Advanced search Help
Resource Type or Special Collection is CRS Reports
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues [Updated September 23, 2002]
"The Bush Administration is requesting just over $1 billion in Development Assistance (DA) for sub-Saharan Africa in FY2003, as compared with an estimated $887 million going to the region in FY2002. The request for aid through the Economic Support Fund (ESF), however, has dropped to $77 million from estimated ESF assistance of $100 million in FY2002. […] U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa through a variety of channels, including the USAID-administered DA program, food aid programs, and indirect aid provided through international financial institutions and the United Nations. U.S. assistance through all such channels, though problematic to calculate, will probably total well above $2 billion in FY2002. […] USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios has testified that the Bush Administration is focusing on conflict prevention and resolution, working with NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] and faith-based organizations, poverty reduction, agricultural development, and health, including HIV/AIDS. In August 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Administration announced new initiatives on access to potable water, clean energy, reducing hunger, and development and conservation in the Congo River basin. The initiatives would make extensive use of public-private partnerships. The level of funding and other aspects of these initiatives have become subjects of debate. Other issues in 2002 may include the eligibility of African countries to participate in the Administration's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, and U.S. support for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, an African initiative linking increased aid with policy reform."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copson, Raymond W.
2002-09-23
-
Trade and the Americas [Updated September 20, 2002]
"At the Summit of the Americas held in December 1994, 34 hemispheric democracies agreed to create a 'Free Trade Area of the Americas' (FTAA) no later than the year 2005. If created, the FTAA would have 34 members (Cuba is not included) with over 800 million people. The population alone would make it the largest free trade area in the world with more than twice the 375 million of the now 15-nation European Union. In the seven plus years following the 1994 summit, Western Hemisphere trade ministers have met six times to advance the negotiating process. At the sixth meeting in Buenos Aires in April 2001, ministers made public a draft FTAA agreement that included preliminary chapters on all nine negotiating groups: market access, agriculture, intellectual property rights, services, investment, government procurement, competition policy, dispute settlement, and subsidies. The seventh Ministerial will be held in Quito, Ecuador starting November 2, 2002. The United States and Brazil will assume co-chairmanship of the negotiations following the Quito meeting. Assessments differ on whether the movement toward hemispheric free trade is 'on-track' or 'off-track.' The former perspective holds that a solid foundation and structure for the negotiations has been agreed to, draft chapters have been submitted, and that a schedule for tariff negotiations starting December 15, 2002 is in place. The latter perspective holds that political and economic turbulence in Latin America are impeding efforts to achieve freer trade."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Ahearn, Raymond J.
2002-09-20
-
Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy [Updated September 20, 2002]
"In recent years, the United States has been unable to maintain an international consensus for strict enforcement of all applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iraq, but it has largely succeeded in preventing Iraq from reemerging as an immediate strategic threat to the region. There is U.S. concern about the long-term threat posed by Iraq and, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration has emphasized regime change as the cornerstone of U.S. policy. The exact means to implement that objective has not been announced, whether it be through international sanctions and diplomacy, military action, or covert action. The regime change policy is considered risky and difficult and is not openly supported by many other governments, particularly if it involves major military action."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2002-09-20
-
Special Acquisition Authorities Contained in the House and Senate Proposals to Create a Department of Homeland Security [Updated September 20, 2002]
"H.R.5005, as passed the House, and Senate Amendment 4471, each of which propose the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, would grant special acquisition authorities generally aimed at speeding up and/or simplifying certain acquisitions during an organizational or transition period (five years in the House proposal and one year in the Senate proposal). These authorities would affect the procurement of research and development, personal services, and anti-terrorist technologies. Procurement would be streamlined through expanded use of the micropurchase threshold, simplified acquisition procedures, and an amended definition of commercial item. The House bill would only grant these authorities to the new Department, whereas the Senate proposal would grant most of them to all executive agencies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Luckey, John R.
