voluntarily join the effort. However, given the events of September 11, the private
sector may be compelled politically, if not legally, to increase physical protections.
But, what happens if a sector does not take actions the federal government feels are
necessary?
In an unrelated matter, but one that intersects with the efforts of critical
infrastructure protection, the financial services industry and the health care industry
are being required to follow new guidelines issued by their regulatory agencies aimed
at protecting the privacy of their customer data bases. Pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act of 1999, federal regulators released in February, 2001, guidelines that the
industry must follow. Likewise, the Bush Administration is suppose to release by this
summer security rules that the health care industry must follow to comply with the
1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). The guidelines
issued for the financial services industry are general (assess risks, have written policies
and procedures to control the risk, implement and test those policies, and update them
as necessary). The costs that are associated with these efforts might be a guide for
what it would cost if further rules were issued related to protecting information
systems upon which the nation’s critical infrastructures depend.40
38From an paper entitled Information Security Impacting Securities Valuations, by A.
Marshall Acuff, Jr., Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
39See, “IT Security Destined for the Courtroom.” Computer World.. May 21,2001. Vol 35.
No. 21.
40For more information on HIPPA, see CRS Report RL30620. Health Information Standards,
Privacy, and Security: HIPPA’s Administrative Simplification Regulations, by Stephen
Redhead. For more information on implementation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, see CRS
Report RS20185, Privacy Protection for Customer Financial Information, by Maureen
Murphy.

---

CRS-22
Information Sharing. The information sharing called for in PDD-63 —
internal to the federal government, between the federal government and the private
sector, and between private firms — (and alluded to in the Bush Administration’s
E.O.s) raises a number of issues. Some of these issues are addressed in bills
introduced this session and last (see Congressional Action).
Critical infrastructure policy calls for information to flow between agencies via
FedCIRC and the NIPC. What kind of information will be flowing? Will reporting
consist of raw network traffic data or just reports of incidents? Will content be
monitored or just the packet headers?41 Will reporting be in real-time or after-the-
fact? How does this impact the privacy and confidentiality of the information
provided? The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (5 U.S.C.
552a) governs the exchange of records between government agencies. It is not yet
clear how the goals of the NIPC and FedCIRC are impacted by the Act or how the
goals of the Act may be impacted by the NIPC and FedCIRC missions.
Since much of what is considered to be critical infrastructure is owned and
operated by the private sector, implementing PDD-63 relies to a large extent on the
ability of the private sector and the federal government to share information.
However, it is unclear how open the private sector and the government will be in
sharing information. The private sector primarily wants from the government
information on potential threats which the government may want to protect in order
not to compromise sources or investigations. In fact, much of the threat assessment
done by the federal government is considered classified.42 For its part, the
government wants specific information on intrusions which companies may hold as
proprietary or which they may want to protect to prevent adverse publicity. Success
will depend on the ability of each side to demonstrate it can hold in confidence the
information exchanged. According to the GAO testimony cited earlier, there is little
or no formalized flow of information yet from the private sector to the federal
government, in general, or the NIPC specifically.43
This issue is made more complex by the question of how the information
exchanged will be handled within the context of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). Proponents of PDD-63 would hope to exempt the information from public
disclosure under the existing FOIA statute. Those more critical of the Directive are
concerned that PDD-63 will expand the government’s ability to to hold more
information as classified or sensitive.44
41Information travels through the system in packets containing the information itself (content)
and a header which contain addresses and instructions on how to handle the information.
42There are precedents for sharing classified information with private infrastructure operators,
and it has been mentioned that these situations might be a model for sharing such information
with ISACs and their members, if proper controls are in place. This, however, may involve
additional expense and procedural issues for those industries or firms not familiar with
handling such information.
43Op. Cit. General Accounting Office, Critical Infrastructure Protection.
44Op. cit. EPIC

