[Senate Hearing 110-109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-109
``THE INSURRECTION ACT RIDER'' AND STATE CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 24, 2007
__________
Serial No. J-110-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-097 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin...................................................... 10
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa. 2
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 37
WITNESSES
Blum, H. Steven, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Chief, National
Guard Bureau, Alexandria, Virginia............................. 7
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 6
Easley, Hon. Michael F., Governor, State of North Carolina,
Raleigh, North Carolina........................................ 3
Kamatchus, Ted G., Sheriff, Marshall County, Iowa, President,
National Sheriffs' Association, Marshalltown, Iowa............. 11
Lowenberg, Timothy, Major General, U.S. Air Force, Adjutant
General, State of Washington, Tacoma, Washington............... 8
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Blum, H. Steven, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Chief, National
Guard Bureau, Alexandria, Virginia, statement.................. 21
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri, statement............................................ 26
Easley, Hon. Michael F., Governor, State of North Carolina,
Raleigh, North Carolina, statement............................. 28
Kamatchus, Ted G., Sheriff, Marshall County, Iowa, President,
National Sheriffs' Association, Marshalltown, Iowa, statement.. 33
Lowenberg, Timothy, Major General, U.S. Air Force, Adjutant
General, State of Washington, Tacoma, Washington, statement and
attachments.................................................... 39
Sanford, Hon. Mark, Governor, State of South Carolina, Columbia,
South Carolina, letter......................................... 63
``THE INSURRECTION ACT RIDER'' AND STATE CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Grassley.
Also Present: Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good afternoon. I apologize for being late,
and I thank Senator Grassley. I might say, when Governor Easley
and I were chatting about something else, but, Governor, I
think I can speak for all Vermonters. My heart goes out to the
people of your State on the loss in the last few hours. That
was a pretty horrific battle, and those are very brave soldiers
and, as you know from the training they get, among the best.
There was a little noticed but very sweeping change in the
law regarding the National Guard by the last Congress.
Specifically, we are examining the recent changes to the
Insurrection Act, which controls when the President can use
components of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement
purposes. The Insurrection Act is one of the major exemptions
to our longstanding statutes but also the distinctive American
tradition not to involve the military in domestic law
enforcement. We are lucky in this country. We have superb
domestic law enforcement. We have superb military. And they are
better if they are allowed to do their own jobs. Both the House
and Senate Armed Services Committee slipped provisions into the
Defense Authorization bill last year, apparently at the request
of the administration, to make it easier for the President to
invoke the Insurrection Act in cases well short of
insurrection.
In addition, the President's authority to nationalize State
units of the National Guard was increased. The State units of
the National Guard are controlled by our Governors. Frankly, I
have been pretty impressed with the job the Governors have
done, both Republicans and Democrats. They are doing a good job
with that. This law authorizes the President essentially strip
control of the State Guard units from a State's Governor
without consent. I understand that none of the Nation's
Governors were consulted. The Nation's adjutant generals, who
command the State Guard units, were not consulted. And the
local law enforcement community was not consulted. I know this
Committee was not consulted even though we have jurisdiction
over law enforcement matters. There was no debate on it. Even
after we discovered this add-on and objected and Governors
objected, it went through and it was signed into law.
Now, it is not just bad process. It is also bad policy. The
Insurrection Act Rider subverts sound policies for dealing with
emergency situations that keep our Governors and other locally
elected officials in the loop when they have to deal with
disasters. The changes increase the likelihood that the
military will be inserted into domestic situations. One of the
characteristics of our Nation is that we do not have the
military patrol our communities. We have local law enforcement
doing it.
I will put the rest of my statement in the record and note
that the National Guard has served spectacularly when the
Governors have asked them. I think about Katrina. The active
military forces came in, and they did a superb job there. The
same cannot be said of FEMA, but the military performed very,
very well.
So let us talk about what we need to be doing to help the
Army Guard, not ways to put them into things that are not
needed and should not be done.
With that, as I said, I will put my full statement in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Senator Grassley, did you wish to say
something?
Senator Grassley. I wanted to introduce a constituent of
mine.
Chairman Leahy. By golly, if there is a constituent of
yours, I will yield to you for that purpose.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much. Iowa's sheriffs are
proud, Iowa is proud, and I am proud to have the President of
the National Sheriffs' Association here today. Sheriff Ted
Kamatchus, of Marshall County, Iowa, is a dedicated law
enforcement professional. Sheriff Kamatchus is here today in
his capacity as President of the National Sheriffs'
Association, and his testimony is going to be from 30 years'
experience in law enforcement.
I have known him for a long, long time because he has been
a sheriff a long, long time and I have been a Senator a long,
long time. And he is a person who has a great deal of candor
and experience on issues that he has to consider, and he is
going to present his experience on those issues here to us in
the Senate. As both a sheriff in rural Iowa and President of
the National Sheriffs' Association, he can attest to the front-
line role that law enforcement plays across the country on
issues large and small.
So on behalf of the Committee, I welcome you, Sheriff. We
value your insight and look forward to hearing your comments on
this very important topic. Thank you for making the trip out
here, and thank you for your friendship with me.
Chairman Leahy. Sheriff, you be sure and get a copy of that
part of the transcript. You are not going to do any better than
that.
[Laughter.]
Sheriff Kamatchus. Thank you very much.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Gentlemen, would you mind to stand and raise your right
hand, please? Do you swear that the testimony you will give in
this matter will be the whole truth, so help you God?
Governor Easley. I do.
General Blum. I do.
General Lowenberg. I do.
Sheriff Kamatchus. I do.
Chairman Leahy. The first witness, of course, the Honorable
Michael Easley, is the Governor of the State of North Carolina.
