[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3591-S3598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Burns, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Lott, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Allen, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bond,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Coleman, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Allard,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Craig, Mr. Talent, and
Mr. Burr):
S. 2653. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to
make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel
deployed overseas; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Call Home Act of 2006 would require
the Federal Communications Commission to take such actions as may be
necessary to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed
overseas, including the waiver of government fees, assessments, or
other costs.
In seeking to reduce phone rates, the legislation would require the
FCC to evaluate and analyze the costs of calls to and from official
duty stations including vessels whether in port or under way; evaluate
methods of reducing rates including deployment of new technology such
as Voice over Internet protocol, VOIP, or other Internet protocol
technology; encourage phone companies to adopt flexible billing
procedures and policies call to and from Armed Forces personnel; and
seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce international
surcharges on phone calls.
The legislation would, however, prohibit the FCC from regulating
rates in order to carry out the Call Home Act's requirements.
The Call Home Act of 2006 would replace similar legislation from 1992
that limited the FCC's efforts to reduce rates to specific countries.
The Call Home Act would expand the FCC's efforts to benefit troops
wherever they are deployed in support of the global war on terrorism.
We have received a letter of support from the Military Coalition,
which represents 36 military and veterans groups. We have also received
letters of support from individual members of that coalition and others
urging Congress to enact this legislation: Veterans of Foreign Wars;
Association of the United States Army; Enlisted Association of the
National Guard; Military Officers Association of America; American
Legion; Naval Reserve Association; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association;
Gold Star Wives of America; and Air Force Sergeants Association.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars' letter of support says that calls home
are ``lifeline'' for the brave men and women stationed abroad.
I urge you to vote for this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent letters in support of this legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Military Coalition,
Alexandria, VA, April 10, 2006.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: The Military Coalition (TMC), a
consortium of uniformed services and veterans associations
representing more than 5.5 million current and former
servicemembers and their families and survivors, is writing
to express our strong support of your bill, ``Call Home Act
of 2006,'' that directs the Federal Communications Commission
to seek ways to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces
personnel deployed overseas.
Everyday, military members deployed or assigned
unaccompanied overseas are faced with the burdens of being
separated from families and loved ones. Your bill recognizes
the burden these members and families encounter and takes an
important step forward to reduce the costs of high phone
rates.
The Military Coalition thanks you for introducing this
legislation and recommends that the bill be expanded to
include all members of the uniformed services. We also
appreciate your leadership on issues affecting all
servicemembers and their families and pledge our strong
support in seeking enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Signed by 36 representatives of member organizations of the
Military Coalition.
____
Association of the
United States Army,
Arlington, VA, April 6, 2006.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: On behalf of over 100,000 members of
the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), I write to
express our strong support of your bill. ``Call Home Act of
2006,'' that directs the Federal Communications Commission to
seek ways to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces
personnel deployed overseas.
Everyday, military members deployed or assigned
unaccompanied overseas are faced with the burdens of being
separated from families and loved ones. Your bill recognizes
the burden these members and families encounter and takes an
important step forward to reduce the costs of high phone
rates.
AUSA thanks you for introducing this legislation and for
your leadership on issues affecting all servicemembers and
their families. We pledge our strong support in seeking
enactment of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Gordon R. Sullivan,
General, USA Retired.
____
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2006.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: On behalf of the 4 million members of
The American Legion Family, I would like to take this
opportunity to offer our support for your draft legislation
entitled, The Call Home Act of 2006.
Your legislation would direct the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to make every effort possible to reduce
telephone rates for those deployed and fighting overseas in
the war on terror. The bill also directs the FCC to develop
new technologies, encourage foreign governments to reduce
international surcharges, and help provide flexible billing
for troops and their families. All of these things would help
make positive improvements in the lives of our servicemembers
who just want to phone home and talk to a loved one.
We support efforts to reduce telephone rates for our
servicemembers stationed overseas who depend on an affordable
and timely means of communication with their family and loved
ones. Over a decade ago, American Legion National Commanders
discovered in their visits to troops in the Balkans that our
servicemembers were being charged exorbant telephone rates to
call home. The American Legion is strongly supportive of
military quality of life, and frequent and timely calling
home is a huge morale factor which could only pay dividends
to oUr troops going into harm's way.
Thank you for introducing this legislation and for your
continuous support of those on the battlefield today. We look
forward to working with you and your staff on the enactment
of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Clarence Hill,
Chairman,
National Security Commission.
____
Enlisted Association of the
National Guard,
Alexandria, VA, April 6, 2006.
Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman,
Hon. Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, Washington, DC.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States (EANGUS) is pleased to express our strongest
support, on behalf of the Enlisted men and women of the Army
and Air National Guard, for the ``Call Home Act of 2006''
which would authorize the FCC to take actions necessary to
reduce telephone bills for all deployed service members,
active duty, Guard and Reserve.
Members of the Guard and Reserve comprise over 45 percent
of all U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
September 11, 2001, our nation has deployed over 525,000
Guard and Reserve members for operational missions for the
Global War on Terrorism,
[[Page S3592]]
all over the world. Unfortunately, many of these members,
predominately in the junior enlisted ranks, are not be able
to afford expensive calls from overseas to families or to
address personal issues that increase stress on the member.
All servicemembers need contact with their home areas and
families for a multitude of reasons; however most Guard and
Reserve member's home towns are not in the vicinity of a
traditional base; therefore contact with their families is
critical when deployed.
Today's guardsmen and reservists are professionals. They
are the best that we have had and they are answering the call
on a routine basis not envisioned during the Cold War. We
need to take care of those that answer the call from our
nation. If passed this benefit for members of the Guard and
Reserve will provide an important tool to bolster
recruitment, retention, family morale and overall readiness.
Thank you for recognizing one of the many needs of the
military community. You have the support of EANGUS and our
membership.
Working for America's Best!
Michael P. Cline,
Executive Director.