2002-09-20
-
Federal Research and Development Organization, Policy, and Funding for Counterterrorism [September 19, 2002]
From the Summary: "The Office of Homeland Security (OHS), created by Executive Order 13228, does not list R&D [Research and Development] among its major responsibilities, but R&D is a topic of one of the interagency Policy Coordination Committees attached to the Homeland Security Council (HSC), OHS's interagency group. The director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was not named to participate in OHS activities, but an OSTP staff member is filling the HSC interagency R&D policy coordination role. Proposals have been made to expand the interagency Technical Support Working Group and the Defense Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which have funded counterterrorism R&D in the past. S. 2452, the Lieberman substitute agreed to by the Governmental Affairs Committee, would give broader R&D authority to a national homeland security department."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Knezo, Genevieve Johanna
2002-09-19
-
Nuclear Nonproliferation Issues [Updated September 19, 2002]
"The United States has been a leader of worldwide efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. To this end, the international community and many individual states have agreed to a range of treaties, laws, and agreements, known collectively as the nuclear nonproliferation regime, aimed at keeping nations that do not have nuclear weapons from acquiring them. The nonproliferation regime has also been concerned with preventing terrorists from obtaining a nuclear weapon or the materials to craft one. The attacks on New York and Washington September 11 added a new level of reality to the threat that terrorists might acquire a nuclear weapon and explode it in a populated area. Other nonproliferation concerns include a number of regional crisis points: the India- Pakistan arms race, North Korea, and the Middle East, primarily Iraq, Iran, and Israel. There is concern about China's actions in expanding its nuclear force, and of Chinese and Russian activities that may encourage proliferation in the other regions. Disposing of plutonium and highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons, while preventing it from falling into the hands of terrorists or other proliferators, is another current focus of nonproliferation activities. In the longer term, the major question is fulfilling the pledge in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by the nuclear weapons states, including the United States, to pursue complete nuclear disarmament, in the face of skepticism about the possibility, or even the wisdom, of achieving that goal."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Behrens, Carl E.
2002-09-19
-
U.S. Use of Preemptive Military Force [September 18, 2002]
From the Summary: "This report reviews the historical record regarding the uses of U.S. military force in a 'preemptive' manner, an issue that has emerged due to the possible use of U.S. military force against Iraq. It examines and comments on military actions taken by the United States that could be reasonably interpreted as 'preemptive' in nature. For purposes of this analysis we consider a 'preemptive' use of military force to be the taking of military action by the United States against another nation so as to prevent or mitigate a presumed 'military' attack or use of force by that nation against the United States. This review includes all noteworthy uses of military force by the United States since the establishment of the Republic."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grimmett, Richard F.
2002-09-18
-
Intelligence Issues for Congress [Updated September 17, 2002]
"The U.S. Intelligence Community continues to adjust to the post-Cold War environment. Congressional and executive branch initiatives have emphasized enhancing cooperation among the different agencies that comprise the Community by giving greater managerial authority to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Priority continues to be placed on intelligence support to military operations and on involvement in efforts to combat narcotics trafficking and, especially since September 11, 2001, international terrorism. Growing concerns about transnational threats are leading to increasingly close cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. This relationship is complicated, however, by differing roles and missions as well as statutory charters."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Best, Richard A.
2002-09-17
-
Department of Homeland Security: Appropriations Transfer Authority [Updated September 16, 2002]
"The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as proposed by President George W. Bush and Members of Congress, involves in large part the transfer to the new department of existing functions carried out by many different agencies and programs. Along with the authority to transfer functions, the legislative proposals include authority to transfer the personnel, assets (including appropriations), and other items connected with these functions. The proposals for appropriations transfer authority for the new department have engendered controversy with regard to the appropriate balance between providing executive flexibility and retaining congressional control over spending. [...] With regard to general transfer authority, which would be provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security following the establishment of the department and would cover transfers between accounts within the department's budget, the Administration proposed permanent authority, subject to a 5% limit on the amount that may be transferred from any appropriation and a 15-day notice-requirement to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The House Appropriations Committee, and leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee, strongly objected to the proposed general transfer authority, maintaining that sufficient transfer authority could be provided on an ongoing basis through the annual appropriations process. As passed by the House on July 26, 2002, H.R. 5005 would reduce the general transfer authority limit to 2% and sunset the transfer authority after 2 years. The Senate began consideration of H.R. 5005 on September 3. Lieberman amendment #4471, a substitute amendment offered by Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, does not contain a grant of general transfer authority."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Keith, Robert
2002-09-16
-
Syria: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues [Updated September 13, 2002]
"U.S.-Syrian relations, frequently strained by longstanding disagreements over regional and international policy, have warmed somewhat as a result of several developments: the collapse of the Soviet Union, Syria's participation in the allied coalition against Iraq in 1990-91, and Syrian agreement to participate in Arab-Israeli peace talks. This thaw in bilateral relations led some Members of Congress to inquire whether U.S. Administrations had made any private commitments to Syria, such as an undertaking to relax economic sanctions, in return for Syrian support on regional issues. Several legislative proposals have sought to condition relaxation of aid and trade restrictions on further changes in Syrian policy. Recent U.S. Administrations, though not inclined to lift sanctions on Syria at this time, tend to believe it is in U.S. interests to encourage Syria to play a positive role in the Arab-Israeli peace process. The issue for U.S. policy makers is the degree to which the United States should work for better relations with Syria in an effort to enlist Syrian cooperation on regional issues."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Prados, Alfred B.