Prior to being elected Governor, he served as a district
attorney. Those of us who have served as district attorneys
think that is a pretty darn good reason for being here. He was
then Attorney General of the State of North Carolina from 1992
to 2000, and correct me if I am off on these numbers, Governor.
He is now in his second term. He has demonstrated outstanding
leadership among the Nation's Governors on National Guard
issues. Along with Governor Sanford of South Carolina, he leads
the National Governors Association Committee on Homeland
Security and Guard Issues, and he has been a tireless champion
of these issues, and he has taken time out of what I know is an
extraordinary schedule to be here.
Governor, why don't you start.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. EASLEY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Easley. Thank you, Senator. It is an honor to be
here with you all. First thank you for your kind remarks about
the soldiers in Fort Bragg, and I am pleased to know that
people are paying attention. We are very proud of our military
in North Carolina. As you know, we are home to an awful lot of
military. But we are also very proud of the National Guard.
I appear here today as Governor of the State of North
Carolina, but also as Chair of the National Governors
Association on National Guard Issues. My co-Chair is Governor
Sanford in South Carolina. He has submitted a letter for the
Committee, and I am asking if that could submitted for the
record.
Chairman Leahy. Governor, a letter signed by every single
Governor will be put in the record, the letters you referred
to: the National Governors Association, the National Lieutenant
Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislators, the Adjutants General Association of the United
States, the Enlisted Association, the National Guard, The
National Guard Association of the United States, the National
Sheriffs' Association, plus appropriate editorials. They will
all be part of the record.
Governor Easley. Thank you. I just want the record to show
I could build a consensus when necessary.
I want to note that our National Guard has been absolutely
fantastic since I have been in office in 2001. We have had over
10,000 deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan of our 11,500, and at
the same time, we have had 3,800 deployed on domestic issues at
home. So you can see that it is critical to the Governors to
have the National Guard in domestic emergencies. We are
responsible under those circumstances, and it is critical that
we have the Guard available to us.
I am skipping my prepared remarks and just giving you a
brief summary. Some of the examples I would cite just from me
in my State, in 2003 we had Hurricane Isabel come through. The
National Guard, with the high- water clearance vehicles,
secured 130 people who otherwise probably would have perished
in a flood. We could not have gotten them without the Guard.
In 2004, Hurricane Frances, after it hit Florida, came into
the mountains of North Carolina. The Guard, using helicopters,
literally picked people out of the trees, off rooftops.
The ice storms of 2002, 2003, 2004, the National Guard went
door to door to make certain that those people who were shut-
ins got the heat they needed, the food, medication,
transportation, power, whatever it was that they needed. And it
is important that we have the Guard as part of the community
and knew where to go on the local level.
But it is very important not only that we have the Guard,
but that we have the certainty of knowing that they will be
there for us when we have a domestic emergency.
Under section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization
Act was changed last year. As you point out, no Governor was
consulted, no debate, no hearing, nothing took place. We
unanimously came together and opposed it, and that is very
difficult. We have only been able to get two unanimous letters
since I have been over the last 6-1/2 in the National Governors
Association, both of which dealt with the National Guard.
What this bill does, the one that now we are seeking to
have repealed, is it unnecessarily expands the President's
authority to call up the National Guard in domestic situations.
The President currently has the authority we believe that he
needs and that the Constitution gives him under the
Insurrection Act. That is something that has been used very
rarely over the years, I think since World War II only nine or
ten times, generally when the States were not doing it, such as
civil rights issues, when the President had to call out the
National Guard.
The Governors unanimously came together on this particular
piece of legislation because it seriously undermines our
ability to protect the people we serve, that we all serve, but
in individual States, each Governor has responsibility to
respond to any disaster, manmade or natural, in their State.
And it is important to note that we plan year-round for all
types of disasters, and those plans involve the National Guard.
They involve emergency management, fire and rescue, local
police, a number of agencies, but all depend on those team
members of the Guard. And if we cannot be assured that the
Guard is going to be there, then we cannot plan and we cannot
coordinate, and then there is a confusion in the chain of
command.
As the Senator knows, the Governors are commanders-in-
chief of the National Guard during domestic events, and the
President, when he calls up the Guard for Federal service, as
he has done for Iraq and Afghanistan, then he is commander-in-
chief. The problem is that under this bill we do not know when
the President is going to call up the Guard because the
latitude is so much broader now.
Some of the language that is used in the bill is very
troubling, especially as it relates to public health. Let me
just mention three areas that Governors really have problems
with here.
It affects our ability to plan. You cannot plan without
every member of the team. All of our plans for these events--by
the time you see an event on television, that a hurricane is
headed for the east or west coast, that it may hit North or
South Carolina, we have been through those exercises so many
times. We know by watching the weather and keeping up with all
the information that comes through, we know what package to put
together, what units to call up of the Guard to put with our
local other responders. And that is how we respond. If you do
not do the planning, then you never get to the response stage.
And that is why it would be ill-advised for the President to
call up the Guard at response time when they have not been
involved in the planning stage.
So the second piece to that is response. We cannot respond
without the National Guard. We would be missing a critical
element, and the rest of the response effort would probably
collapse as a result of that. Also, I think the final point on
that is the more local the control, the better the response is
going to be. We have certain areas in the State when a weather
event is coming, I can pretty much tell you what areas will and
will not evacuated when asked to, and we can go in and get them
and get them out. We have learned these things over time, and
so have the members of the National Guard.
So a very important team, whether the disaster is a
hurricane, a terrorist attack, or pandemic. Let me just mention
one thing about a pandemic. We had Secretary Leavitt come and
honestly tell us that in the event of a pandemic, do not look
for Washington to come riding in, that you are going to have to
handle this yourself.
