Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are being retained longer than was planned. Yet they deteriorate and must be maintained. To correct problems, a Life Extension Program (LEP), part of a larger Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), replaces components. Modifying some components would require a nuclear test, but the United States has observed a test moratorium since 1992. Congress and the Administration prefer to avoid a return to testing, so LEP rebuilds these components as closely as possible to original specifications. With this approach, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy have certified stockpile safety and reliability for the past 12 years without nuclear testing. NNSA argues it will become harder to certify current warheads with LEP because small changes may undermine confidence in warheads, perhaps leading to nuclear testing, whereas new-design replacement warheads created by the RRW program will be easier to certify without testing. Critics believe LEP and SSP can maintain the stockpile indefinitely. They worry that untested RRWs may make testing more likely and question cost savings, given high investment cost. They note that there are no military requirements for new weapons. Others feel that neither LEP nor RRW can provide high confidence over the long term, and would resume testing. Another point of view is that either LEP or RRW will work without nuclear testing. This report provides background and tracks legislation. It will be updated to reflect final FY2010 congressional action on RRW. See also CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and the Life Extension Program, by Jonathan Medalia, which compares these two programs in detail.

Congress has continued to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. While several dozen gun control-related proposals have been introduced in recent Congresses, only a handful of those bills received significant legislative action. The 109th Congress, for example, passed two bills with firearmsrelated provisions that were enacted into law. P.L. 109-72 prohibits certain types of lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and dealers to recover damages related to the criminal or unlawful use of their products by other persons, and P.L. 109-295 includes a provision that prohibits federal officials from seizing any firearm from private persons during a major disaster or emergency, if possession of that firearm was not already prohibited under federal or state law. Nevertheless, the 110th Congress could possibly reconsider several gun control proposals that were considered as part of appropriations and crime legislation in the previous Congress. During the 109th Congress, the House amended the Children's Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132) to prohibit the transfer or possession of a firearm to or by any person convicted of a sex offense against a minor. The House also amended Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 1751) to authorize certain federal court judges and officials to carry firearms for personal protection. The Senate passed a different version of H.R. 1751 that included similar provisions, as well as provisions designed to clarify and expand the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (P.L. 108-277) -- a law that gives concealed carry privileges to qualified on-duty and retired law enforcement officers. None of those provisions were enacted into law, however. In addition, the House Judiciary considered four gun-related bills: the ATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5092), the Firearms Corrections and Improvement Act (H.R. 5005), the Firearm Commerce Modernization Act (H.R. 1384), and the NICS Improvement Act of 2005 (H.R. 1415). H.R. 5092 was passed by the House. The 109th Congress, moreover, maintained a fee prohibition for Brady background checks and other funding limitations and conditions related to gun enforcement in the FY2006 DOJ appropriations (P.L. 109-108). Those limitations and conditions have been continued into FY2007 under continuing resolutions. They are often referred to as the "Tiahrt amendment," for their sponsor in the FY2004 appropriations cycle, Representative Todd Tiahrt. Issues addressed in those bills, as well as the Tiahrt funding limitations and conditions, could be reconsidered in the 110th Congress. Senator Charles Schumer, for example, has introduced a bill (S. 77) that would repeal portions of the Tiahrt amendment that limit the sharing of firearm trace data. Other gun control-related issues that may reemerge in the 110th Congress include (1) retaining Brady background check records for approved transactions to enhance terrorist screening, (2) more strictly regulating certain long-range fifty caliber rifles, (3) further regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as "assault weapons," and (4) requiring background checks for firearm transfers at gun shows. This report will updated to reflect legislative action.

This report describes homegrown violent jihadists and the plots and attacks that have occurred since 9/11. For this report, "homegrown" and "domestic" are terms that describe terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, legal permanent residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. The report also discusses the radicalization process and the forces driving violent extremist activity. It analyzes post-9/11 domestic jihadist terrorism and describes law enforcement and intelligence efforts to combat terrorism and the challenges associated with those efforts. It also outlines actions underway to build trust and partnership between community groups and government agencies and the tensions that may occur between law enforcement and engagement activities.

In recent years, there has been much controversy about the proper forum in which to prosecute and punish suspected terrorists. Some have endorsed aggressive use of military commissions; others have proposed an entirely new "national security court." However, as the nation strives for a vigorous and effective response to terrorism, we should not lose sight of the important tools that are already at our disposal, nor should we forget the costs and risks of seeking to break new ground by departing from established institutions and practices. As this White Paper shows, the existing criminal justice system has proved successful at handling a large number of important and challenging terrorism prosecutions over the past fifteen years-without sacrificing national security interests, rigorous standards of fairness and due process, or just punishment for those guilty of terrorism-related crimes.

Social factors, signals, and biases shape the health of our nation. Racism and poverty manifest in unequal social, environmental, and economic conditions, resulting in deep-rooted health disparities that carry over from generation to generation. In Perspectives on Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health, authors call for collective action across sectors to reverse the debilitating and often lethal consequences of health inequity. This edited volume of discussion papers provides recommendations to advance the agenda to promote health equity for all. Organized by research approaches and policy implications, systems that perpetuate or ameliorate health disparities, and specific examples of ways in which health disparities manifest in communities of color, this Special Publication provides a stark look at how health and well-being are nurtured, protected, and preserved where people live, learn, work, and play. All of our nation's institutions have important roles to play even if they do not think of their purpose as fundamentally linked to health and well-being. The rich discussions found throughout Perspectives on Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health make way for the translation of policies and actions to improve health and health equity for all citizens of our society. The major health problems of our time cannot be solved by health care alone. They cannot be solved by public health alone. Collective action is needed, and it is needed now.