2002-09-13
-
North Korea-Japan Relations: The Normalization Talks and the Compensation/Reparations Issue [September 12, 2002]
"Japan and North Korea have not established official relations since North Korea was founded in 1948. In 2000, the two countries held three rounds of normalization talks, which had been frozen since 1992. The negotiations, however, broke down in November 2000. In late August 2002, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi announced that, after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations with North Korea, he would travel to Pyongyang on September 17 for a day-long summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to attempt to restart the normalization talks."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Manyin, Mark E.
2002-09-12
-
Iran: Current Developments and U.S. Policy [September 11, 2002]
"Even before Iran's tacit cooperation with post-September 11 U.S. efforts to defeat Afghanistan's Taliban regime, signs of moderation in Iran had stimulated the United States to try to engage Iran in official talks. Iran, still split between conservatives and reformers loyal to President Mohammad Khatemi did not accept. Recent reports of Iranian meddling in post-Taliban Afghanistan and Iran's intercepted January 2002 shipment of arms allegedly to the Palestinian Authority have reversed the warming trend. Iran was grouped with North Korea and Iraq as part of the 'axis of evil' identified in President Bush's January 29, 2002 State of the Union message. The United States said subsequently it supports reform-minded Iranians who want democracy, an apparent shift from the stance of attempting to engage Khatemi's government. President Bush has identified Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and delivery means, coupled with its support of terrorist groups, as key U.S. concerns. Iran's ballistic missile program has made major strides over the past few years, with the help of several foreign suppliers, and the strides in its civilian nuclear power program could further a nuclear weapons effort."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2002-09-11
-
Homeland Security and the Reserves: Threat, Mission, and Force Structure Issues [September 10, 2002]
From the Summary: "Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many have suggested expanding the use of the reserves, particularly the National Guard, for homeland security. [...] Over the past two decades, the reserves have shifted much of their peacetime effort from training for wartime tasks to participating in current active force missions. Denying the active forces access to these reserve resources, due to a restructuring of reserves toward homeland security missions, most likely would reduce the readiness of U.S. forces, at least in the near term. [...] At present, some reservists can be enticed to join or remain in the reserves by, among other incentives, real-world missions which are part of real overseas contingencies. On the other hand, homeland security duty could attract some recruits not drawn to foreign travel, but energized by participating in direct defense of American soil. [...] Adequate homeland security may not need forces of the size of the entire Army National Guard (360,000 personnel), let alone contributions from the other reserve components. [...] In coping with such a nation-state, whether it is linked with terrorism or not, the mobilization potential of reserve components configured for intense, modern conventional conflict could well be crucial--as it has been for many countries around the world, including the United States, since the era of modern industrial war began in the late 19th Century."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Goldich, Robert L.
2002-09-10
-
Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions [September 10, 2002]
"Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, §2, clause 3). This report supplies brief answers to some frequently asked questions regarding recess appointments. It will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Hogue, Henry B.
2002-09-10
-
Smallpox Vaccine Stockpile and Vaccination Policy [Updated September 9, 2002]
On June 20, 2002, an advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted against mass smallpox vaccination and instead recommended that emergency medical personnel receive the vaccine. The plan was reviewed by CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); a revised version was sent in early September to the White House for approval. Congress addresses control of the vaccine stockpile in the Homeland Security legislation (H.R. 5005, S. 2452).