Under 1076, one of the events that allows the President to
take control of the Guard is a serious public health measure.
If that were to happen in a pandemic, we would not be able to
respond.
So let me conclude my remarks by saying this is a serious
problem for the Governors. It is our responsibility to respond,
plan, to be held accountable when there is an event, a domestic
disaster, and we believe that working in partnership with the
Federal Government is what we ought to be about. This should
not be a tug-of-war between the Governors and the President.
This should be an effort to try and work to build a better
partnership between Homeland Security and the Governors.
Chairman Leahy. And you also have the fact that if
something is happening at home, people are going to look at
your first. They are not going to look at Washington. They are
going to look at you and see what your reaction was.
[The prepared statement of Governor Easley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Senator Bond is the Co-Chair of the Guard
Caucus, and he and I Chair that, and we try to get bipartisan
support on these things. We have bipartisan opposition to this
legislation.
Senator Bond, did you want to say anything before we go to
General Blum?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have just come
from the Intelligence Committee, where I am, with Chairman
Rockefeller, holding a hearing. And if you do not mind, I
wanted to put in my two cents' worth, and I say that I speak
also for Governor Rockefeller as for Governor Bond.
Governor, we know, as the Chairman does, how rare it is to
have the NGA all on the same page, but this is of such
overwhelming importance that I think it is extremely important.
And I would only say that all the comments you said about
having to be in on the planning process when you get called
into action might apply to a broader bill that Chairman Leahy
and I are trying to push to get the Guard a seat at the table
with the Pentagon, which would be a heck of a good idea.
Mr. Chairman, the measure that was included in last year's
congressional Defense Authorization Act I think was ill-
conceived, unnecessary, and dumb. Even some of the members of
the--
Chairman Leahy. And that is giving it the benefit of the
doubt.
Senator Bond. Well, even some of the members of the SASC
who should have did not know about it. But this is an
influential panel, and you know how it has changed the old law,
and we now know that all 50 of our Nation's Governors,
Adjutants General, and local law enforcement are opposed to it.
Nobody knows where it came from. Allowing the President to
invoke the Act and declare martial law where public order
breaks down as a result of natural disaster, epidemic,
terrorist attack, is very ambiguous and gives him broad
authority potentially to usurp the role of the Governors, which
is extremely important. Why on Earth would anyone want to do
it? If, for example, during and after the aftermath of the
hurricane the Guard failed to respond, that might be one thing.
But everything we all know is that the Guard performed
magnificently when called upon. They were there, and the
Governors and Adjutants General responded. While Katrina was
one if not the Nation's most devastating natural disasters, at
no time did anyone question the Guard's response. The only real
significant challenge was the shortfall in equipment.
Governor, we had an engineer battalion down there doing a
fabulous job, and they asked us for a second one. We had them
all trained and ready to go, but they had to drive down in
pick-up trucks. They had no communication, no equipment, none
of the equipment they needed. And that was not the fault of the
Guard. They were ready to go. And the current law as it stands
limits the Guard's flexibility to perform their duties. It
lessens the Governor's control over units and diminishes the
Guard's ability to protect communities.
I am very proud to join with Senator Leahy in cosponsoring
S. 513, but we also need to enact this bill quickly, and I hope
we can get our almost 80 members of the Senator National Guard
Caucus to join with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to the witnesses
for interrupting. But I feel strongly about it, and a harsh
letter will follow.
Chairman Leahy. And you can see, Governor, Generals, and
Sheriff, there is this strong feeling. It is sort of like an
attitude of it is not broken, why do we want to fix this if
something has worked well. I will trust the Governors,
Republican and Democratic alike, I will trust them to have the
first idea, and I will trust the men and women of our Guard,
who are so well trained, to respond well.
I should have mentioned, Governor Easley, that I traveled
down to Camp Lejeune a couple times when young Lance Corporal
Mark Patrick Leahy was there. I try not to mention that my
Marine son with General Blum and General Lowenberg of
different--
Senator Bond. Don't blow my cover, either.
Chairman Leahy. Yes, that is right. General Blum, of
course, is the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. He is
responsible for coordinating all the activities of the National
Guard across the country. He is in actually one of the most
unusual positions in the United States military, not only
officially serving as a Federalized member of the active
military, but also as the chairman of communication for our
Nation's Governors and Adjutants General. General Blum is no
stranger to Capitol Hill.
General, I will turn it over to you.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, UNITED STATES
ARMY, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
General Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bond,
Senator Feingold, distinguished members of the Committee.
Thanks for the opportunity to be here today.
Disaster response and the management of disaster response
has traditionally rested within the discretion of our Nation's
Governors, and it has been very, very successful because those
first able to respond and lead that response have a
comprehensive and complete knowledge of the environment that
they are responding to and the troops that they are employing
under them.
Even for a no-notice catastrophic event such as the World
Trade Center attacks, it was very abundantly clear that an
appropriate disaster response was well within the capability of
the National Guard and the Governor and in that case the mayor
of the city.
More recently, the unprecedented scale of Hurricane Katrina
showed that local authorities' ability to respond could be
exceeded, but the response capabilities available to the local
and State authorities can be expanded, and the Governors of
Mississippi and Louisiana used an option that was available to
them called the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, EMAC
for short, to provide an immediate assistance across a broad
spectrum ranging from law enforcement to humanitarian relief,
with great effect.
The EMAC model enabled the Governors of every State and
Territory of this great Nation to deploy over 50,000 National
Guard members with law enforcement authority and critical
capabilities with efficiency and effectiveness to support the
emergency response. It was, in fact, the largest, fastest
domestic military response or mobilization of military assets
in the history of our Nation, and it amassed all of the forces
necessary. We deployed them to the right places under the
command and control of the Governors in receipt of those forces
from every State and Territory in our Nation.
