Tuesday, September 19, 2006

‘Empowerment’ Steps Likely To Be Dropped, While Provision Threatening State Control Likely To Be Added WASHINGTON (Sept. 19) – Congressional leaders heading the fight for National Guard empowerment Tuesday expressed grave disappointment over the House and Senate conference agreement on the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill for abandoning the National Guard “empowerment” thrust of the Senate’s version of the bill. The conference report is also likely to take a sizable step toward weakening states’ authority over their Guard units, according to the congressional leaders who are leading the fight for Guard empowerment.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) – the co-chairs of the Senate’s National Guard Caucus – said the conference agreement is expected to include a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies. The provision is opposed by the National Governors Association and by key leaders in both the House and Senate. The conference report is also expected to drop a Senate-adopted provision authored by Bond and Leahy to elevate the status of the National Guard within the Pentagon.

During committee deliberations thus far, negotiators from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have dropped a Senate-adopted version of the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006, a bill first introduced in the Senate in March by Bond and Leahy. The legislation, which was added as an amendment to the Authorization Bill, would codify the National Guard’s prominent role in the nation’s defense since the September 11th attacks. The legislation, which flowed from several major reports on the National Guard and homeland security, would have elevated the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to rank of full General with four-stars, while ensuring that the Deputy Commander of the United States Northern Command would come from the ranks of the National Guard.

Also expected to be included in the conference report is a widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard. The conference committee has made changes the Insurrection Act, which governs when the President can call to action the National Guard without the consent of state governors to restore public order. Under the changes, the President would now be able to invoke the Act during such regular occurring events as a natural disaster. Because posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the military’s involvement in law enforcement do not apply when the Insurrection Act is invoked, the changes would nullify these long-standing laws.

“This would be a one-two punch against Guard empowerment that runs counter to the Guard’s needs and the Guard’s crucial missions,” said Leahy. “We can deal with a range of situations at home if the people and resources of the National Guard remain regularly under the control of the officials who are closest to managing these situations. At the same time, the Guard also needs more institutional muscle to ensure it has the equipment and authorities it needs to carry out its dual-missions. As it stands, this defense bill would go in exactly the wrong direction.”

Bond added, “Whenever the nation has called upon the National Guard for support, both at home and abroad, the Guard has responded in exemplary fashion. The Guard has earned a promotion and the enhanced authority necessary to be in the huddle of the Pentagon's senior defense team. Unfortunately that is not presently the case which is why the legislation we are discussing is so vital to national security and the ability of the Guard to promote and protect its key policy provisions and requirements.”