____
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States,
Washington, DC, April, 5, 2006.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: On behalf of the 2.4 million members
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our
Auxiliaries, I would like to take this opportunity to offer
our support for your draft legislation entitled, The Call
Home Act of 2006.
Your legislation would direct the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to make every effort possible to reduce
telephone rates for those deployed and fighting overseas in
the war on terror. The bill also directs FCC to evaluate the
role of new technologies, encourage foreign governments to
reduce international surcharges, and help provide flexible
billing for troops and their families. All of these things
would help make positive improvements in the lives of our
servicemembers who just want to phone home and talk to a
loved one.
We believe that telephone calls and service are a lifeline
for our servicemembers stationed abroad who depend on an
affordable means of communication with their friends and
family. To help decrease these costs in any way is the least
we can do for those fighting for our freedoms and for their
families who are making their own sacrifices on the home
front.
Thank you for introducing this legislation and for your
continuous support of those on the battlefield today. We look
forward to working with you and your staff on the enactment
of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Wallace,
Executive Director.
____
Naval Reserve Association,
Alexandria, VA, April 5, 2006.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Stevens: I am writing you on behalf of the
members of the Naval Reserve Association, members of the Navy
Reserve, their families and survivors. I'm writing to express
our strongest support for The ``Call Home Act of 2006'' which
would authorize the FCC to take actions necessary to reduce
telephone bills for all deployed service members, active
duty, Guard and Reserve.
Members of the Guard and Reserve comprise over 45 percent
of all U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
September 11, 2001, our nation has deployed over 525,000
Guard and Reserve members for operational missions for the
Global War on Terrorism, all over the world. Additionally,
during any month, approximately 25 percent of the Navy
Reserve force is doing some type of operational support to
the fleet for operational mission requirements.
Unfortunately, many of these members, predominately in the
junior enlisted ranks, are not able to afford expensive calls
from overseas to families or to address personal issues that
increase stress on the member. All servicemembers need
contact with their home areas and families for a multitude of
reasons. Most Guard and Reserve member's home towns are not
in the vicinity of a traditional base; therefore, contact
with their families is critical when deployed.
Today's guardsmen and reservists are professionals. They
are the best that we have had and they are answering the call
on a routine basis not envisioned during the Cold War. We
need to take care of those that answer the call from our
nation. If passed, this benefit for members of the Guard and
Reserve will provide an important tool to bolster
recruitment, retention, family morale and overall readiness.
I look forward to working together in support of a strong and
viable Navy Reserve, and all reserve components. Thank you
for all your hard work on their behalf with the Call Home Act
of 2006.
Sincerely,
Casey W. Coane,
RADM, USN (Ret.),
Executive Director.
____
The Naval Enlisted
Reserve Association,
Falls Church, Va.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chair, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
I am writing you on behalf of the members of the Naval
Enlisted Reserve Association, members of the Navy, Marine
Corps and Coast Guard Reserve, their families and survivors.
I'm writing to express our strongest support for The ``Call
Home Act of 2006'' which would authorize the FCC to take
actions necessary to reduce telephone bills for all deployed
service members, active duty, Guard and Reserve.
Members of the Guard and Reserve comprise over 45 percent
of all U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
September 11, 2001, our nation has deployed over 525,000
Guard and Reserve members for operational missions for the
Global War on Terrorism, all over the world. Additionally,
during any month, approximately 25 percent of our Reserve
Forces are doing some type of operational support to meet the
country's mission requirements.
Unfortunately, many of these members, predominately in the
junior enlisted ranks, are not able to afford expensive calls
from overseas to families or to address personal issues that
increase stress on the member. All servicemembers need
contact with their home areas and families for a multitude of
reasons. Most Guard and Reserve members' home towns are not
in the vicinity of a traditional base; therefore contact with
their families is critical when deployed. Due to time and
operation differences, it is not practicable for the families
to call them and if they are able, the cost is still
prohibitive.
Today's guardsmen and reservists are professionals. They
are the best that we have had and they are answering the call
on a routine basis not envisioned during the Cold War. We
need to take care of those that answer the call from our
nation. If passed this benefit for members of the Guard and
Reserve will provide an important tool to bolster
recruitment, retention, family morale and overall readiness.
I look forward to working together in support of a strong and
viable Reserve and Guard Force. Thank you for all your hard
work on their behalf with the ``Call Home Act of 2006.''
Dave Davidson,
CAPT, USN (Ret.),
Executive Director.
____
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.,
Arlington, VA, April 5, 2006.
Mr. Harry Wingo,
Counsel, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Wingo: On behalf of Gold Star Wives of America,
I'm writing to support the ``Call Home Act of 2006'' which
directs the FCC to seek to reduce telephone rates for Armed
Forces personnel deployed overseas.
Gold Star Wives has a chatroom for new widows of the Iraq
and Afghanistan Conflict. Our survivors of the Global War on
Terrorism know first hand how important it is to have
frequent contact with their loved ones deployed overseas.
With reduced phone rates for those serving overseas, it would
certainly help permit more frequent phone calls to keep in
touch with loved ones. It would be a great morale booster.
Thank you for this bill, and if we can help in any way,
please don't hesitate to contact me. Gold Star Wives of
America., Inc. is a member of The Military Coalition.
Sincerely,
Rose Lee,
Chair, Legislative Committee.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 2654. A bill to protect consumers, and especially young consumers,
from skyrocketing consumer debt and the barrage of credit card
solicitations, to establish a financial literacy and education program
in elementary and secondary schools to help prepare young people to be
financially responsible consumers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 2655. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to prohibit
universal default practices by credit card issuers, to limit fees that
may be imposed on credit card accounts, and to require credit card
issuers to verify a prospective consumer's ability to pay before
extending credit to the consumer, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, families across this country face
a growing problem of rising credit card debt. In 2004, the average
American household had $9,300 in credit card debt, up from $3,200 just
12 years earlier. More and more Americans are using credit card debt to
manage daily living expenses such as basic living costs, medical bills,
and house or automotive repairs. And for college students, the problem
cannot be overstated. According to university administrators, colleges
lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure.
