en-ushttp://stinet.dtic.mil/http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511274The nation's health, wealth, and security rely on the production and distribution of certain goods and services. The array of physical assets, functions, and systems 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). The national security community has been concerned for sometime about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to both physical and cyber attack. 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 manmade and natural events, implementation focused on cyber protection against manmade cyber events (i.e., computer hackers). However, given the physical damage caused by the September 11 attacks, physical protections of critical infrastructures has received increased attention. Following the events of September 11, the Bush Administration released Executive Order 13228, signed October 8, 2001, establishing 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." In November 2002, Congress passed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security. Among its responsibilities is overall coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities. In December 2003, the Bush Administration released Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, reiterating and expanding upon infrastructure protection policy and responsibilities.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Moteff, John D.2010-01-13ADA511274http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511278The nation's health, wealth, and security rely on the production and distribution of certain goods and services. The array of physical assets, functions, and systems 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). The national security community has been concerned for sometime about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to both physical and cyber attack. 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 manmade and natural events, implementation focused on cyber protection against manmade cyber events (i.e., computer hackers). However, given the physical damage caused by the September 11 attacks, physical protections of critical infrastructures has received increased attention. Following the events of September 11, the Bush Administration released Executive Order 13228, signed October 8, 2001, establishing 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." In November 2002, Congress passed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security. Among its responsibilities is overall coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Moteff, John D.2010-01-13ADA511278http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511284The nation's health, wealth, and security rely on the production and distribution of certain goods and services. The array of physical assets, functions, and systems 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). The national security community has been concerned for some time about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to both physical and cyber attack. 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). However, given the physical damage caused by the September 11 attacks, physical protection of critical infrastructures has received increased attention. Following the events of September 11, the Bush Administration released Executive Order 13228, signed October 8, 2001, establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council. In November 2002, Congress passed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security. Among its responsibilities is overall coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities. In December 2003, the Bush Administration released Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, reiterating and expanding upon infrastructure protection policy and responsibilities. In June 2006, the Bush Administration released a National Infrastructure Protection Plan.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Moteff, John D.2010-01-13ADA511284http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA510937The U.S. Army Reserve Component (RC), consisting of both the Army National Guard (ARNG) and United States Army Reserve (USAR), has evolved significantly in the wake of 9/11. More specifically, the Army RC has transformed from a strategic to an operational reserve to support sustained deployments. Three significant initiatives directly impact the Army RC as it reorganizes into an operational force: modular brigade design and employment, standardized Army force generation (ARFORGEN), and an increased emphasis on providing civil support to the homeland. In this thesis, the author reviews the impact these initiatives have had on the Army RC, and then explores three distinct courses of action (COAs) for Army RC force structure based on the 2015 modular force structure design. He concludes that conditions have been met to fully integrate the USAR into the ARNG and proposes a force structure design that will facilitate this integration. The integration will save money and manpower while enhancing capabilities for both homeland security and defense.ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS : Chitwood, Mark A.2010-01-06ADA510937http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511406U.S. aid to Africa reached a peak in 1985, when global competition with the Soviet Union was at a high point. After the Cold War ended, security assistance levels for Africa began to decline. In 1995, at the outset of the 104th Congress, substantial reductions in aid to Africa had been anticipated, as many questioned the importance of Africa to U.S. national security interests in the post-Cold War era. As the debate went forward, however, congressional reports and bills emphasized U.S. humanitarian, economic, and other interests in Africa. Aid levels did fall, but gradually began to increase again in FY1997. U.S. assistance to Africa is reaching new highs due to a significant increase in health care sectors under the Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS) program. U.S. aid to Africa nearly quadrupled from $1.2 billion in FY2006 to $4.7 billion in FY2007. Moreover, the United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to Africa. In FY2009, the United States provided an estimated $1 billion in humanitarian aid to Sudan.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Dagne, Ted2010-01-13ADA511406http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511095In light of lessons learned from the September 2001, terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the 111th Congress is expected to consider questions and issues associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal homeland security assistance, for the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs that provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states, localities, tribes, and other entities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. Since the nation is still threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the 111th Congress may wish to consider questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal homeland security assistance policy should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be constrained by, existing law and regulations, and constitutional considerations. Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $29 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in FY2009 there are 17 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions. The Grant Programs Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2009, 61% of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision which has been criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Reese, Shawn2010-01-06ADA511095http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511102In light of lessons learned from the September 2001 terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the second session of the 111th Congress is expected to consider questions and issues associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal homeland security assistance, for the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs that provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states, localities, tribes, and other entities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. Since the nation is still threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the 111th Congress may wish to consider questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal homeland security assistance policy should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be constrained by, existing law and regulations, and constitutional considerations. Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $34 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in FY2010 there are 15 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions. The Grant Programs Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2010, 60% of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision that has been criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Reese, Shawn2010-01-06ADA511102http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA510987Facilities possessing certain amounts of hazardous chemicals have been the target of safety and security efforts since prior to September 11, 2001. The sudden release of hazardous chemicals from facilities storing large quantities might potentially harm large numbers of persons living or working near the facility. Congress has debated whether such facilities should be regulated for security purposes to reduce the risk that they pose. The 109th Congress passed legislation in 2006 providing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statutory authority to regulate chemical facilities for security purposes. This statutory authority expires in October 2009. Advocacy groups, stakeholders, and policymakers have called for congressional attention to reauthorization of this authority, though they disagree about the preferred option. Congress is faced with a decision to extend the existing authority, revise the existing authority to resolve contentious issues, or allow this authority to lapse. This report provides a brief overview of the existing statutory authority and the regulation implementing this authority. It describes several policy issues raised in previous debates regarding chemical facility security. The report identifies policy options that might resolve components of these issues. Finally, legislation introduced in the 111th Congress is discussed.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Shea, Dana A.2010-01-06ADA510987http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA510988Facilities possessing certain amounts of hazardous chemicals have been the target of safety and security efforts since prior to September 11, 2001. The sudden release of hazardous chemicals from facilities storing large quantities might potentially harm large numbers of persons living or working near the facility. Congress has debated whether such facilities should be regulated for security purposes to reduce the risk that they pose. The 109th Congress passed legislation in 2006 providing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statutory authority to regulate chemical facilities for security purposes. This statutory authority expires in October 2010. Advocacy groups, stakeholders, and policymakers have called for congressional attention to reauthorization of this authority, though they disagree about the preferred option. Congress is faced with a decision to extend the existing authority, revise the existing authority to resolve contentious issues, or allow this authority to lapse. This report provides a brief overview of the existing statutory authority and the regulation implementing this authority. It describes several policy issues raised in previous debates regarding chemical facility security. The report identifies policy options that might resolve components of these issues. Finally, legislation introduced in the 111th Congress is discussed.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Shea, Dana A.2010-01-06ADA510988http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511051Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on the House-passed and Senate passed-versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. It includes background information and a discussion of the issue, along with a table that contains a comparison of the bill (H.R. 2647) passed by the House on June 25, 2009, and the version of this bill passed by Senate on July 23, 2009. A third column will be completed after action on a final version by both chambers. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34590 are designated with a "*" in the relevant section titles of this report.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Jansen, Don J., Kapp, Lawrence, Burrelli, David F., Henning, Charles A.2010-01-06ADA511051http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511053Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military personnel issues considered in deliberations on the House-passed and Senate passed-versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84). This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. It includes background information and a discussion of the issue, along with a table that contains a comparison of the bill (H.R. 2647) passed by the House on June 25, 2009, the version of this bill passed by Senate on July 23, 2009, and the version signed into law on October 28, 2009. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34590 are designated with a "*" in the relevant section titles of this report.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Jansen, Don J., Kapp, Lawrence, Burrelli, David F., Henning, Charles A.2010-01-06ADA511053http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA511229The nation's health, wealth, and security rely on the production and distribution of certain goods and services. The array of physical assets, functions, and systems 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). This report discusses in more detail the evolution of a national critical infrastructure policy and the institutional structures established to implement it. The report highlights five issues of Congressional concern: identifying critical assets; assessing vulnerabilities and risks; allocating resources; information sharing; and, regulation. This report will be updated.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE : Moteff, John D.2010-01-06ADA511229http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADM002285ELECTRONIC FILE CHARACTERISTICS: 7 files; Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) and MS Word (.DOC). PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 1 CD-ROM; 4 3/4 in.; 59.9 MB. ABSTRACT: Papers presented at the World Wide Chemical Conference XIX held in September 2002.NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION ARLINGTON VA2010-01-13ADM002285http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADM002286ELECTRONIC FILE CHARACTERISTICS: 44 files; Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) and MS Word (.DOC). PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 1 CD-ROM; 4 3/4 in.; 189 MB. ABSTRACT: Sessions titles are: Session II: Organizing and Funding the Nation's Response to Terrorism. Session III: The Challenges in Securing Information and Physical Infrastructure. Session IV: Transportation Security: Issues, Actions and Technologies. Session V: Non-traditional Threats Posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction. Session VI: Entry Point Screening: New Circumstances, New Challenges. Session VII: Information Sharing. Session VIII: Technology Forum Focus Groups: 1. Physical Security: Concepts and Applications; Group 2: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Detection, Assessment and Response; Group 3: Critical Infrastructure Protection: Systems and Concepts. Session IX: Integrated Security: New Solutions, Programs, Concepts and ApplicationsNATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION ARLINGTON VA2010-01-13ADM002286