{
  "id": "RL32631",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32631",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 347883,
      "date": "2004-10-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:08:00.486055",
      "title": "Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets: Definition and Identification",
      "summary": "The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets (NSPP) details a major part of the Bush administration\u2019s overall homeland security strategy. Implementing this Strategy requires clear definition of \u201ccritical infrastructures\u201d and \u201ckey assets.\u201d Although the Strategy provides such definitions, the meaning of \u201ccritical infrastructure\u201d in the public policy context has been evolving for decades and is still open to debate.\nTwenty years ago, \u201cinfrastructure\u201d was defined primarily with respect to the adequacy of the nation\u2019s public works.In the mid-1990's, however, the growing threat of international terrorism led policy makers to reconsider the definition of \u201cinfrastructure\u201d 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 \u201ccritical\u201d for purposes of homeland security. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001(P.L. 107-56) contains the federal government\u2019s most recent definition of \u201ccritical infrastructure.\u201d 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.\nThere 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 \u201ccriticality\u201d criteria will also be important if federal agencies intend to implement and enforce any potential future security regulations related to critical infrastructure.\nThis report will not be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32631",
          "sha1": "1e2092b437fe1a1ed4058c74b6b1ae6bb165b50e",
          "filename": "files/20041001_RL32631_1e2092b437fe1a1ed4058c74b6b1ae6bb165b50e.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32631",
          "sha1": "34a14e470082c79280816d76beae872bca3c098e",
          "filename": "files/20041001_RL32631_34a14e470082c79280816d76beae872bca3c098e.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}