To fuel that growth, credit card issuers have increased the number of
[[Page S3593]]
solicitations sent to consumers 500 percent since 1990 to a record 5.23
billion in 2004. And they start sending them to children at younger and
younger ages. Last year, AJ, the son of my State director received his
very first solicitation at the age of 2 years old. If you have a pulse
and a social security number, you can get a credit card.
Credit card companies are increasingly targeting people who are
likely to default. They have focused their attention on teenagers and
college students, people who live beyond their means, and those who
have declared bankruptcy. Clearly, credit card companies are not paying
attention to whom they are giving a credit card, much less if the
applicant can afford to pay the balance.
There is no question that we must demand personal responsibility from
consumers, but at the same time credit card companies should not be
allowed to take advantage of consumers with excessive fees and
unreasonable interest rates. One study found that people in this Nation
pay $90 billion each year in penalty fees and interest payments. Just
think about that for a second--- $90 billion annually. It is money that
could be used to send our children to college, to pay the health care
bills of both our children in the dawn of their lives and our parents
in the sunset of theirs, while still saving for our own retirements.
One of the most egregious practices is known as ``universal
default.'' It involves credit card companies raising interest rates, up
to 30 percent APR, on customers who have a perfect record with the
credit card but miss a payment with any other creditor. So a person can
make their credit card payment on time every month but see their
interest rate skyrocket because they paid their gas bill late. Further,
this penalty interest rate is often applied not only to future
purchases but retroactively to current balances as well. This is a
completely arbitrary rate-hike intended solely to hike the company's
bottom line.
That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Bill of Rights--two
pieces of legislation that, taken together, will stop some of the most
egregious practices of credit card issuers while also ensuring that
future generations have the information to make financial decisions.
Many American adolescents are inadequately prepared for the complex
financial world that awaits them. In 2004, almost two-thirds of the
students who took a personal finance survey failed the test.
The causes for this failure are largely due to the lack of high
school finance courses available to teenagers combined with
insufficient parental mentoring. Statistics show that while a large
majority of both college and high school students rely on their parents
for financial guidance, only 26 percent of 13- to 21-year-olds reported
their parents actively taught them how to manage money. Public
education has not filled this void as only about one in five students
between the ages of 16 and 22 say they have taken a personal finance
course in school.
Credit card companies are exploiting this financial inexperience of
young Americans with an aggressive marketing strategy designed to
maximize enrollment and profit, with little regard for a potential
customer's ability to pay. As a result, over 20 percent of children
between the ages of 12 to 19 have access to a credit card.
This credit card marketing blitz further intensifies once an
individual enters college. During the first week college freshmen
arrive on campus, they are barraged by an average of eight credit card
offers. Students actually double their average credit card debt, and
triple the number of credit cards in their wallets, from the time they
arrive on campus until graduation. This large number of new credit card
owners combined with the lack of financial illiteracy of high school
graduates leads to high levels of debt amongst undergrads.
Credit card companies have actually encouraged this rise in credit
card debt through increasing the median balance for undergraduates. As
a result, 21 percent of undergraduates that have credit cards, have
high-level balances between $3,000 and $7,000.
The Protection of Young Consumers Act will protect people, especially
college students and other young people, against skyrocketing consumer
debt and the barrage of credit card solicitations that lead to it. The
bill will do so by building on the current opt-out program for pre-
approved credit card solicitations by requiring young consumers under
age 21 to proactively opt-in to receive solicitations from credit card
companies. This proposal will also establish a financial literacy and
education program in elementary and secondary schools to help prepare
young people to be financially responsible consumers.
In addition to targeting high school and college students, credit
card companies have become very adept at increasing their profits
through hidden fees and deceptive advertising, taking advantage of
Americans of all ages.
The Credit Card Reform Act will protect consumers against hidden fees
and excessive interest rates. It does so by: 1) prohibiting ``universal
defaults'' that I mentioned earlier, 2) banning unilateral changes in
credit card agreements without written consent, and 3) requiring that
the fees charged by creditors are ``reasonably related'' to the cost
incurred by the issuer.
The bill will also establish standards that would prohibit unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, while tightening regulations on credit
card companies to ensure that they are not offering credit to high-risk
cardholders without verifying their ability to pay.
I would like to be clear that I am not trying to remove the
obligation for consumers to behave responsibly. Every individual must
take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time it is
the obligation of the companies who are earning billions in profits
from credit cards to behave ethically as well.
This Credit Card Bill of Rights will help ensure that New Jersey
consumers and consumers across the country are given a fair chance at
being responsible consumers who will enjoy economic security as well as
economic opportunity in their futures.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2658. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
national defense through empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau and the enhancement of the functions of the National Guard
Bureau, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join my friend and fellow cochair of
the Senate National Guard caucus, Senator Pat Leahy, in introducing
bipartisan legislation to strengthen one of our Nation's most important
military and civilian resources--the National Guard.
The Guard has a long and proud history of contributing to America's
military away game, while providing vital support and security to civil
authorities in the home game. Since September 11, 2001, our citizen-
soldiers have taken on greater responsibilities and risks from fighting
the war on terror to disaster assistance.
Today, the Guard supports the Nation's military strategy overseas,
functions as a primary line of defense here at home, and helps local
responders deal with overwhelming natural disasters.
We have seen the tremendous value of Guard forces as they confront
terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotspots, and as they
provide water, food, and health supplies to victims of Hurricane
Katrina and other natural disasters.
More than 1,300 guardsmen from my home State of Missouri were
deployed in less than 72 hours following Hurricane Katrina, providing
medical, transportation, airlift, military police, engineering, and
communications capabilities. For example, the 139th Airlift Wing
evacuated 23 critically ill young patients from Children's Hospital in
New Orleans and brought them to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas
City for the high-level care they needed.
