	Introduction

The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets details a major part of the Bush administration's overall homeland security strategy. A key implementation requirement, therefore, is clear definition of what the administration considers to be critical infrastructures and key assets. While the Strategy provides the administration's definitions, along with its rationale for including specific infrastructures on the critical list, the meaning of "critical infrastructure" in the public policy context has been evolving for decades and is still open to debate. Twenty years ago, "infrastructure" was defined primarily in debates about the adequacy of the nation's public works—which were viewed by many as deteriorating, obsolete, and of insufficient capacity. "Critical" Infrastructure and "Key Resources"

The growing threat of international terrorism in the mid-1990s renewed federal government interest in infrastructure issues. This concern, in turn, led policy makers to reconsider the definition of "infrastructure" in a security context. This Executive Order (E.O.) 's definition of vital infrastructure. The list of critical infrastructure sectors in E.O. However, the E.O. The USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts

In response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001( P.L. 107-56 ). The list may continue to evolve and grow as economic changes or geopolitical developments influence homeland security policy. One concern is that an unclear or unstable understanding of what constitutes a critical infrastructure (or key resource) could lead to inefficient security policies. However, arbitrarily limiting the number of critical infrastructures a priori due to resource constraints might miss dangerous vulnerabilities. These criteria may become particularly important if federal agencies intend to implement and enforce any potential future security regulations related to critical infrastructure. Various private sector representatives state that they need clear and stable definitions of asset criticality so they will know exactly what assets to protect, and how well to protect them. Otherwise, they risk protecting too many facilities, protecting the wrong facilities, or both.
The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets (NSPP) details a major part of the Bush administration's overall homeland security strategy. Implementing this Strategy requires clear definition of "critical infrastructures" and "key assets." Although the Strategy provides such definitions, the meaning of "critical infrastructure" in the public policy context has been evolving for decades and is still open to debate.
Twenty years ago, "infrastructure" was defined primarily with respect to the adequacy of the nation's public works.In the mid-1990's, however, the growing threat of international terrorism led policy makers to reconsider the definition of "infrastructure" in the context of homeland security. Successive federal government reports, laws and executive orders have refined, and generally expanded, the number of infrastructure sectors and the types of assets considered to be "critical" for purposes of homeland security. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001(P.L. 107-56) contains the federal government's most recent definition of "critical infrastructure." The NSPP contains the most recent detailed list of critical infrastructures and assets of national importance. The list may continue to evolve, however, as economic changes or geopolitical developments influence homeland security policy.
There is some debate among policy makers about the implications of an ambiguous or changing list of critical infrastructures. Ambiguity about what constitutes a critical infrastructure (or key resource) could lead to inefficient use of limited homeland security resources. For example, private sector representatives state that they need clear and stable definitions of asset criticality so they will know exactly what assets to protect, and how well to protect them. Otherwise, they risk protecting too many facilities, protecting the wrong facilities, or both. On the other hand, arbitrarily limiting the number of critical infrastructures a priori due to resource constraints might miss a dangerous vulnerability. Clear "criticality" criteria will also be important if federal agencies intend to implement and enforce any potential future security regulations related to critical infrastructure.
This report will not be updated.