As it existed at the time of the Hurricane Katrina
disaster, the Insurrection Act permitted the President to call
the militia or the National Guard into Federal service to
suppress insurrections or to enforce the law, including when
State authorities were unable or unwilling to secure the
constitutional rights of their citizens, as Governor Easley
talked about earlier. Rarely in the history of our Nation has
the National Guard been Federalized under the provisions of the
Insurrection Act. In fact, I can only identify ten occasions in
the historical record of our Nation since World War II when the
National Guard was Federalized under the provisions of the
Insurrection Act, and as Governor Easley alluded to, that was
largely done to enforce and protect the civil liberties or the
Federal laws that guaranteed civil liberties in the States that
were not affording those civil liberties or violating Federal
law.
So when this authority is employed, it takes the control of
the State's National Guard away from the Governor and places it
in the command and control within the Federal Government.
I ask, sir, that my written statement be submitted for the
record, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Blum appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, General.
Our next witness is Major General Timothy Lowenberg, who is
the Adjutant General of the State of Washington. He commands
the fine men and women at the Washington National Guard. You
are also, I understand, the State's emergency manager, a
trained lawyer, an expert on homeland security issues. In 1999,
General Lowenberg was the recipient of the Eagle Award. That is
the highest honor awarded by the National Guard Bureau.
General, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL TIMOTHY LOWENBERG, UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE, ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF WASHINGTON, TACOMA,
WASHINGTON
General Lowenberg. Thank you, Senator Leahy, Senator
Feingold, distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. I want to emphasize at the
outset that I am testifying on behalf of Governor Chris
Gregoire and the legislature of the State of Washington, as
well sa the Adjutants General Association of the United States.
Although I am a U.S. Senate-confirmed General Officer of the
Air Force, I appear before you today in State status at State
expense as a State official, which means, if I can translate
for you, that nothing I have said in my formal testimony or in
this oral statement has been previewed, reviewed, or approved
by anyone at the Department of Defense.
In a majority of the states and territories, including the
State of Washington, the Adjutant General is responsible for
managing all State emergency management functions in addition
to command and control of the Army and Air National Guard
forces. I am also responsible, as many of my colleagues are,
for developing and executing our State Homeland Security
Strategic Plan.
Adjutants General have extensive experience in the domestic
use of military force. Our State, for example, ha had a
Presidential disaster declaration on average every year for the
past 40 years, and the Governor's use and the Governor's
control of the National Guard was particularly instrumental in
helping restore civil order in Seattle during the World Trade
Organization riots in November 1999, which was on my watch as
well.
So I draw upon these experiences in telling you that
passage of S. 513 is critical to restoring historic and
appropriate State-Federal relationships and in enabling the
States to carry out their responsibilities under the U.S.
Constitution for maintaining civil order and protecting their
citizens' lives and property.
In giving substantially expanded martial law powers to the
President, last year's conference insertion of Section 1076 of
the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act reversed more than
a century of well-established and carefully balanced State-
Federal and civil-military relationships. More than a century
of policy and practice were changed without a single witness,
without a single hearing, and without any public or private
acknowledgment of proponency or authorship of the change.
I suggest to you very respectfully that when laws are
changed for the better, there are many who claim some
responsibility or measure of credit for their passage. But this
is a provision which has no DNA, no fingerprints, no one
claiming authorship, in fact, no one who will even acknowledge
having reviewed or coordinated on the changes before or after
they were added in conference.
Weaker measures in Section 511 of the House-passed bill
were unanimously opposed by the Nation's Governors before the
respective authorization bills went to conference. In fact, I
have attached to my testimony several letters of opposition,
including the one Governor Easley acknowledged that was signed
by all 50 Governors. So this is not a partisan issue. It is a
State-Federal issue of the highest order.
These conference amendments to the Insurrection Act give
the President sweeping power to unilaterally take control of
the Guard during a domestic incident, without any notice,
consultation, or consent of the Governor. It even permits the
President to take control of National Guard forces while they
are in the midst of a Governor-directed response and recovery
operation.
U.S. Northern Command has wasted little time in planning to
use these new powers. They already have a final plan approved
by Secretary Gates on March 15, 2007, which explicitly assumes
the Guard ``will likely be Federalized under Title 10'' when
the President unilaterally invokes the Act. The Governors and
Adjutants General were give no notice of the development of
these Federal plans, nor have we had any opportunity to present
our concerns or to synchronize State plans approved by the
Governors with NORTHCOM's plan.
To add insult to injury, NORTHCOM's plan requires that the
National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters of each State and
Territory actually develop the very plans under which the
Federal Government would take control of our States' National
Guard forces.
One key planning assumption at U.S. Northern Command is
that the President will invoke his new martial law powers if he
concludes State or local authorities lack the will to maintain
order. This highly subjective operational standard is one of
several that have been developed without any notice,
consultation, or collaboration with the Governors of the
several States and Territories.
The Adjutants General Association of the U.S. joins with
the Washington State Legislature, the National Governors
Association, the National Lieutenant Governors Association, the
National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Guard
Association, the National Emergency Management Association, the
International Association of Emergency Managers, and many, many
other national associations in urging the members of this
Committee, if you have not already done so, to cosponsor S. 513
and to work for its swift passage.
It is imperative that we have unity of effort at all
levels--local, State, and Federal--when responding to domestic
emergencies and disasters. Section 1076 of last year's Defense
Authorization Act is a hastily conceived and ill-advised step
backward. It openly invites disharmony, confusion, and the
fracturing of what should be a united effort at the very time
when the States and Territories need Federal assistance--not a
Federal takeover--in responding to State emergencies.