Stories such as this were repeated all over the country in most if
not all our States.
Why was the Guard successful when other elements of the Katrina
response were not? Quite simply, the Guard is the entity best organized
and trained to initiate and coordinate a civil response to any disaster
on the scale of Katrina.
In addition, more than 200,000 Guard troops have left their homes,
their
[[Page S3594]]
jobs, and their families to participate in another critical mission:
the global war on terror. The National Guard has provided as much as
half the combat force and 40 percent of the total force in Iraq.
I point out that the Guard is a tremendous value for the capabilities
it provides. It gives 40 percent of the total military force for around
4.5 percent of the budget. Whether at home or abroad, the men and women
of the Guard are performing their duties with honor and valor, often at
great sacrifice to their families and their own lives. As they
willingly make these sacrifices to preserve American lives and
freedoms, we have a responsibility to support them as they carry out
their unique dual mission.
While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and
Army commands under title 10 status. But when the Guard operates at
home, they serve under the command and control of the Nation's
Governors in title 32 status.
There is a lot more we can do to make this work more smoothly.
Despite their importance on the street, as it were, the Guard is
often given short shrift back at Pentagon headquarters, which has
proposed repeatedly to cut Guard personnel and equipment budgets.
The Guard will play a critical role in response to another terrorist
attack or natural disaster, but the Pentagon has allowed its equipment
levels to sink to dangerously low levels. Currently, the National Guard
has only about 35 percent of the equipment it needs. In Missouri, only
one of two engineering battalions that were requested to assist with
Katrina could respond because the other one did not have the equipment
they needed.
With the support of 75 of my colleagues, Senator Leahy and I led an
effort to increase equipment funding for the Guard by almost $1
billion. We are going to continue that fight this year to ensure the
Guard has equipment it needs to carry out both missions.
Just a few months ago, the Army proposed significant cuts to Guard
troop strength. Three-quarters of the Senate again joined us in a
letter opposing this, and I thank all of our colleagues who joined us.
We need to do more to empower the Guard. We need to give the Guard
more bureaucratic muscle. Time and again, the Guard has had to rely on
Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide
and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions.
That the Guard is left out of the Pentagon decisionmaking process is
beyond dispute. In the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, during
the BRAC review process of 2004 and 2005, when the Army and Air Force
reduced National Guard force structure in 2005, and when equipment
levels of the Army and National Guard reached the dangerously low
levels of 35 percent, Congress has had to step in.
To remedy this, the legislation we introduce today to strengthen the
Guard consists of three central planks.
One, we will allow the National Guard Bureau to establish more formal
relationships with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs.
We will give the Guard more muscle in existing relationships,
elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star
position and providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It goes without saying that to be a part of a big decision, you have
to be at the table. Having a four-star Guard general providing advice
to the SECDEF instead of a two-star major general will give our
governors and 450,000 citizen-soldiers and airmen access to the highest
level of the DOD and ensure key policy decisions are heard and taken
into account.
To put things in perspective, the Active-Duty Army has 12 four-star
generals and 46 lieutenant generals. The Air Force has 13 four-star
generals and 35 lieutenant generals. The National Guard, which
represents over 40 percent of the entire force structure, is
represented by three lieutenant generals and zero four-star generals.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face how the Guard one four-star
general and an additional three-star will endanger our national
security? The only element endangered would be the Pentagon status quo
which is outdated.
Facts are stubborn things. Clearly, the facts demonstrate a glaring,
disproportionate number of three- and four-star generals in the Army
and the Air Force when compared with the Guard.
Second, we will ensure that the Deputy Commander of the Northern
Command is a member of the Guard, a new command with the mission of
coordinating responses to emergencies within the United States.
The Guard is the entity best suited to respond to major incidents,
and they need that capability. With both the Guard and NorthCom's
missions being defense of the homeland, it only makes sense to have
substantive input through a lieutenant general as deputy commander.
Finally, we must ensure the Guard plays a role in identifying and
filling any gaps between civilian emergency response capabilities and
those of the military. Current DOD policy prohibits procurement of
supplies or equipment for providing military support to civilian
authorities during emergencies except with the permission of SECDEF.
That policy is outdated. It will give the National Guard Bureau, in
consultation with the State adjutant generals, the budgetary power to
research, validate, and make those equipment purchases.
Neither the homeland support nor the military support missions of the
Guard are likely to diminish. They are needed more now than ever. But
we must strengthen the decisionmaking capability of Guard leaders
within the Department of Defense.
As we heard today from General Blum, Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee when he was
asked questions by Senator Inouye, he responded with a football
analogy. When we asked him if he was in the huddle, he said he was
``not in the huddle'' during the QDR.
This legislation would empower the Guard to respond in the
affirmative the next time it is asked, ``are you in the huddle'' on
this major decision.
I thank my colleagues for their past support. I ask for their support
of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that congressional findings
regarding National Guard Forces be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Guard Forces
(a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
1. The Constitution of the United States recognizes a well-
regulated militia is a necessity to the security of a free
state.
2. The United States continues to face a wide spectrum of
threats at home and abroad, including terrorism, natural
disasters, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
other emerging perils. In meeting these threats, the United
States relies heavily on the men and women of the National
Guard.
3. At no time in America's history has the National Guard
played so critical a role in the security of our homeland and
in our Nation's military objectives abroad.
4. The National Guard is a vital part of this Nation's
security, and this country relies on the exemplary service
provided this Nation by the members of the Guard, their
families, their employers and their communities.
5. The National Guard is a critical component of the
Department of Defense's contribution to the security of our
Nation and has been key to the Department's accomplishments
at home and abroad. Much of the success DOD has had would not
have been possible without the participation of National
Guard forces.
6. The National Guard's response to our Nation's
emergencies in the post 9/11 world has been unparalleled.
7. Within hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center,
1,500 New York National Guard troops reported for duty.
