T H E   W H I T E   H O U S E

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy before the Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives

Help Site Map Text Only

Statement of

The Honorable Neal Lane
Assistant to the President for Scienceand Technology
Director of the Office of Science andTechnology Policy

before the

Committee on Armed Services
U.S. House of Representatives

March 8, 2000

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss research and development (R&D) activities that the federal government is conducting to improve our ability to protect the nation's critical infrastructures. You are all familiar with the challenges facing our nation as we take measures to ensure the robust and reliable operation of our critical infrastructures. This is truly a national challenge – one that goes beyond the traditional bounds of national security.  Our economic security, competitiveness, and our way of life also rest upon the continuous and assured availability of the services provided by our infrastructures – reliable services that we all too often take for granted.

Research and development is – and must be – a key element of an integrated national agenda to protect our critical infrastructures.  The President recognized this fact in May, 1998 when he issued Presidential Decision Directive PDD-63 on Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP).  Among other things, this Directive tasked the Office of Science and Technology Policy to coordinate the federal government's critical infrastructure protection R&D.  More recently,the President underscored the importance of protecting our national information infrastructure by requesting funds to establish an Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection.  This Institute, working closely with the private sector and academia, will focus upon the development of technologies that neither the government nor the private sector are currently developing, yet are crucial to the security of our information infrastructure. The importance of critical infrastructure protection R&D is reflected in the President's FY2001 budget which contains $606 million for CIP R&D, an increase of $145 million (31%) from last year's enacted funding level.

The Federal Critical Infrastructure Protection R&D Agenda

Reflecting the diversity of our critical infrastructures and the R&D needed to protect them, this funding is distributed among numerous agencies, as illustrated in the table below.

This overall R&D program comprises four primary thrusts, each of which draws on the resources of multiple agencies and covers a broad spectrum of both physical and cyber security issues.  The four thrusts address the following research questions:

  • Threat/Vulnerability/Risk Assessments. As its name implies, this research focuses on threat, vulnerability, and risk assessments of all critical infrastructures.  The initiative also includes modeling and simulation programs, metrics, and testbeds.
  • System Protection.  This research covers both physical and cyber protection of individual systems, and it includes programs such as encryption, public key infrastructures, network security products, reliability and security of computing systems, physical barriers,robust controls for power grids, and secure supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems.
  • Intrusion Monitoring and Response.  This research examines technologies to detect and provide immediate responses to intrusions or infrastructure attacks.  R&D programs include network intrusion detection, information assurance technologies, mobile code and agents, network alarm systems, forensic tools for electronic media, network defensive technologies, and explosives detection devices.
  • Recovery and Reconstitution.  This research concentrates on those technologies required to reconstitute and restore critical infrastructures in the aftermath of disruptions.  Specific research programs include risk management studies and tools, system survivability technologies, and consequence analysis tools and supporting technologies.

Although the R&D agenda includes both physical and cyber security programs, the majority of the funding – $527 million – focuses on cyber security.

Agency      FY2000 ($M)      FY2001 ($M)
Department ofAgriculture    0.0    9.0
Department ofCommerce       9.5     63.3
Department of Energy         3.0     14.8
Environmental Protection Agency    0.0     2.0
Department ofHealth and Human Services 0.0 2.0
National Science Foundation 26.0 33.0
National Security           418.5 463.5
Department of Transportation     0.0 10.4
Department of Treasury       3.9 8.0
Department ofVeterans Affairs 0.5 0.3
TOTAL:     $461.4 $606.3

Coordinating Federal Critical Infrastructure Protection R&D

In recognition of the crucial role R&D plays in infrastructure protection, two years ago this month my office established an interagency working group and process to develop and coordinate the federal government's critical infrastructure protection R&D agenda.  This group has operated through two budget cycles and has recently commenced work on a third.  I emphasize the word “coordinate” – even before we created our working group, the federal government conducted many R&D programs that either directly or indirectly contributed to infrastructure protection.  However, the heart of our interagency process is the coordination of these programs, ensuring that they all aim toward common goals and address crucial vulnerabilities and threats.  We have gotten off to an excellent start, and I will share some of our successes with you shortly.