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Johnson, Judith A. (Judith Ann), 1957-
2002-09-09
-
Homeland Security Department: U.S. Department of Agriculture Issues [Updated September 6, 2002]
"The House Select Committee on Homeland Defense reported out its amended version of the President's proposal on July 19, 2002 (H.R. 5005), and the full House passed it on July 26. It reflects changes concerning the APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] provisions that the House Agriculture Committee recommended (H. Res. 449): 3,200 APHIS border inspection personnel would be transferred, and the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] Secretary would retain considerable authority over their activities and funding. Plant and animal quarantine functions, as well as all other APHIS program activities, would remain in USDA. H.R. 5005, as amended, retains the provision to transfer the Plum Island lab to the new department. [...] The changes that the House Select Committee made substantially address the concerns of the U.S. agriculture community, which feared that transferring all of APHIS out of USDA would seriously hamper the agency's considerable domestic, non-border activities. Agriculture interests still express concern that the Senate proposal would weaken APHIS's quarantine operations and limit the ability of border personnel to be assigned to certain other critical projects as needed. The issue of Plum Island is still under debate, as the House and Senate measures still differ on its transfer. Supporters maintain that the new department needs the lab's foreign animal disease diagnostic capabilities to detect potential bioterrorism, while opponents argue that the lab's research on behalf of the U.S. livestock sector would be hampered by its top-secret designation. This report covers the background and policy issues related to current reorganization proposals and will be updated as necessary."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Rawson, Jean M.
2002-09-06
-
Terrorism and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Recent Developments in Brief [September 6, 2002]
From the Summary: "Most crime is territorial. It is proscribed, investigated, tried, and punished under the law of the place where it occurs. As a general rule, no nation's laws apply within the territory of another. Yet in a surprising number of instances, federal criminal law does apply overseas to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. As long as there is some nexus to the United States, federal law authorizes prosecution - practical, diplomatic, and procedural impediments notwithstanding. In the 107th Congress, the USA PATRIOT [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act and the legislation implementing the international conventions on terrorist bombings and on financing terrorism have extended the substantive authority for federal prosecution of crimes occurring elsewhere."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2002-09-06
-
Iraq: Former and Recent Military Confrontations With the United States [Updated September 6, 2002]
"Efforts by Iraq to impede U.N. weapons inspections since late 1997 and to challenge the allied-imposed no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq have resulted in further confrontations with the United States and its allies. A decision by Iraq to ban almost all U.N. inspections on October 31, 1998, led the United States and Britain to conduct a 4-day air operation against Iraq on December 16-20, 1998 (Operation Desert Fox). The two allies launched approximately 415 missiles and dropped more than 600 bombs targeted at Iraqi military and logistical facilities. Since the December 1998 operation, the United States and Britain have carried out air strikes against Iraqi air defense units and installations on a frequent basis, in response to Iraqi attempts to target allied aircraft enforcing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. On October 7, 2001, following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations warned Iraq not to move against Iraqi opposition groups or attack its neighbors while the United States was involved in its campaign against terrorism."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Prados, Alfred B.
2002-09-06
-
China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Policy Issues [September 6, 2002]
"Congress has long been concerned about U.S. policy to address the role of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles. This problem refers to the threat of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and missiles that could deliver them. Some have argued that certain PRC transfers violated international treaties or guidelines, and/or have contravened various U.S. laws requiring sanctions to shore up those international standards. Even if no laws or treaties are violated, many view China's transfers as threatening U.S. and regional security interests. This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report (superseding CRS Issue Brief 92056) discusses the national security problem of the PRC's role in weapons proliferation and issues related to the U.S. policy response, including legislation, since the mid-1990s. The table at the end of this Report summarizes the U.S. sanctions imposed on PRC entities for weapons proliferation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kan, Shirley
2002-09-06
-
Iraq: Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy [Updated September 6, 2002]
"In recent years, the United States has been unable to maintain an international consensus for strict enforcement of all applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iraq, but it has largely succeeded in preventing Iraq from reemerging as an immediate strategic threat to the region. There is U.S. concern about the long-term threat posed by Iraq and, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration has emphasized regime change as the cornerstone of U.S. policy. The exact means to implement that objective has not been announced, whether it be through international sanctions and diplomacy, military action, or covert action. The regime change policy is considered risky and difficult and is not openly supported by many other governments, particularly if it involves major military action."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth
2002-09-06
-
Collective Bargaining and Homeland Security [Updated September 5, 2002]