Within 24 hours of the attacks, over 8,000 New York National
Guard Soldiers and Air men and women were on active duty
supporting New York State's security needs. These troops
provided not just a calming presence on the streets of New
York during unsettling times; they provided New York's first
responders with critical perimeter security support,
refueling for civilian emergency vehicles, emergency
lighting, power generation, communications, emergency
transportation, engineering assets and other logistical
support.
8. At the request of the President, State Governors
supplemented the security of the Nation's airports with
National Guard personnel. Their missions encompassed over 400
airports in 52 States and territories. National Guard troops
along the northern and southern borders were used to support
the U.S. Custom Service, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and the Border Patrol in the heightened post 9/11
security posture.
[[Page S3595]]
9. In contrast to Hurricane Andrew (1992) in which National
Guard forces constituted 24 percent of the military response,
National Guard forces represented more than 70 percent of the
military force for Hurricane Katrina.
10. The response to Hurricane Katrina proved that the
National Guard is the Nation's first military responder and
that the overwhelming majority of forces that respond to
disasters in the United States will be National Guard who
will be on the scene before the Department of Defense is
requested to respond.
11. More than 9,700 National Guard soldiers and airmen were
in New Orleans by August 30. National Guard deployed over
30,000 additional troops within 96 hours of the storms
passing. In wake of the Hurricane Katrina devastation, the
National Guard mobilized over 50,000 personnel in support of
hurricane relief in the largest and fastest domestic
deployment since World War II, saving over 17,000 lives. The
Air National Guard flew nearly 3,500 flights and over 12,000
tons of cargo in support of all Hurricane relief in the last
year.
12. The National Guard Bureau will be a part of any large-
scale emergency response. As demonstrated during the
Hurricane Katrina response, the National Guard Bureau is a
significant joint force provider for homeland security
missions.
13. The National Guard is continuously on active duty
supporting State security missions, Federal security missions
under Operation Noble Eagle and overseas military operations
as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and more
are engaged in regularly scheduled training and operational
requirements around the Nation and the world. Under Title 32,
counter-drug activities are a daily operational mission of
the National Guard, fortifying a longstanding successful
relationship with civil authorities.
14. The Department of the Army and the Department of the
Air Force could not fulfill current Title 10 responsibilities
without the Army and Air National Guard. In 2005, National
Guard units at one time made up 50 percent of the combat
forces in Iraq.
15. The National Guard has mobilized over 300,000 soldiers
and 36,000 airmen supporting the Global War on Terror since
September 11, 2001. (Need NGB confirmation)
16. Since September 11, 2001, 85 percent of the Army
National Guard has been mobilized. Since September 11, 2001,
the Air National Guard has flown over 206,000 sorties
accumulating over 620,000 flying hours. These deployments
abroad have created a battle hardened and seasoned force of
experienced veterans ready for the challenges of the 21st
century.
17. National Guard forces have provided: 55 percent of the
Army's combat capability; 55 percent of the Air Force's
airlift capability; 50 percent of the Army strategic and
tactical manpower; 45 percent of all in-flight refueling
missions; 33 percent of all aircraft in Operation Iraqi
Freedom; 100 percent of Operation Enduring Freedom A-10
missions; 66 percent of Operation Iraqi Freedom A-10
missions; 45 percent of all F-16 fighter missions; 86
percent of Operation Iraqi Freedom tanker sorties; 94
percent of Strategic Air Defense Alert; and 75 percent of
all domestic combat air patrols in the Global War on
Terror.
18. The National Guard offers unique efficiencies between
State and Federal, and domestic and overseas missions,
operating under three different command relationships:
Federal funding and Federal control; Federal funding and
State control; and State funding and State control.
19. National Guardsmen and women are their State's primary
emergency response force, providing support in their
communities and to civil authorities and first responders
throughout their States.
20. The National Guard is invaluable to civil support
mission, homeland defense and emergency preparedness. The
National Guard has an undeniable record of military
assistance to civilian authorities since the birth of this
Nation, responding heroically and meeting every mission asked
of them, particularly in times of crisis--terrorism, natural
disasters, plane crashes, blizzards, wildfires, floods.
21. There must be strong agreement between State and
Federal leadership as to the operational objectives during
emergencies. State concerns about maintaining sovereignty
must be respected. Governors, who are most intimately
familiar with and better understand the National Guard's
unique capabilities, must retain the ability and authority to
deploy their National Guard troops in times of crisis.
22. Governors using State-to-State emergency mutual
assistance compacts are an integral part of the use of
National Guard resources in responding to emergencies at
home.
23. The National Guard and State Adjutants General are
invaluable nexus of coordination between Federal and State
planning, exercising and response to emergencies and
disasters. Over 50 percent of State Adjutants General are
also State Emergency Managers offering unparalleled
integration of planning, preparation and response
capabilities in emergencies.
24. National Guard forces are also uniquely positioned to
engage within the U.S. and its territories by virtue of their
geographic dispersal and relationships to State and local
governments.
25. The National Guard is familiar with the local area and
local culture. The National Guard has close ties with first
responders such as local and State law enforcement, fire
departments, and other emergency service providers. The local
community relies upon the National Guard because they are
part of the community. National Guard personnel are more
likely to have more experience working with local
responders than the active component.
26. WMD Civil Support Teams are a specialized homeland
security capability based entirely in the National Guard.
27. As America prepares for an influenza pandemic, the
National Guard has more domestic response training and
decentralized capabilities than any other military
organization and ready to respond in a moment's notice.
28. The National Guard Bureau has proved its ability to
plan for and respond to natural and man-made events with the
establishment of Joint Force Headquarters-State, Joint Task
Force State, CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages, CERFP,
National Guard Reaction Force, NGRF, and the current
development of Joint CONUS Communications Support
Environment, JCCSE.
Congress finds that despite the contributions of the
National Guard to the United States--
1. The Department of Defense has not adapted to the
significant role of the National Guard in this nation's
security.