I would like to emphasize several key facets of our interagency process.  First, all programs recommended in the R&D agenda are tied to vulnerabilities or R&D shortfalls.  A number of recent reports, in both the private sector and government, have highlighted vulnerabilities in our infrastructures. We ensure that each of our R&D programs, whether ongoing or a proposed new start, directly addresses one or more infrastructure vulnerabilities.

Second, we ensure that each agency is aware of the others' R&D programs.  Compiling information about each agency's R&D, and sharing this information withall other participating agencies, helps agencies leverage investments and avoid duplication of effort.  In this way, individual critical infrastructure protection R&D programs become a unified interagency product – a package coordinated and integrated across agency boundaries.

In selected areas of particularly high-priority research, our coordination activities go beyond this across-the-board information collection and sharing. In these areas, staff from my office works closely with agency R&D managers to examine in detail each agency's research activities. We then discuss how each program should be modified to build an integrated whole that is stronger than the sum of its parts.  Such an intensive coordination effort is difficult to accomplish, but very worth while. To give one example, representatives from my office, the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency, and Departments of Energy and Transportation have examined in detail their respective programs in infrastructure interdependencies– analyses of how each infrastructure relies upon others for its continuous operation.  These representatives are developing a single, multiagency research program that strives towards common national goals, satisfies agency mission requirements, and eliminates duplication.  We have recently begun a similar effort for intrusion detection and monitoring,and we plan to commence a third intensive coordination program for incident recovery and reconstitution R&D.

Third, we validate our R&D agenda by soliciting feedback and comment from technology experts in government, the private sector, and academia.  The technical expertise in infrastructure protection resides in academic and government laboratories,as well as with the private sector owners, operators, maintainers, designers, manufacturers, and customers of our infrastructure systems.  Consequently, we must draw upon the expertise of all sectors as we build our R&D agenda.  For example, we gave over 20 briefings of our program last year, the majority of which were to private sector organizations. We have asked for – and received – excellent feedback on our energy sector R&D programs from the Electric Power Research Institute.  My office and the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) jointly sponsored a critical infrastructure protection R&D exchange meeting at Purdue University in October 1998, and we are planning a follow-on event for later this year.  Through these outreach efforts we will ensure that our R&D program heads in the right direction, addresses the key technical issues, and does not reinvent technology that is already on the shelf.

In summary, we have put substantial energy, analysis, and effort into developing and coordinating an interagency R&D agenda that addresses the key technical challenges of critical infrastructure protection.  The result is an integrated program package that will help us ensure the reliable and robust operation of our nation's critical infrastructures.

The Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection

I would now like to turn to a major new critical infrastructure protection R&D initiative that the President has requested in his FY01 budget: the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (I3P).  This concept originated with the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which proposed to the President in December 1998 that the federal government establish an institute to address crucial topics in information infrastructure protection R&D.  As we are all aware, information technologies are evolving at an extremely rapid rate.  PCAST was concerned that key information technologies needed to ensure the security of the national information infrastructure were not being developed by either the federal government or the private sector, and that the federal government's mechanisms for funding and producing R&D might not be able to keep pace with the explosive rate of technological change.  The Committee believed that an independent, not-for-profit Institute, suitably designed, could act flexibly and responsively enough to stay abreast of rapidly evolving information infrastructure threats, vulnerabilities, and emerging technologies. The PCAST concept incorporated three primary criteria for the Institute:
  • The Institute must work in collaboration with the private sector manufacturers, owners, operators, and users of the information infrastructure to identify the most important research needs.
  • The Institute must engage the nation's top technical talent in the nation to address these needs, whether that talent resides in industry, academia, government laboratories, or other research facilities.
  • The Institute must operate flexibly enough to keep pace with the rapid evolution of information technologies.
In studying the PCAST proposal, the Administration analyzed whether such an Institute was needed; whether that need could be satisfied by existing facilities, either internal or external to the government; and whether the private sector supported such an Institute's establishment.  The Administration commissioned the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to review the concept in depth and to consult extensively with the private sector and academia. IDA's review demonstrated broad private sector support for the concept. In addition, OSTP and PCAST jointly hosted a meeting of Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) of 15 of the nation's leading information technology corporationslast October.  The CTOs, too, indicated that such an Institute is clearly needed.