From the Summary: "This report discusses the personnel provisions of recent proposals to create a new Department of Homeland Security. H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, has generated concern among some members of the labor community who have questioned the possible denial of collective bargaining rights for the estimated 170,000 employees affected by the homeland defense reorganization. S. 2452, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002, would restrict the President's ability under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1) to exclude the new Department and transferred agencies from coverage under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S. Code. The President's existing authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1) to exclude the employees of certain agencies from the ability to bargain collectively is also discussed in this report. The report provides a legislative history of this exclusion provision. In addition, the report reviews the concept of successorship, whereby a union may retain its status as the exclusive representative of employees acquired by a new employer. Successorship could be an issue for the eighteen unions that represent employees affected by the reorganization. This report reflects legislative action up through House passage of H.R. 5005. The report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2002-09-05
-
Homeland Security: Human Resources Management [Updated September 5, 2002]
"Responding to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the discovery of anthrax in Washington, DC, and other cities, the Administration and Members of Congress proposed legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security. President George W. Bush's proposal was submitted to Congress on June 18, 2002 by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. It was subsequently introduced as H.R. 5005 by Representative Dick Armey on June 24, 2002. The bill was referred to various House committees having jurisdiction over its provisions, and those committees marked up the legislation during the week of July 8, 2002. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security marked up the bill on July 19, 2002, and reported it on July 24, 2002. The House passed H.R. 5005 on a 295-132 vote on July 26, 2002. In the Senate, on May 2, 2002, Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced S. 2452 to create a Department of National Homeland Security. During business meetings of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on July 24 and 25, 2002, the committee agreed to a Lieberman amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 2452. On September 3, 2002, the Senate debated the motion to proceed to debate on the homeland security bill and on a 94-0 vote agreed to begin debate the next day. On September 4, 2002, Senator Lieberman offered the amendment agreed to by the Governmental Affairs Committee as a substitute for H.R. 5005."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwemle, Barbara L.
2002-09-05
-
Terrorism, the Future, and U.S. Foreign Policy [September 3, 2002]
"International terrorism has long been recognized as a foreign and domestic security threat. The tragic events of September 11 in New York, the Washington, D.C., area, and Pennsylvania have dramatically re-energized the nation's focus and resolve on terrorism. This issue brief examines international terrorist actions and threats and the U.S. policy response. Available policy options range from diplomacy, international cooperation, and constructive engagement to economic sanctions, covert action, physical security enhancement, and military force. The September 11th terrorist incidents in the United States, the subsequent anthrax attacks, as well as bombings of the U.S.S. Cole, Oklahoma City, World Trade Center in 1993, and of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, have brought the issue of terrorism to the forefront of American public interest. Questions relate to whether U.S. policy and organizational mechanisms are adequate to deal with both state-sponsored or -abetted terrorism and that undertaken by independent groups. Terrorist activities supported by sophisticated planning and logistics as well as possible access to unconventional weaponry raise a host of new issues. Some analysts' long-held belief that a comprehensive review of U.S. counterterrorism policy, organizational structure, and intelligence capabilities is needed has now become a mainstream view."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Perl, Raphael; Lee, Rensselaer W., 1937-
2002-09-03
-
U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court [Updated September 3, 2002]
"One month after the International Criminal Court (ICC) officially came into existence on July 1, 2002, the President signed legislation that limits U.S. government support and assistance to the ICC, curtails military assistance to many countries that have ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, and most controversially among European allies, authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release" of certain U.S. and allied persons who may be detained or tried by the ICC...The (Bush) Administration initially vetoed a United Nations resolution to extend the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia because it did not contain any guarantee that U.S. participants would be immune to prosecution by the ICC. Ultimately, the Security Council and the U.S. delegation were able to reach a compromise that defers for one year any prosecution of participants in U.N. established or authorized missions, whose home countries have not ratified the Rome Statute. While the compromise falls short of the Administration's original goal of ensuring permanent immunity for U.S. citizens from the ICC, it suggests that the role of the U.N. Security Council under the Rome Statute may prove effective in addressing some of the concerns U.S. opponents of the ICC have voiced. This report outlines the main objections the United States has raised with respect to the ICC and analyzes the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) enacted to regulate the U.S. cooperation with the ICC. The report concludes with a discussion of the implications for the United States, as a non-ratifying country, as the ICC comes into force, as well as the Administration's apparent strategy with regard to the ICC." -- Summary
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2002-09-03
-
Homeland Security; Management Positions for the Proposed Department [Updated September 3, 2002]
"Congress is currently considering proposals, H.R. 5005 and S. 2452, to create an executive department that will address the national need for homeland security. The proposals would transfer organizational units, functions, and personnel from several departments and agencies. A hierarchy of positions would be established to manage the department and its activities. Some would be newly created, and some would be drawn from those transferring agencies. This report analyzes the proposals in light of the provisions for appointment of that managerial hierarchy. It identifies the positions to be created and the apparent effect on current positions in the transferring agencies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Hogue, Henry B.