---

CRS-23
Another question has been raised about the FBI’s INFRAGARD program. For
example, are firms who volunteer to participate in the program given additional or
better information than what is available through the FBI outside the program?
Finally, the information exchanged between private firms within the context of
the Sector Coordinators and the ISACS raises antitrust concerns, as well as concerns
about sharing information that might unduly benefit competitors.
Privacy/Civil Liberties? The PPCIP made a number of recommendations
that raised concerns within the privacy and civil liberty communities. These included
allowing employers to administer polygraph tests to their computer security
personnel, and requiring background checks for computer security personnel. The
PPCIP also recommended allowing investigators to get a single trap and trace court
order to expedite the tracking of hacker communications across jurisdictions, if
possible. Another area of concern is the monitoring network traffic in order to detect
intrusions. Traffic monitoring has the potential to collect vast amount of information
on who is doing what on the network. What, if any, of that information should be
treated as private and subject to privacy laws? While recognizing a need for some of
these actions, the privacy and civil liberty communities have questioned whether
proper oversight mechanisms can be instituted to insure against abuse.
PDD-63 stated that individual liberties and rights to privacy were to be preserved
as the Directive is implemented. The National Plan states that it was the intent of the
Clinton Administration to pass all critical infrastructure efforts through the lens of
privacy issues. In addition to promised vigorous and thorough legal reviews of Plan
programs, the Plan proposes an annual colloquium on Cyber Security, Civil Liberties,
and Citizens’ Rights between the representatives of the federal government and
outside groups.
The USA Patriot Act (i.e. the anti-terrorism bill passed October 26, 2001 as P.L.
107-56), passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks, contained a number of
expansions in government surveillance, investigatory, and prosecutorial authority
about which the privacy and civil liberties communities have had concern. Most of
these issue are beyond the scope of this report.45 However, included in the Act is the
authority for investigators to seek a single court order to authorize the installation and
use of a pen register or a trap and trace device anywhere in the country in order to
“record or decode electronic or other impulses to the dialing, routing, addressing, or
signaling information used in the processing or transmitting of wire or electronic
communications...”46 The law also defines a “computer trespasser” as one who
accesses a “protected computer” without authorization and, thus, has no reasonable
expectation to privacy of communications to, through, or from the protected
45See CRS Report RS21051.Terrorism Legislation: Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA
PATRIOT) Act of 2001,by Charles Doyle and Terrorism and Civil Liberties, by Charles
Doyle in the Legal Issues/Law Enforcement section of the CRS Terrorism Briefing Book.
46See Section 216 of P.L. 107-56.

---

CRS-24
computer.47 The law goes on to stipulate the conditions under which someone under
the color of law may intercept such communications.
Another issue is to what extent will monitoring and responding to cyber attacks
permit the government to get involved in the day-to-day operations of private
infrastructures? The PCCIP suggested possibly modifying the Defense Production
Act (50 USC Appendix, 2061 et seq) to provide the federal government with the
authority to direct private resources to help reconstitute critical infrastructures
suffering from a cyber attack. This authority exists now regarding the supply and
distribution of energy and critical materials in an emergency. Suppose that the
computer networks managing the nation’s railroads were to “go down” for unknown
but suspicious reasons. What role would the federal government play in allocating
resources and reconstituting rail service?
Congressional Actions
Congress’s interest in protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure spans its
oversight, legislative, and appropriating responsibilities. Prior to September 11, much
of the Congressional activity regarding critical infrastructure protection focused on
oversight. A number of committees have held hearings on various aspects of the issue
over the last few years. These include the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on
Technology, Terrorism and Government Information and the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice Oversight, the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime, the Senate
Committee on Small Business, the House Science Committee’s Technology
Subcommittee, the Senate Government Affairs Committee, and the House
Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, which in September 2000, released a report card rating
how well agencies were protecting their information assets.
While there was much activity administratively, on the part of the Clinton
Administration, and in oversight by the Congress, legislation moved more slowly.
In the 106th Congress a number of bills were introduced that addressed one or
another issue associated with PDD-63. A couple bills were directly related to PDD-
63. S. 2702 required the President to report to Congress on the specific actions being
taken by agencies to implement PDD-63. This requirement was later added as an
amendment to the FY2001 Department of Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398).
That report which was prepared at the end of the Clinton Administration was released
by the Bush Administration in January, 2001.48 H.R. 4246 directly addressed FOIA
and anti-trust concerns associated with ISACs by defining a “cyber security web site”
and exempting those websites from FOIA access and anti-trust litigation as long as
information contained on those sites are not used to impede free market functions.
Also, the bill explicitly allowed the federal government to set up working groups of
federal officials to work with industry groups without such groups being considered
as federal advisory committees.
47See Section 217 of P.L. 107-56.
48Report to the President of the United States on the Status of Federal Critical Infrastructure
Protection Activities. January 2001. 203p.