Thank you for this opportunity to express the concerns of
the State of Washington and the Adjutants General Association
of the United States. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Lowenberg appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Feingold has to go to the same Intelligence
Committee meeting that Senator Bond has to go to. We are going
to just hold for a moment on you, Sheriff.
Senator Feingold, I will yield to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Senator Feingold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
need to get to that meeting, but I did not want to go before
thanking all the witnesses, and I especially want to thank
Senator Leahy, the Chairman, for his efforts to ensure that the
National Guard is properly resourced and that the Defense
Department plans for its civil support mission, that the
Governors are not cut out of the decisionmaking process when
the Federal Government responds to natural and manmade
disasters. And Senators Leahy and Bond both, I want to say,
have shown tremendous leadership by introducing both the bill
to restore the Insurrection Act, S. 513, and the National Guard
Empowerment Act, S. 430. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of both
bills. I am pleased to be one of the people that associate
myself with them, using my role in the Budget Committee every
year to try to advance the particular concerns of the National
Guard.
I also come to this, as the Chairman does, because of our
feelings about the Constitution, the traditional understandings
that we have in this country of the difference between the
standing military and the National Guard. These are important
principles. They certainly should not be altered by a middle-
of-the-night fast move.
I am particularly concerned about this because I look at
what the National Guard has had to deal with in the last few
years. I have always been proud of our National Guard, but I
have got to tell you, what the National Guard in this country
has been asked to do in the last few years is stunning. And I
think of you, General Blum, and I think of you, General
Lowenberg, I think of Adjutant General Wilkening in my State, I
have never seen people respond with less complaint and more
courage than I have seen in the National Guard in the last few
years. It has been one of the best things I have seen in my 25
years as a legislator at the State and Federal level.
So my reaction to this, Mr. Chairman, is: What kind of
thanks is this to an incredibly courageous response to a
difficult time? So in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the
National Guard, the National Guard Bureau, the Adjutant
Generals and volunteer reservists and members of the Armed
Services all served honorably. They saved thousands of lives.
Our Nation is indebted to them all. However, it is clear that
much more needs to be done to ensure proper coordinate between
local, State, and Federal officials and to ensure that the
Defense Department properly plans and resources its civil
support mission.
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, last year the
Congress made rush changes to the Insurrection Act that would
transfer control of the National Guard from the Governors to
the President in the wake of natural and manmade disasters.
These changes would undermine coordination by cutting the
officials with the most knowledge of local conditions--the
Governors--out of the chain of command. These changes also
failed to address the real military assistance issue that
surfaced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--the need for the
Defense Department to properly plan for and resource its civil
support mission.
The best course at this point is to pass S. 513 to restore
the Insurrection Act and then take a closer and more careful
look at these issues, including the National Guard Empowerment
Act.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for letting me speak at
this time.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. I know of your
concern, Senator, and I appreciate your taking the time from
the other matter to be here.
Sheriff, I could not even begin to give you the
introduction that Senator Grassley did, but I know just being
President of the National Sheriffs' Association gives you
instant credibility. Go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF TED G. KAMATCHUS, SHERIFF, MARSHALL COUNTY, IOWA,
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION, MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA
Sheriff Kamatchus. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
come here today. My name is Sheriff Ted Kamatchus. I am the
sheriff of Marshall County, Iowa. I am the President of the
National Sheriffs' Association. The National Sheriffs'
Association represents over 3,000 sheriffs across the country
and 22,000 members, professional law enforcement members. We
span the Nation from border to border and coast to coast.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you
today to express my concerns, and what I know to be the
concerns of sheriffs across the country, concerns about Section
1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2007. The changes represent an unprecedented and unnecessary
expansion of Presidential power to Federalize the National
Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes during emergencies
and consequently undermine the ability of sheriffs to best
serve and protect their constituents.
The Office of the Sheriff plays a distinctive role in the
Nation's criminal justice and homeland security system and
reflects a uniquely American tradition of a law enforcement
leader who is elected. Over 99 percent of the Nation's sheriffs
are elected and generally serve as the highest law enforcement
officer in their respective counties in this country. I speak
for all sheriffs when I say that we maintain a vested interest
in protecting the well-being of our constituents who have
entrusted us with such a responsibility. Being elected to such
a position in the community offers sheriffs the ability to
develop and maintain close relationships. Thus, given the close
relationship of the constituents we serve, sheriffs are able to
best predict the potential response behaviors and needs of a
local community in a time of disaster or emergency.
Furthermore, as the chief law enforcement officer of his or
her county, the sheriff provides protection, safety, and
security at the local level. The sheriff knows exactly what
resources are available to a community and where such resources
can be located at a time of need.
I know from experience the first responders at the local
level work together day in and day out to develop the best
method of addressing both local and national emergencies. Each
morning, I stop by various coffee shops in my community to
interact with the people of Marshall County, Iowa. These are
the same voters who elected me to the office five times. I am
in my 20th year as sheriff. I respect their input and listen to
their concerns, and we are all friends, neighbors, and citizens
together in Marshall County, Iowa. The closeness that they give
me blesses me with a unique understanding of their needs, their
day-to-day needs that provides me with the information I
require in order to serve them good as a sheriff in Marshall
County, Iowa.
Citizens across this country have a real concern when they
begin to consider that the military could enter their
communities without invitation. They know firsthand that the
Federal Government cannot provide them with the quality,
caring, and necessary service they desire. They hold a deep
inner fear that 1 day someone may utilize the power of the
military for the wrong purpose, and in the majority of the
States they select their sheriff to ensure that their homes
remain safe, their communities free from crime.
