PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S601-604)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 26, 2005
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President should develop a planning process for stabilization and reconstruction activities in conflict-affected areas, which shall provide for contingency planning and integration task forces under the general guidance of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, joint interagency task forces, and a national center for contingency support; (2) the President should strengthen the Government's strategic communication abilities, including creation of a permanent organizational structure within the National Security Council (NSC); (3) a new approach is needed to access, coordinate, and implement Government intelligence and knowledge; (4) open source material should be better exploited; and (5) language proficiency should be enhanced.
Requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to: (1) make stabilization and reconstruction capabilities one of the core competencies of their respective Departments; (2) increase cooperation between their Departments; and (3) allocate funding for strategic communication.
Requires the Secretary of Defense to: (1) direct commanders of the combatant commands to develop intelligence plans as part of their planning process; (2) develop a program to identify, locate, and track hostile asymmetric warfare operations; and (3) designate the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to serve as executive agent of a Department of Defense (DOD) program to exploit open sources of information.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director of National Intelligence to refocus intelligence reform from reorganization to problem solving, including the establishment of a human resource coordination office to develop a comprehensive human resource strategy to optimize resource allocation against critical problems.
People & committees
Sen. Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S601-604)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S600-601)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.192 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.192 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.192 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.192 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.