2. The Department of Defense, the Department of the Army
and the Department of the Air Force have not sufficiently
integrated the National Guard into planning, procuring or
decision-making processes.
3. The Department of Defense, the Department of the Army
and the Department of the Air Force do not have a long-term
strategy to equip the National Guard at a high level of
readiness for overseas or domestic missions.
4. The Department of Defense does not adequately resource
or equip the National Guard for its current operational
missions. Currently the National Guard receives only 4.5
percent of the Department of Defense's budget.
5. The Army National Guard has been equipped at less than
war-time readiness levels and is forced to transfer equipment
to deploying units. Army National Guard units that have
returned from overseas deployments have also left behind many
equipment items for use by follow on units. Army officials do
not track and develop plans to replace Guard equipment.
6. Army and Air National Guard forces are generally
expected to perform homeland defense and civil support
missions only with equipment supplied for their war-fighting
mission or equipment supplied by the States.
7. In the current budget, the Department of the Air Force
does not fund the Air Sovereignty Alert mission of the Air
National Guard at full capacity.
8. During the BRAC process, the Air Force failed to
adequately solicit input of Air Guard leadership and State
Adjutants General.
9. When developing Future Total Force Strategy, the Air
Force failed to adequately consult Air Guard leaders and
State Adjutants General.
10. The Department of Defense does not have adequate
knowledge of the role of the National Guard at home or
incorporated the National Guard's significant capabilities
into plans for homeland defense or security.
11. Left unchecked, the Department of Defense will continue
to ignore the Federal requirements of the National Guard to
perform homeland defense and civil support missions.
12. The Department of Defense has not recognized the value
of including State Adjutants General in all homeland defense
and military support to civilian authority planning.
13. The Department of Defense has not recognized that
governors will rely on National Guard manpower and equipment
before relying on Federal forces.
14. Although DOD has a Strategy for Homeland Defense and
Civil Support, which recognizes the National Guard's critical
role in Federal and State missions, the strategy does not
detail what the Army or Air National Guard's role or
requirements will be in implementing the strategy.
15. The Department of Defense and Northern Command have not
articulated specific requirements or capabilities that
National Guard forces need during major homeland disasters.
Without formal requirements, equipment deemed necessary for
the National Guard to assist civilian authorities in Katrina
had not been purchased by the Department of the Army and the
Department of the Air Force.
16. The readiness of the National Guard to perform homeland
missions that may be needed in the future is unknown because
the National Guard's roles in these missions has not been
defined and requirements for manpower, equipment and training
have not been established; and preparedness standards and
measures have not been developed by the Department of
Defense. The Department of Defense does not require the
purchase of equipment specifically for military assistance to
civilian authorities for the National Guard.
17. WMD Civil Support Teams' face challenges in personnel,
equipment acquisition and facilities under current Department
of Defense and service budgets.
18. The lack of coordination of National Guard and active
duty forces hampered the military response to Katrina.
Advance planning between active-duty personnel and the Guard
is vital during emergencies. The Department of Defense and
the National Guard
[[Page S3596]]
must plan and exercise together to prepare for events in the
homeland.
19. The National Guard leadership and State Adjutants
General are not adequately involved in Department of Defense
planning guidance developed at Northern Command, including
concept of operations plans and functional plans for military
support to civilian authorities.
20. There was a lack of coordination of Joint Task Force
Katrina and the National Guard headquarters in supporting
States.
21. The Department of Defense has not adequately
incorporated or funded the National Guard to participate in
joint exercises in military assistance to civil authorities,
which would have allowed for a more effective response to
Hurricane Katrina and other homeland emergencies.
22. Northern Command does not have adequate insight into
State response capabilities or adequate interface with
governors, which contributed to a lack of mutual
understanding and trust during the Katrina response.
23. There is an unresolved tension between the Department
of Defense and the States regarding the role of the military
in emergency response that could be resolved if the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security
adopted and made NIMS a priority for emergency management.
24. The National Guard lacked communications equipment
during Hurricane Katrina, suggesting that the Pentagon does
not assign homeland defense and military assistance to
civilian authorities a sufficiently high priority.
25. The Department of the Army decided to reduce end-
strength without substantive consultation with Guard leaders
and the Air Force has decided to reduce end-strength without
substantive consultation with National Guard leaders.
26. The Department of the Army currently plans to scale
back the Army National Guard to 324,000 soldiers from
350,000. The Department of the Air Force plans to scale back
the Air National Guard by 14,000 airmen and women. To cut
Guard manpower in this time of increased homeland need, and
the fluxation of current Department of Defense transformation
policies affecting the Army and Air National Guard, sets up
an undeniable risk to this country.
27. National Guard force structure cuts could result in the
closure of over 200 National Guard community-based facilities
throughout the U.S.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
1. The National Guard is a force essential to the Nation's
security and safety.
2. The National Guard brings to bear significant
capabilities for contingencies at home or abroad.
3. The National Guard is no longer a strategic reserve, but
an operational reserve.
4. States and governors are not adequately represented at
the Department of Defense.
5. The role of the National Guard Bureau as chief
communicator between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security and the States needs to be
enhanced.
6. The men and women of the National Guard have earned the
right to be represented at the highest levels of the
Department of Defense.
7. The National Guard leadership needs to be integrated
into the highest offices in the Department of Defense, the
Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force.
8. The National Guard Bureau plays a critical role in
planning for and responding to future terrorist attacks in
the U.S.
9. The National Guard Bureau is in a unique position to
understand and create requirements for the National Guard for
missions in support of states and other civilian authorities.
10. The National Guard Bureau plays a critical role in the
development of requirements for military assistance to
civilian authorities.
11. NORTHCOM lacks knowledge of its theater of operations,
specifically State emergency plans and resources, and
knowledge of National Guard resources. NORTHCOM needs to be
reformed to include increased National Guard leadership and
participation in all levels of its operations.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, I am pleased today to join my friend and co-
chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the Senator from Missouri,
Senator Bond, in introducing far-reaching legislation that will
strengthen our Nation's defense and the National Guard, which is an
inextricable part of the bedrock of our security. The National Defense
Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would empower
the National Guard.