This past December, agents from ICE made a raid in a
meatpacking plant in my community. I was in Des Moines, Iowa,
at a training session, and as I was watching the TV station
across the bond scrolled the fact that there was a raid on a
meatpacking plant in Marshalltown, Iowa. That was the first I
had heard about it, and I called my dispatch immediately. I was
told that about 10 minutes prior to the raid, individuals of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement had raided this meatpacking
plant. I want you to know up front that I do not quarrel with
them doing their job. They were enforcing immigration laws that
I do not disagree with. But the bottom line was myself, the
chief of police, our local law enforcement had no idea of this
happening.
I head up a drug task force in the four-county area, and my
agents work undercover in those type of facilities, and the
first thing I thought about was: Did I have somebody in there
undercover who would be armed? I shudder when I think about
what might have happened had those agents run across one of my
people, undercover, armed. It could have been a deadly
encounter that I have no desire to think about.
I am happy that they conducted the raid, like I said, but
it is important that you understand that it is important also
to have communication. The old system of request and response
that existed in the past between the National Guard and other
Federal authorities, the responsibility to request additional
aid from those Federal authorities rests on the shoulders of
those local and State officials who are placed in office by the
citizens. If those same local officials fail in reaching out to
obtain the assistance necessary to accomplish their tasks, it
falls upon us--us--by the citizens removing us from office by
not voting us back in or asking us to step down.
The National Guard this past winter in the State of Iowa
came to our aid when we requested them when a sheet of ice
stretched across the entire State and winds of 50 miles an hour
snapped off poles all over the countryside. My county, 85
percent of my county was without power for almost 10 days. The
National Guard was there to assist me, work with me and my
disaster people. They went door to door across my county, and
they went ahead to make sure that the citizens of Marshall
County were safe, but they did it at our request of the
Governor, deployed by the Governor.
Given the significance of the sheriff in the community, it
is paramount that the sheriff and other local first responders
are not stripped of their ability and authority to serve their
constituency in a time of need. To provide a blanket authority
to Federal agencies and individuals to conduct domestic law
enforcement functions, as the new language of the Insurrection
Act does allow, jeopardizes the likelihood of a timely response
and effective assistance to our citizens in a time of need.
Mr. Chairman, as President of the National Sheriffs'
Association, I represent the sheriffs of this country, and my
interest is for the country as a whole, border to border and
coast to coast. I cannot stress enough that the significance of
working relationships among all local first responders, clear
and understood chains of command, and pre-existing plans of
action must not be overlooked when considering how to best
prepare our Nation's response to unforeseeable, disastrous
events. The changes made to the Insurrection Act by Congress
last year will undoubtedly result in a confusion in the chain
of command and inefficient and ineffective functioning of first
responders where the Act is invoked. Such a result would
inhibit the ability of sheriffs and other first responders to
carry out their duties and protect public safety.
These possibilities represent an unwarranted diminution of
State and local power as Governors and local law enforcement
officials will lose their command structure and capabilities
during times when the Act is invoked. Consequently, valuable
resources may go unrecognized, unutilized in situations where
Federal officials attempt to develop a response strategy
without full or accurate knowledge of the community's resources
and the capabilities we can allow.
I strongly believe that before such influential changes
were made to the Insurrection Act, key officials, Governors,
sheriffs, and other stakeholders should have been consulted. I
speak for the sheriffs when I urge that Congress support the
legislation that repeals Section 1076 of the National Defense
Authorization Act.
I want to thank you, sir, very much for the opportunity. I
want to let you know that we are fully behind this particular
bill and the sheriffs across this country sit with the
gentlemen to my right and their organizations in support.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Kamatchus appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, and that is support
well worth having.
Governor, I want to just make sure how all this stuff came
about in the first place, why we are here. Can you tell us
whether any of the Governors across the country were consulted
by anyone in the administration, the Department of Defense, or
within the Congress about these changes to the law?
Governor Easley. To my knowledge, Senator, none of us were
consulted. We found out about it after it was put in the bill.
My recollection is it was a little bit stronger in the earliest
language and then was changed a little bit to make it not quite
so egregious, but still the Governors oppose it. But, to my
knowledge, no one at least admits to having been consulted in
the States or the Territories--I should mention there are three
or four Territories that those Governors--
Chairman Leahy. Well, when you found out, what did you
folks do?
Governor Easley. Well, we started calling Washington right
away, writing our Senators and our House Members, and trying to
make sure they understood the implications of this, calling our
staffs here in Washington.
Chairman Leahy. What kind of response did you get?
Governor Easley. Not many people knew about it, and we
found very few of the Members of Congress were aware of it, and
they were not particularly concerned about it. The bill had
moved on pretty rapidly, and I think by the time we found out
and we contacted them, it was more of a fait accompli, this
train is on the track and it is probably not going to be
stopped, was pretty much what we got.
Chairman Leahy. What about you, General Blum? Did anybody
in the White House or Capitol Hill or Department of Defense
contact you last year about the possibility of changing the
Insurrection Act?
General Blum. No, sir.
Chairman Leahy. Do you know who originally -it is awfully
hard sometimes with some of these things to find out where the
parentage is. It is hard to do a DNA test to find out. Do you
know who originally requested the changes to the law?
General Blum. No, sir. I have had nobody step forward and
say that they proposed this or were behind it. No, sir.
Chairman Leahy. Do you know whether the idea came
exclusively from either the Congress or the executive branch?
General Blum. Sir, I have no idea where the idea came from.
Chairman Leahy. General Lowenberg, let me ask you, were you
or any of the Adjutants General of the U.S. consulted about
these Insurrection Act changes?
General Lowenberg. We have not been consulted before,
during the conference, or after with regard to these changes.