---

CRS-25
Other bills dealt more with computer security in general. S. 1993 amended
Chapter 35 USC 44 (related to the Paperwork Reduction Act), to strengthen
information security practices throughout the federal government by adding a separate
subchapter specifically dedicated to information security. Among other things, the bill
requires agencies to have an annual outside assessment of their computer security
plans and practices and calls on the Comptroller General to report on those reviews.
The bill was attached to the FY2001 Defense Authorization Act (Title X, Subtitle G
(referred to as the Government Information Security Reform Act in P.L. 106-398)).
Another bill that did not make it into law, H.R. 5024, would have transferred many
of the computer security responsibilities given the Director of OMB by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 to a Government-wide Chief Information Officer located
outside OMB.
A number of other bills were introduced that addressed issues such applying trap
and trace procedures to tracking hackers across jurisdictions, modifying thresholds
and penalties in computer crime statutes, and organizational changes meant to deal
better with computer crime and cyber-terrorism. Also, there have been and continue
to be a number of other bills introduced that relate to privacy, encryption, public key
policies, computer fraud, etc. These issues are tangentially related to PDD-63.49
The 107th Congress has continued its oversight of the efforts to protect the
nation’s critical infrastructure with numerous hearings on critical infrastructure
protection and computer security. Prior to September 11, a few bills were
introduced relating to critical infrastructure protection. H.R. 1158 would establish
a National Homeland Security Agency along the lines recommended by the Hart-
Rudman Commission. In a related effort, H.R. 1292, the Homeland Security Strategy
Act of 2001 called for the President to develop a Homeland Security Strategy that
protects the territory, critical infrastructure, and citizens of the United States from the
threat or use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, cyber or conventional
weapons. H.R. 1259 would enhance the ability of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology to improve computer security (NIST). Among its actions, the bill
would authorize NIST, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, to assist
agencies in responding to computer intrusions, to perform evaluation and tests of
agency security programs and to report the results of those test to Congress, and to
establish a computer security fellowship program. H.R. 2435 (similar to H.R. 4246
introduced in the 106th Congress) would exempt information related to cyber security
in connection with critical infrastructure protection from FOIA. Its counterpart in the
Senate is S. 1456. S. 1407 would support a National Infrastructure Simulation and
Analysis Center (this was included in the USA Patriot Act). H.R. 3394 would
authorize funding for NSF to support basic research in computer and network
security, to establish computer and network security centers, and to support
institutions of higher learning in establishing or improving computer and network
security programs at all levels. The bill also authorizes funding for NIST to establish
a program that would support computer security programs at institutions of higher
learning that have entered into partnerships with for-profit entities and to support
fellowships at those institutions in computer security.
49For an overview of these issues, see CRS Report 98-67, Internet: An Overview of Six Key
Policy Issues Affecting Its Use and Growth, by Marcia Smith et al.

---

CRS-26
Since September 11, a number of bills have been introduced to increase physical
protections of various infrastructures: H.R. 2060, H.R. 2795, S. 1546
(agroterrorism), S. 1608 (waster water facility security), S. 1593 (R&D related to
security at waste water facilities), H.R. 3178, H.R. 3227 (radiological contamination
R&D), H.R. 2925 (P.L. 107-69, protection of dams and related facilities), S. 1214
and S. 1215 (port security), H.R. 2983 (security at nuclear facilities), S. 1447
(aviation security). For more information on these and other activities related to the
security (primarily physical security) of specific infrastructures, see the Prevention:
Security Enhancements section of the CRS Terrorism Briefing Book.
For Additional Reading
CRS Report RS21026, Terrorism and Security: Issue Facing the Water
Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy Cody.
CRS Report RS21050, Hazardous Materials Transportation: Vulnerability to
Terrorists, Federal Activities and Options to Reduce Risks, by Paul Rothberg.
CRS Report RL30861, Capitol Hill Security: Capabilities and Planning, by Paul
Dwyer and Stephen Stathis.
CRS Report RL31150, Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the
September 11 Attack, by Robert Kirk.
CRS Report RL31151, Aviation Security Technology and Procedures: Screening
Passengers and Baggage, by Daniel Morgan.
CRS Report RL31148, Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination Office,
by Harold Relyea.
CRS Report RS20272, FEMA's Mission: Policy Directives for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, by Keith Bea.
CRS Report RL30735, Cyberwarfare, by Steven Hildreth.
CRS Report RL31202, Federal Research and Development for Counter Terrorism:
Organization, Funding, and Options, by Genevieve J. Knezo.