It offers the Guard new authorities and a greater and more fitting
voice in policy and budgetary discussions that is more line with the
reliance that we place on this force of proud men and women.
The Nation asks the Guard to provide a large part of the ground
forces in Iraq, but then we give the force no say in strategic planning
and budget discussions. In fact, there have been recent efforts within
the armed services to cut the force precipitously.
Anyone who has watched recent events knows that the role of the Guard
is dramatically changed as we come into this century.
We ask the Guard to carry out missions at home in response to
disasters and possible domestic attacks, but then give the force no
real ability to develop new equipment for this unique mission. And, in
a crunch, our senior defense leaders--including the President--turn to
the Chief of the National Guard for guidance in addressing and
responding to emergencies within the domestic United States, yet those
same senior Guard leaders receive only mediated and filtered advice at
other points. This gap between the Guard's real world missions and its
institutional position is simply unacceptable. It is not efficient, and
it is not smart. It violates basic notions of logic, and it hinders our
ability to get the full potential out of the National Guard.
Our legislation will take them from the 19th and 20th century
structure into the 21st century's reality.
Our legislation directly addresses this troubling missions-to-
authorities gap in three very specific ways. First, the National
Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would
elevate the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of General with
four-stars, also installing this senior officer on the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. The Joint Chiefs is the highest military advisory body to the
President and the Secretary of Defense. Without a Guard representative
at the four-star level, the Secretary and the President receive only
filtered advice from the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force
about National Guard matters.
The Army and the Air Force chiefs can provide keen insights about the
Guard's role as a prime military reserve to the active components.
However, they are not responsible for, and therefore are not experts
on, disaster relief and homeland security functions that the Guard
carries out at the State level, often under the command-and-control of
the Nation's governors. Placing a National Guard General on the Joint
Chiefs offers the fullest and most sensible guidance to our leaders on
all aspects of the Guard, and this arrangement would give the Nation's
governors a straight line to the Joint Chiefs and the President on
military matters.
Creating a Guard senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the
President streamlines and formalizes an arrangement that already arises
in real emergencies. During the darkest early days of Katrina, for
example, the current National Guard Bureau Chief General Steven Blum
was by the side of the Secretary of Defense and the President. A
permanent Guard presence on the Joint Chiefs ensures that this advisory
relationship is in no way last-minute and ad-hoc.
The second way that this legislation puts the National Guard's
authorities more in line with its real-world missions is by giving the
force more budgetary authority. The Act gives the National Guard the
ability to research, develop and procure equipment that is peculiar to
its unique mission in the realm of homeland security.
This authority would be similar to the authority of the Special
Operations Command, given under the Nunn-Cohen legislation of the mid-
1980s, to develop unique equipment for the special forces.
Last year, Congress appropriated almost $1 billion for the National
Guard to procure equipment that has application for homeland security.
This legislation establishes more formal structure for the Guard to
refine such equipment requirements and work in close coordination with
the states to ensure an adequate force structure--fully adequate in
domestic emergencies--is in place.
The final way that this legislation brings realistic authorities to
the Guard is by ensuring that the Deputy Commander of Northern Command
is a three-star general from the National Guard. This Command is
charged with planning for the active military's response to federal
emergencies, as well as coordinating the response with other federal
agencies and civilian authorities. Any military response in the
domestic United States will surely include the National Guard, in many
cases with the State governor overseeing the effort.
Currently, there are few if any senior Guard officers at the highest
reaches of
[[Page S3597]]
the Command, and the legislation would ensure expertise on the force
exists there.
There has been a lot of discussion already about this legislation
after Senator Bond and I last month expressed our intention to pursue
it. To clear up any confusion, let me say what this legislation does
not do. This legislation does not affect the National Guard's role as
one of the primary military reserves to the Air Force and the Army,
which we believe is beneficial for the country.
It also does not inflate the size of National Guard headquarters here
in Washington. We put a firm cap on the size of the Guard Bureau in
this legislation. The legislation further does not create any new
general office positions beyond the four-star Joint Chiefs position. It
only ensures that the adequate seats of representation is in place in
key positions; in fact, the legislation actually removes a less
influential Major General officer slot on the Joint Staff.
What this bill does do--and with great intensity--is to give the
National Guard the institutional muscle commensurate with the Guard's
missions. With this bill, we can ask the Guard to do all that it does,
but then say that, yes, it can have a seat at the table during key
discussions involving the Guard's missions and readiness. With this
bill, we can tap into the Guard for situations like the war in Iraq and
the response to Hurricane Katrina and tell these proud men and women
that we take are committed to taking real steps to keep the size of
this force steady and improve its stock of available equipment.
With this bill, we can ensure that our senior leaders--the Secretary
of Defense and the President--are making decisions about the National
Guard based on the best available information.
With this bill, we strengthen the National Guard, the military chain-
of-command, and the Guard's ability to effectively serve each of the
States and the entire Nation.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2659. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
the eligibility of Indian tribal organizations for grants for the
establishment of veterans cemeteries on trust lands; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important
piece of legislation for our Native American veterans. The Native
American Veterans Cemetery Act of 2006 would provide tribal
organizations eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs grants to
establish veterans cemeteries on trust lands. Currently, VA does not
have the authority to make such grants.
Native American veterans have a long and proud history of military
service on behalf of this Nation. Per capita, Native Americans have the
highest percentage of people serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Native
Americans have honorably served in every war fought by the United
States. After completion of their service, many Native American
veterans return to their communities on trust lands. Passage of this
legislation would provide them the option of veterans cemetery burial
in a location convenient for their families and loved ones.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have always fought for the rights
of our indigenous peoples. The Native American Veterans Cemetery Act
of2006 is another step forward in helping native peoples. The
Department of Veterans Affairs supports enactment of this legislation
and estimates it to be budget neutral. It is my hope that the Senate
will expeditiously proceed to the consideration of this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2659
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Veterans
Cemetery Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF INDIAN TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR GRANTS
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VETERANS CEMETERIES ON
TRUST LANDS.