And I would also add, Senator Leahy, that I chaired the
National Governors' Homeland Security Advisors Council. None of
my colleagues, many of whom are not Adjutants General, were
consulted either.
Chairman Leahy. And, Sheriff, what about you and other
local law enforcement officials? Were any of you consulted?
Sheriff Kamatchus. No, sir. When we first found out about
it, we checked with staff, and we tried to do a background on
it as best we could, and we were unable to find out if any
other sheriff or any other local law enforcement in the country
had been consulted whatsoever.
Chairman Leahy. You will not be surprised to know that I
have asked the same questions of the Governor or Adjutant
General or law enforcement in my State and I get precisely the
same response. You know, Governor, when it comes right down to
it, the old idea of ``the buck stops here,'' who is ultimately
responsible for the security and safety of the people in your
State?
Governor Easley. Obviously, the Governors are. The
Department of Emergency Management comes under each Governor in
one form or another. We all have our Secretaries of Homeland
Security in one form or another. Ours is Crime Control and
Public Safety. But when a disaster is imminent or one occurs,
some event occurs, we are expected to have planned it out how
to respond and to respond appropriately. And I think the people
see it as our responsibility, and I think if you search the
statutes, Federal and State, you would find that it is
primarily the Governor's responsibility.
Chairman Leahy. If, God forbid, you had an emergency in
your State tomorrow that required you to call on your Adjutant
General to respond based on the planning you have done, do you
have any worry that he would respond and respond the way you
would expect him to?
Governor Easley. The National Guard always responds, and
responds admirably every time. My only concern would be if
there was some Federal intervention by the President calling up
the National Guard under this power that we are talking about.
If that was taken away from me as Governor, then obviously they
could only do what they were allowed to do by the President.
So that is the only intervention I am aware of that would
cause me any pause at all.
Chairman Leahy. Does that worry you, if this power is in
there, that Presidents might find the ability to just totally
ignore the Governor if it is somebody they wanted to ignore?
Governor Easley. Well, it certainly bothers me with
hurricane season coming up, knowing that the President could
come in, take the Guard away. The bill, as I read it, does not
require the President to consult with the Governor or even
notify the Governor that he has taken over the Guard or called
the Guard up, asserted his authority. So, I mean, there is that
uncertainty there. It is kind of like if you are coach of a
basketball team, they give you five players, and they say,
``Now, this one may come, may not come, but you need to plan to
coach the game.'' That makes it hard for the team to be
cohesive, and not knowing whether you are going to have all of
the players there is a problem.
The way everything is structured, emergency management and
law enforcement, once the Governor declares an emergency, first
responders, fire and rescue, they all work together under a
central authority in the State, as does the National Guard. So
they are all on the same team and working together.
If you interject Federal authority, the Presidential
authority into that, then there is all kinds of confusion with
command, control, coordination, communication. That results in
loss of time responding. Time results in loss of life and
property. That is our biggest concern.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
General Blum, were these changes actually necessary for the
National Guard to respond effectively in either natural or
manmade disasters in the United States? Something the Guard has
been doing all my lifetime.
General Blum. Sir, I can only tell you what I know to be
true, and under the law as it existed before the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the National Guard was able
to respond effectively and efficiently to every natural
disaster that has happened, and there were hundreds of them
every single year since our Nation existed and since the
National Guard has existed. In that long ordinary record of
success, we have only been Federalized ten times, and as I said
earlier, that was done under the provisions of the Insurrection
Act to largely enforce the Federal law that would guarantee
civil liberties to our citizens, and that was well understood.
The Governors of this Nation have never been reluctant to
seek and receive Federal assistance beyond what their local and
State capabilities and their EMAC capabilities were able to
provide. So we have seen, before the enactment of this law, we
have seen the responses to Katrina, Rita, Wilma, 9/11, the
Southwest border mission, several national special security
events, and literally tens of thousands of military responses
to civil authorities. Today, for example, there are 17 State
Governors that have called out their National Guard today.
There are 11,307 citizen soldiers acting on behalf of the
citizens of 17 States that are either saving lives or reducing
suffering and restoring order or normalcy to events that are
driven basically by weather patterns.
Chairman Leahy. Well, let me ask you a little bit about
that. You mentioned Katrina. I am not only referring to FEMA
now. I am referring to the military response made after
Katrina, helping the civilian authorities. Would that response
have really been any different if the President already had
this new power? Did you need these new powers to be able to
respond to help the people after Katrina?
General Blum. No, sir. The only thing I needed was more
equipment.
Chairman Leahy. Also, in some reference to what you were
saying, the President had--if it was necessary to--well, the
President had the power to call up the military during Katrina
if he wanted, didn't he?
General Blum. Yes, sir, he did, and he actually did do that
because in his judgment--and I share that--he thought it was a
prudent thing to add additional capability into the region in
case something unforeseen that we did not see on the horizon
developed, and he just wanted to make sure that he had
basically some insurance of capability above and beyond what
was necessary.
Chairman Leahy. But he did not need this change in the law
to do that?
General Blum. No, sir, he did not.
Chairman Leahy. General Lowenberg, some of the people we
have talked to say, well, these changes are simply a
clarification in the law, we did not really -you know, they are
not significant. How would you respond to that?
General Lowenberg. For those who embrace the illusion that
there is no change, I would say passage of S. 513 will have no
consequence for them. But as attorneys--
Chairman Leahy. I wish I could borrow you on the floor for
the debate.
[Laughter.]