---

CRS-27
Appendix
FY2001 Budget
According to the President’s Annual Report to Congress on Combating
Terrorism, the Bush Administration estimated that it was requesting $2.6 billion in
FY2002 for activities related to protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure. This
was an estimate by OMB, based on canvassing individual agencies to identify
activities that constitute protection of their critical infrastructure or support the
protection of infrastructure in the private sector. It includes the protection of cyber
assets, information, and other physical assets.
The Clinton Administration had proposed a number of specific initiatives in its
FY2001 budget estimate for critical infrastructure protection. These are listed below.
The Bush Administration has supported these efforts as well. In addition, the Bush
Administration has begun assessing the technical, fiscal, and political feasibility of
developing a parallel but separate government-only information network. The
purpose of the network would be to have increased security without hampering the
operations of the commercial network. Initial response from the private sector has
been cool.50
Federal Cyber Services Training and Education
This initiative is an effort to improve the recruitment and retention of a highly
skilled government information technology workforce, including increasing the pool
of skilled information security specialists. The initiative consists of a number of
different activities.
One activity would be a ROTC-like program where the federal government,
through the National Science Foundation (NSF), will pay for a 2-year undergraduate
or graduate degree in information security in exchange for government service in
information security, called the Scholarship for Service (SFS). The scholarship would
be for two years at schools with accredited information technology programs.
Students participating in the program would also do summer internships at
government agencies and attend periodic conferences.
A second activity is called the Center for Information Technology Excellence
(CITE). CITE would provide continuing training for existing federal systems
administrators and information systems security officers. CITE will be managed and
run by the Office of Personnel Management. Training will be offered by selected sites
both inside and outside the federal government. Curricula will be based on key
competencies and a certification process will demonstrate that those competencies
have been demonstrated. It should be noted that the National Security Agency runs
a similar program geared toward the national security community. NSA has identified
8 universities as centers of information technology excellence. The CITE program
50Secure Network Proposal Stirs Debate Among Telecom Companies. October 15, 2001.
[www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1001/101501j1.htm]. Also, Bush Plan to Unplug Feds From
Internet Draws Criticism. ComputerWorld. Nov. 5, 2001.p7.

---

CRS-28
identified here would use the experience of the NSA program to establish a similar
capability for the entire federal government.
A third activity would be a high school and secondary school outreach program
to educate high school students and teachers and the general public about information
security. The fourth activity would be to promote information security awareness
within the federal workforce.
The Bush Administration requested $11. 8 million for this program in FY2002.
Permanent Expert Review Team
This would make permanent the review of agencies’ internal security plans,
vulnerability analyses, etc. The team would be supported through the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. The Bush Administration requested funds for
this effort. However, neither of the Executive Orders make mention of these plans
or their review.
Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection
This was a proposed research and development fund operated through the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to support research that might
not otherwise be conducted by the private sector or defense agencies. Currently
nearly all of the current information security research and development funds go to
defense agencies. While operated through NIST, the Institute would have reported
to a Federal Coordinating Council consisting of the President’s Science Advisor, the
Deputy Director/ Office of Management and Budget, the Director/National Security
Agency, the Director/NIST, and the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure
Protection, and Counter-Terrorism. The Institute would have consulted with the
National Infrastructure Advisory Council and the Sector Coordinators.
Congress last year did not support this initiative, although they did provide $5
million for NIST to support cyber security research grants. The Bush Administration
requested $5 million to continue this effort.
Below is a table from the Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism
that lists by agencies the amount of funding estimated to support critical infrastructure
protection. These are figures representing the Administration’s initial budget, which
assumed current services. The 2001 figures include both cyber and physical
protections of critical infrastructures. Only those cyber security protections
associated with what would be considered critical systems were included. Other
physical protections more explicitly related to combating terrorism are included
elsewhere in the report. It is not entirely clear how the distinction is made.51 It
should also be noted that the figures stated for past years have changed for some
agencies. OMB attributes this increasing improvement in the characterization of
51According to an OMB official, for example, placing national guardsmen around nuclear
power plants might be considered a Combating Terrorism activity. Other more routine
physical protections of the plant might be considered critical infrastructure protection.

---

CRS-29
funds. Health and Human Resources increased significantly for FY2000, while the
figure for the Treasury Department dropped.

---

CRS-30
Table A.1. Critical Infrastructure Protection Funding by
Department
(millions $)
Department
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
actual
actual
actual
request
request
Agriculture
5.2
9.9
8.2
21.2
9.1
Commerce
9.1
21.8
14.4
27.5
35.6
Education
3.6
4.4
6.7
12.0
8.9
Energy
3.8
11.9
28.1
44.3
41.4
EOP
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.3
2.2
EPA
0.0
0.2
0.7
2.0
2.0
FEMA
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.5
1.5
GSA
0.0
3.00
1.0
8.0
11.0
HHS
37.0
44.5
69.6
96.8
97.6
Interior
1.3
1.6
2.1
1.5
1.9
Justice
25.8
55.3
42.2
48.1
55.7
NASA
40.0
42.0
66.00
117.0
117.0
Labor
3.8
5.4
7.9
14.5
22.8
NSF
19.2
21.4
26.7
43.9
National Security
(incl. DOD)
926.4
1,217.7
1,404.1
1800.0
1859.4
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
OPM
0.0
0.0
.9
.9
0.0
Transportation
21.5
24.4
44.5
79.5
110.0
Treasury
31.5
50.1
47.4
53.2
64.3
State
6.0
19.0
40.0
31.2
31.9
Social Security
60.7
57.1
48.9
71.4
101.3
Veteran’s Affairs
0.00
0.00
17.33
17.39
21.7
Grand Total
\ data from Office of Management and Budget. Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism. July 2001.

---