Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, National Preparedness, describes the way United States Federal agencies will prepare for an incident. It requires Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with other Federal agencies and with State, local, and Tribal governments to develop a National Preparedness Goal with Emergency management. Congressional laws enacted, following the wake of 9/11, which resulted in new developments in the way security was assessed and addressed in the United States, to prevent and respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal. HSPD 5, HSPD-7, HSPD-8, and HSPD-8 Annex 1 are directives that deal with the preparedness goals. 
HSPD-8.
The goal of HSPD-8, is the coordination and implementation of all-hazards preparedness in the United States, to help ensure the preparedness of the Nation to prevent, respond to, and recover from threatened and actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The goal is to be attained by:
Annex I.
HSPD-8, Annex I, National Planning; describes a common Federal planning process that supports development of a family of related planning documents, known as the Integrated Planning System (IPS). The IPS concept provides the federal government with a consistent direction and delineation of authorities, responsibilities and requirements, common terms of reference, and plans based on shared assumptions. 
History.
The domestic incident management plan is provided for from presidential directives HSPD-5 issued February 28, 2003, HSPD-7, HSPD-8, and HSPD-8 Annex 1, as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. These directives set up the laws and regulations for managing domestic incidents by establishing the, comprehensive National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the National Response Framework (NRF). Both of these plans are augmented by the National Integration Center (NIC) and describes the way Federal departments and agencies will prepare for such a response, including prevention activities during the early stages of a terrorism incident.
National Security Presidential Directive 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD-51/HSPD-20), and the National Continuity Policy, dated May 4, 2007, outline the continuity requirements for all Federal departments and agencies, with guidance for non-Federal organizations. These requirements include such things as essential functions, orders of succession, delegations of authority, continuity of operations, continuity of communications, vital records, and human capital. All of these rules and regulations for a national defense against any possible threat of national attack. HSPD-8 Annex 1 resulted in the Integrated Planning System (IPS) by using the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG).
9/11.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, brought about many changes in the country. An attack such as this had never before happened and steps had to be taken to ensure it didn't again. 
Around the world.
Many nations were affected by the attacks. Over 3000 lost their lives from the world including Australia, Bermuda, Canada, China, El Salvador, Germany, Grenada, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and 30 that were listed as UNKNOWN.
In the U.S..
Congress was swift to react and enacted laws to protect the United States with the Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 enacted November 25, 2002, as well as other laws for the protection of the country. This resulted in Presidential Directives, including HSPD-8, and HSPD-8 Annex 1, and formation of NIMS with offices in 10 locations. 
Offices.
Region I: Boston
Areas:
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
NIMS Coordinator:
Mike Brazel
Region II: New York
Areas:
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
U.S. Virgin Islands
NIMS Coordinator:
Marshall Mabry
Region III: Philadelphia
Areas:
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia
NIMS Coordinator:
John Brasko
Region IV: Atlanta
Areas:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
NIMS Coordinator:
Rupert Dennis
Region V: Chicago
Areas:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota
Ohio, Wisconsin
NIMS Coordinator:
Bill Sulinckas
Region VI: Denton
Areas:
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
NIMS Specialist:
Sam Garland
NIMS Coordinator:
Mike Goldsworthy
Region VII: Kansas City
Areas:
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
NIMS Coordinator:
Tom Morgan
Region VIII: Denver
Areas:
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming
NIMS Coordinator:
Lanney Holmes
Region IX: Oakland
Areas:
American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada,
Marianas Islands, Federated States of Micronesia
Republic of the Marshall Islands
NIMS Coordinator:
Susan Waller
Region X: Bothell
Areas:
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
NIMS Coordinator:
Matthew Bernard
Current.
With the November 2010 election results, and the Republicans taking a majority of the seats in the United States House of Representatives, there will be a move to stop what the Republicans consider a breach in national security and tighten laws such as immigration and border security. Existing White House defense and foreign policies will be under fire, such as a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, as well as nuclear reduction attempts. The end result will be strengthened Homeland Security enforcement in anticipation of any possible retaliations from the Taliban or Al Qaida. 
On March 30, 2011, President Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 8, which replaces Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8 - National Preparedness (issued Dec 17, 2003) and HSPD-8 Annex I - National Planning (issued December 4, 2007). The Obama directive places significant emphasis on an "all-of-nation" "all-hazards" approach to disasters, fusing together the capabilities of federal, state, and local authorities to respond to crises. It refocuses government resources on mitigation—preventing catastrophes from getting worse—and resilience—how communities actively respond to and recover from a major disaster.