As the culmination of the Administration's review, the President announced on January 7 that he would request $50 million in his Fiscal Year 2001 budget for an Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection.  He has also requested $4 million in a supplemental appropriation for the current Fiscal Year to establish the Institute and get started on its first R&D projects. He stated that the I3P “will fill research gaps that neither public norprivate sectors are filling today,” and that it will “bring to bear the finest computer scientists and engineers from the private sector, from universities, and from other research facilities to find ways to close these gaps.”  Based on preliminary work, the President has called for the Institute to be funded through the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which has the mission of working with the industry to develop technology, measurements, and standards to strengthen our economy and improve our quality of life.

I want to emphasize, however, that the planning, establishing, and operating this Institute must be done collaboratively by government, industry, and academia.   I have therefore asked PCAST, working with additional experts in the private sector and academia, to conduct a short-term, rapid-turnaround study to advise me on the Institute's organizational structure, operational activities, staff recruitment, and initial R&D priorities.  PCAST sponsored a meeting with private sector and academic technology leaders on February 18 to commence the detailed design of a recommended concept of operations and R&D agenda.  Thanks to PCAST's leadership, we received the first detailed design papers on February 25.  PCAST is considering two organizational models: one based within NIST that works closely with the private sector and academia, and one located external to the government. PCAST is intently examining both possible structures and will provide its conclusions and recommendations to me.

To date, the participants in this effort have identified “gap-filling” R&D as the Institute'sprimary function.  While the private sector clearly has a substantial information security R&D effort under way, there are important technologies that are unlikely to attract private investment:  those that are too long-term, too risky, or too likely to benefit a large number of “bystander” firms that did not fund or conduct the original research.  At the same time, federal agencies have traditionally supported research directly related to their mission needs, without necessarily addressing areas that are important to securing the national information infrastructure as a whole. The result is a gap between federal and private sector research– a gap that the government, private sector, and academic technology experts agree must be filled to ensure the security of our information infrastructures. As an example, one particularly important research theme not being adequately addressed by the government or private sector is the holistic, “system-of-interacting-systems”nature of our information infrastructure: its complex behaviors, its vulnerabilities, its robustness and whether it degrades gracefully when stressed, the effects of its interconnections with other infrastructures, and its interfaces with its human operators and users.  This Institute, working closely with the government, private sector and academia, will close this and other research gaps.  As I noted previously, we are currently working intensively with the technology experts to identify the initial set of research projects.


Ensuring the robust, reliable, and assured operation of our critical infrastructures presents a serious challenge.  Advanced technology will help us meet this challenge – and for this reason, the Administration has developed a comprehensive critical infrastructure protection R&D agenda that is coordinated across many agencies.  Each program in the agenda is tied directly to infrastructure vulnerabilities and addresses infrastructure protection R&D shortfalls.  An important new initiative in the FY2001 agenda is the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection, which will enable our nation to protect its information infrastructure even as information technologies are rapidly evolving.

Mr. Chairman, the President directed that critical infrastructure protection be a national priority in PDD-63.  We have developed a robust R&D program that will ensure our infrastructures continue to operate reliably even in the face of new threats in the 21st century.  I thank you for this opportunity to discuss our overall R&D program and I am looking forward to working with you as we bring this technology agenda to fruition.

Office of Science and Technology Policy
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W
Washington, DC 20502

President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House
White House for Kids | White House History
White House Tours | Help | Text Only

Privacy Statement

March 2000 OSTP New Releases

Joint Statement - President Clinton & Prime Minister Blair

Civilian R&D

The Human Genome Project

NASA's Triana Mission

Indo-U.S. High Level Dialogue on Science and Technology Launched

Vice President Gore & Big Three Automakers Showcase New Higher-Efficiency Vehicles

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy before the Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives

Letter from President Clinton to NASA Administrator Goldin re: Mars Probe Failures - March 27, 2000.

Testimony of The Honorable Neal Lane

Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives: Strengthening Science-Based Regulation