Posted on 08/23/2006 1:48:54 AM PDT by markomalley
The bill would allow the president to federalize a state's troops without the governor's consent.
Calling it an "unprecedented shift in authority," the governors of all 50 U.S. states are urging Congress to remove a provision in a bill that would allow the president to control the National Guard during and after national disasters.
The bill, which already has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, would allow the president to federalize the National Guard without the consent of the governor. The bill is expected to be hashed out when Congress reconvenes in September.
"It would give very broad authority to the president to call up the Guard whenever he sees fit," said David Quam, director of federal relations for the National Governors Association. "The National Guard is the front line of defense at home. If they're taken outside the state for a national disaster and they're needed at home, it could cause real problems."
In a rare sign of complete bipartisan unity, all 50 governors -- including Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt -- earlier this month signed and sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The letter said the governors strongly oppose the provision, which is included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The provision would authorize the president to take control of the Guard in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and possessions, or Puerto Rico."
The letter said the move would "usurp governors' authority" over the National Guard.
The provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors, said Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson. In fact, the wording in the bill was not discovered until this month, in part because no one told the governors about it, he said.
Jackson said the Guard was indispensable during he recent blackouts in St. Louis as well as when tornadoes swept across the state last spring. "That showed us how vitally important it is that the governor retains control of the National Guard," Jackson said.
Currently, National Guard troops can be used for federal disasters but not without the consent of a governor. Such activations are usually coordinated through the U.S. Department of Defense. Guard troops are being used at the federal level in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We've been very cooperative with the federal government with situations like Katrina relief and very supportive of the president's border-patrol policy," Jackson said. "But Gov. Blunt believes the authority needs to rest with him."
Quam said such a shift in the chain of command would also likely slow response times as different levels of government wrangled over control. "Disasters are local," he said. "The response times need to be local, and the authority needs to be local as well."
No one in the governors association has been able to determine where the provision originated, Quam said, whether from a member of Congress or at the suggestion of the Department of Defense. "No one seems to want to take ownership of it," he said.
U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, voted for the bill. Emerson could not be reached for comment, but Emerson spokesman Jeffrey Connor said the overall aim of the bill was to authorize defense spending for the year. He said he did not know if Emerson supported the provision that would give the president power over the National Guard.
Missouri National Guard spokeswoman Capt. Tamara Spicer said local Guard commanders can't comment on the matter. "Our job is to follow whatever legislation is passed," she said. "We're watching it with interest to see what happens, but then we simply follow the direction of the legislation once it's passed."
Some have suggested that the bill gained traction in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina wiped out portions of Louisiana and Mississippi and criticisms were aimed at the government's ineffective response.
In testimony on Capitol Hill, Texas Gov. Rick Perry argued that the National Guard should not be automatically federalized after natural disasters. "If, from the president on down, we recognize the federal response was not adequate during Katrina," he testified, "does that inspire confidence that a greater federal role is the solution?"
In one published report, Retired Sgt. Maj. Frank Yoakum, legislative director for the Enlisted Association of the National Guard in Alexandria, Va., called the provision a "knee-jerk reaction" to Katrina that strikes him as a "political move."
"Fifty states, the territories and the District of Columbia sent 50,000 Guard troops to Louisiana and Mississippi after Katrina," he said. "They did it all within a week. That's the local people working with each other without any federal involvement whatsoever."
Problem is, we DON'T accept that the federal response was inadequate. The only thing I'd except is that the Feds got the BLAME for all the problems, even though it was the state and local bureaucracies that were the real problem.
If the govs don't want the president to be able to do this, then they better be ready to be grown-ups and shoulder the responsibility for foul-ups and not point fingers at the administration.
The Federal government is a slow, bloated bureaucracy. Dependence on the government to do anything requiring speed is insanity. Unfortunately, since FDR, that dependence has continually grown to the point that a governor is essentially nothing more than a middle manager.
I tend to agree.
This bill would never have been penned but for Kathleen Blanco. What a well-deserved slap in the face to her this bill is.
All true, except for one thing: the feds do good military.
Generally I would be against this bill, but now that we've seen what a vindictive 'Rat governor would rather do to a Republican administration at the detriment of her constituents, I see that it could easily be repeated. On the other hand, placing immediate control of the NG in the hands of a 'Rat president is a scary thought, too.
True...but a good military is a constitutional function.
I don't recall any section of the constitution that requires or authorizes (see the 10th Amendment) the feds to provide disaster relief for citizens of the various states, to provide cash or housing to people caught in a disaster. Yes, that's the way it is now and none of the states are capable because they've ceded the power...
Good points. My point was simply that even though the government is not a good deliverer of services, and I agree it's not their function under the constitution to do so as you point out, the poster I replied to basically said the feds were no good at anything, which isn't quite true. They do indeed do good military.
Setting aside the topics of the housing and disaster relief and so forth, which I think we agree on, I do see a role for federal assistance to domestic law enforcement during (God forbid) another domestic terror attack. If the governor can't or won't take the necessary steps to immediately secure the people and the area, I see no reason to preclude federal intervention. That's a different situation from a relatively isolated natural disaster.
FEMA and the Guard a disaster in the making. A dictatorship in the making as well. Too much power in one place is a danger.
I make no judgment on this particular bill. If anything, my tendency is to be against it as well. I just don't agree that the problems of Katrina were a result of Fed action or lack thereof. I think the whole controversy was cooked up by the media in their favorite pasttime of blaming Bush for anything bad that happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.