2002-09-03
-
India-U.S. Relations [Updated September 3, 2002]
"Although the end of the Cold War freed U.S.-India relations from the constraints of a bipolar world, bilateral relations continued for a decade to be affected by the burden of history, most notably the longstanding India-Pakistan regional rivalry. Recent years, however, have brought a sea change in U.S.- India relations, which was reflected in India's swift offer of full support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York and Washington. The continuing U.S. concern in South Asia, however, is the reduction of tensions between India and Pakistan, which center on their competing claims to the former princely state of Kashmir, and the prevention of nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation. India and Pakistan have so far ignored U.S. and international pressure to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gupta, Amit
2002-09-03
-
Terrorism and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Recent Developments [September 2, 2002]
From the Summary: "A nation's criminal jurisdiction is usually limited to its own territory. In a surprising number of instances, however, federal criminal law applies abroad to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. The USA PATRIOT [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act and legislation implementing treaties on terrorist bombings and on financing terrorism enlarge the extent of federal extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. The USA PATRIOT Act's contributions involve credit cards, money laundering, and the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Congress has enacted laws proscribing various common law crimes such as murder, robbery, or sexual assaults when committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., when committed aboard an American vessel or within a federal enclave. Whether federal enclaves in other countries are included within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States is a question that divides the lower courts. The Act provides that the overseas establishments of federal governmental entities and residences of their staffs are within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of crimes committed by or against U.S. nationals."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2002-09-02
-
Critical Infrastructure Information Disclosure and Homeland Security [Updated August 31, 2002]
"Critical infrastructures have been defined as those systems and assets so vital to the United States that the incapacity of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on the United States. One of the findings of the Presidents Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, established by President Clinton in 1996, was the need for the federal government and owners and operators of the nations critical infrastructures to share information on vulnerabilities and threats. However, the Commission noted that owners and operators are reluctant to share confidential business information, and the government is reluctant to share information that might compromise intelligence sources or investigations. Among the strategies to help owners and operators share information with the federal government was a proposal to exempt the information they share from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed to ensure by statute citizen access to government information. Nine categories of information may be exempted from disclosure. Three of the nine exemptions provide possible protection against the release of critical infrastructure information: exemption 1 (national security information); exemption 3 (information exempted by statute); and exemption 4 (confidential business information). Congress has considered several proposals to exempt critical infrastructure information from the FOIA. Generally, the legislation has either created an exemption 3 statute, or codified the standard adopted by the D.C. Circuit in exemption 4 cases."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Moteff, John D.; Stevens, Gina Marie
2002-08-31
-
Critical Infrastructures: What Makes an Infrastructure Critical? [August 30, 2002]
From the Summary: "The Bush Administration's proposal for establishing a Department of Homeland Security includes a function whose responsibilities include the coordination of policies and actions to protect the nation's critical infrastructure. However, the proposal did not specify criteria for how to determine criticality or which infrastructures should be considered critical. Over the last few years, a number of documents concerned with critical infrastructure protection have offered general definitions for critical infrastructures and have provided short lists of which infrastructures should be included. Critical infrastructures now include national monuments (e.g. Washington Monument), where an attack might cause a large loss of life or adversely affect the nation's morale. They also include the chemical industry. Essentially the federal government will have to try to minimize the impact on the nation's critical infrastructure of any future terrorist attack, taking into account what those impacts might be and the likelihood of their occurring, and will set priorities for critical infrastructure protection based on a consistent methodology and an approach that will allow it to balance the cost and expected benefits."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Moteff, John D.; Copeland, Claudia; Fischer, John
2002-08-30
-
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002: Combating Terrorism and Other Issues [Updated August 30, 2002]
On March 21, 2002, President Bush requested $27.1 billion in emergency supplemental funding to continue the war on terrorism and provide additional assistance for New York City and aviation security as well as other homeland security needs. With the $1.3 billion FY2002 supplemental request for Pell grants in the President's February budget, the Administration's request was $28.4 billion. Although there was broad congressional support for the new supplemental, Congress debated the total spending level, the amount for homeland security, and inclusion of budget ceilings for FY2003, as well as other issues from the time that the bill was submitted in the spring to its final passage in late July. The initial draft conference version developed by the appropriators was rejected by the White House. A compromise package designed by Senate appropriators was then rejected by the House. House appropriators then put together a final $28.9 billion spending package that was acceptable to both houses and the Administration.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Belasco, Amy; Nowels, Larry Q.
2002-08-30