Section 2408 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f)(1) The Secretary may make grants under this
subsection to any tribal organization to assist the tribal
organization in establishing, expanding, or improving
veterans' cemeteries on trust land owned by, or held in trust
for, the tribal organization.
``(2) Grants under this subsection shall be made in the
same manner, and under the same conditions, as grants to
States are made under the preceding provisions of this
section.
``(3) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `tribal organization' has the meaning given
that term in section 3764(4) of this title.
``(B) The term `trust land' has the meaning given that term
in section 3764(1) of this title.''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2660. A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to require
notice to Congress of certain declassifications of intelligence
information, and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce today legislation to
require the White House to notify Congress when it declassifies
information. This bill will both enhance Congress's oversight abilities
and ensure that intelligence is not used for political gain.
This legislation recognizes that as the head of the executive branch,
the President has the authority to declassify any information he so
chooses. It does not place any conditions or procedures on that
declassification process, it only requires that the Congress be
provided with notice so that it can meet its own constitutional
responsibilities.
Information is usually declassified because the public's need to know
outweighs the security risks to intelligence sources and methods. In
such cases, it is important for the Congress to be informed so that
Senators and Representatives can discuss the issues with the American
people.
And if the President declassifies information so that his
subordinates can discuss intelligence with reporters, Congress should
be alerted so that the intelligence committees can ensure that national
secrets are not being used for political purposes.
According to court filings and media reports, the Vice President's
chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, acting on the direction and
authorization of the President and Vice President, disclosed
information in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction to select journalists. This was not done to
provide the American people with a fuller understanding of the pre-Iraq
war intelligence; the Estimate was fully and publicly declassified
shortly afterwards in a more appropriate manner. Rather, the selective
declassification and leak was intended to stem a tide of bad press and
discredit an administration critic through a subtle campaign of media
manipulation.
According to the prosecutor in Mr. Libby's case, Libby provided
information on Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger to New York Times
reporter Judith Miller. The Niger claim was not a ``key judgment'' of
the NIE, meaning that it was not deemed by the intelligence community
to be a priority. It was included in the body of the report ``for
completeness,'' according to the primary author. At the time, the
Department of State's intelligence office found the Niger uranium claim
to be ``highly dubious,'' and the intelligence community downplayed the
Niger connection afterwards:
The CIA had deleted a reference to Niger from the President's October
7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati;
Two senior intelligence officials had downplayed the assessment in
testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee;
The International Atomic Energy Agency had denounced the claim as
being based on forged documents; and
The intelligence community had retracted the intelligence.
Let me say that again: the intelligence community had retracted this
piece of intelligence. None of this additional information, apparently,
was provided by Mr. Libby.
Had the Senate and House intelligence committees been informed of
this declassification, as would be required by this legislation,
Members could have corrected the public record.
[[Page S3598]]
I would hope that with this reporting requirement, administrations of
both political parties will be deterred from improper use of
intelligence.
In addition to stemming the politicization of intelligence, the bill
I introduce today also notes the importance of keeping the full
intelligence community informed of declassifications. If the President
chooses, for whatever reason, to declassify information, the
intelligence agency that had been responsible for those secrets has to
take steps to protect intelligence sources and methods.
Similarly, the National Archives are to be informed upon a
Presidential declassification so the Nation's records can be
appropriately maintained. As has been highlighted again today with the
release of the Archives audit over the reclassification of
intelligence, the Archives play an important role in providing
declassified intelligence to the public. To do so, it must be informed
when information enters the public domain.
It should be made clear that there are more traditional procedures by
which individual intelligence agencies declassify information on a
regular basis, when the release of that information is seen as no
longer damaging the national security. This is done thousands of times
a week throughout the intelligence community.
It is important that the public have access to as much information on
its government's activities as possible. To that end, I look forward,
through this legislation and otherwise, to working with my colleagues
and the executive branch to ensure that declassification is done as
extensively and as quickly as possible without risking our national
security.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2660
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF CERTAIN DECLASSIFICATIONS OF
INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
(a) Notice Required.--
(1) In general.--Title V of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``notice to congress on certain declassifications of intelligence
``Sec. 508. (a) Notice Required.--Not later than 15 days
after the date of the declassification of any intelligence by
the President, or Vice President if authorized by Executive
Order or other delegation of authority from the President,
the President shall submit to the congressional intelligence
committees notice on the declassification of such
intelligence.
``(b) Sense of Congress on Additional Notice.--It is the
sense of Congress that, in furtherance of the protection of
intelligence sources and methods and to ensure appropriate
handling and dissemination of intelligence, any notice
submitted to the congressional intelligence committees under
subsection (a) should also be submitted to--
``(1) the Director of National Intelligence;
``(2) the Archivist of the United States; and
``(3) the heads of applicable elements of the intelligence
community.
``(c) Exception.--This section does not apply to the
declassification of intelligence done as part of the
mandatory or systematic declassification of information as
described by section 3 of Executive Order No. 13292, of March
25, 2003, or any successor Executive Order.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for that Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
507 the following new item:
``Sec. 508. Notice to Congress on certain declassifications of
intelligence.''.
(b) Reports to Congress on Certain Officials Authorized To
Declassify Information.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 15 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
the congressional intelligence committees a report setting
forth a current list of each official of the Executive Office
of the President, other than the President, who is authorized
to declassify information other than information originally
classified by such official.
(2) Updates.--Not later than 15 days after adding or
removing an official from the list required by paragraph (1),
the President shall submit to the congressional intelligence
committees an update of the list and a notice of the addition
or removal of such official from the list.
(3) Congressional intelligence committees defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``congressional intelligence
committees'' means--
(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.
____________________