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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.