General Lowenberg. As attorneys, we know that changes in
statutes do have meaning. This also included a change to the
title of the Insurrection Act from ``insurrection'' to
``enforcement of the laws to restore public order.'' I would
suggest to you that in the legal context, the distinction
between responding to a rebellion or insurrection or to
something that is a restoration of public order are events of
considerably different magnitude. And so from a legal context,
the changes do have significance, tremendous significance, and
I would suggest that that was not unintended.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, also, previous laws amply
provided for both the use of Federal and State military force
in response to Hurricane Katrina. I think that amply
demonstrates that there was no need to change the law. But if
this law had been in effect in 2005, it could have enabled the
President, with really no check and balance, to take Federal
control over the National Guard forces, over 50,000 of them
from every State and Territory, who were then operating in the
Gulf Coast States in an ongoing recovery operation under the
command and control of the Governor of each of those supported
States. That is a significant change. The President could have
done that without any notice to the Governor of any one of the
supported States. It would have prevented the Governors of the
supporting States, which is all of the Nation's Governors, from
having the authority to withdraw their forces and bring them
home in the event of an unanticipated emergency at home. And it
would have significantly complicated the response.
When I provided forces to the Governors of Mississippi and
Louisiana, for example, under the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact, they were under the operational control of
the Adjutant General and the Governor of the supported States.
This law would fundamentally change those Federal- State
relationships.
Chairman Leahy. And, Sheriff, I was interested in your
discussion of the raid. I spent 8 years in law enforcement, and
under our provisions, the law at that time, basically the law
enforcement in our county, which was about a quarter of the
population, when they had to coordinate activities, they
coordinated through my office. So much so that I can remember
at 3 o'clock in the morning having a command center set up in
my living room on an undercover operation. We did not want any
leaks, and the people operating and doing it were operating
there, with everybody kind of whispering so we would not wake
up the children upstairs. But we had an ability to coordinate.
Conversely, these kinds of operations, significant raids
and things of that nature, would not have gone on without me or
one of my deputies knowing about it.
Do you see under this law the ability of outside military
commanders--I am not concerned about the Guard in your State,
in Iowa. I assume that if they have a major operation, rescue,
disaster, whatever, in your area, they coordinate with you. Is
that correct?
Sheriff Kamatchus. Yes, sir; very well.
Chairman Leahy. And do you have a concern under this that
you could suddenly ask, ``Who are these people and why are they
here?'' I am not trying to put words in your mouth, although it
appears that way. I was kind of struck by what you had to say.
Sheriff Kamatchus. Well, over this past 10 months, I have
had a chance to travel across this country, not just in Iowa,
but I heard it in Iowa also. People are concerned about those
types of things. It is not necessarily with this President, but
any President who would have this type of authority, there is
the potential or the possibility under this new law that those
type of things could rise up. And I think those things need to
be answered. I think the citizens deserve the answer as to why
this was done in the 11th hour, if you will. Why weren't we--I
am a full-line sheriff. The majority of sheriffs in this
country, we serve the correctional, civil, and criminal
enforcement. Why weren't we and chiefs of police and local
government all consulted in this?
That is the big problem I have. We have a great working
relationship overwhelmingly with the Federal Government and
also with the National Guard currently. My office works with
them virtually daily in some cases. But when I see the type of
situation that could have happened, like what happened with
ICE, it makes me pause for a second and think how easily could
that happen with the military and how much worse could that be.
Chairman Leahy. I worry about these things. I do not
pretend that my experience is the end-all, be-all, but I worry
about that. And it seems in my State things work pretty well.
We have a Governor, we have the head of the Department of
Public Safety. And so nobody would think there is anything
political here, they are different parties than I am. In a
disaster, I would certainly trust them fully to work very
closely with our Adjutant General, as they have. And I suspect
the scale changes, Governor, when we get down in your area, but
I would also assume that you have coordination with the States
in your area. I have never known a hurricane that follows a
geographical border of a State carefully, but you must have
coordination, do you not, in your State with adjoining States
and also your Adjutants General?
Governor Easley. We do. We have coordination. First of all,
things are broken up in regions, and I might note that
Mississippi, I think, and Alabama were in a different region
than Louisiana during Katrina and Rita. But we also have the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact, ``EMAC'' it is
referred to. What that does is it allows all of the States. We
take turns being the coordinating State each year. It lets all
of the States or any one of them call on all others for
assistance they might need.
So let's assume that Vermont gets hit with some particular
event that causes you to need additional resources. Then the
Compact would come together, listen to your Governor and your
Secretary of Emergency Management, find out what you need. If
you need additional Guard troops, they will get the Guard
troops, and if you need additional power, whether it is
engineering, medical transportation, aviation, public health,
whatever it is you need, then the States come together and
assist each other.
So there is absolutely no problem with the coordination.
That is why that is there. And I want to point out, that is
practiced and exercised every day, every week. We go through
these exercises, tabletop exercises, these ``what if things
went wrong.'' We just finished one not long ago dealing with a
foreign animal disease that might enter a State and how you
deal with it and how you contain it. These are things that we
all work on together.
Chairman Leahy. A few years ago, we had this extraordinary
ice storm throughout the Northeast, and a lot of our power
comes down from the province of Quebec. The ice took down miles
and miles and miles of high-power lines in Quebec, just
collapsed them, which, of course, has a ripple effect, and
blackened part of our State, just without power. In an
agricultural area where, among other things, they have a lot of
dairy farms, and, you know, you cannot tell, ``We will come and
milk you in a few days.'' The Guard came in immediately, and
others. But when you were talking about other States coming in,
we had all the way down to Virginia, we had people coming up to
help, and there was a wonderful ad afterward showing Virginia
Power Company, and they were resetting the lines to this
farmer's home, and the kids had put up a display that had a
sled out there with Santa Claus in it. And the tag line was,
``Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia.''
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. But the fact is we expected it, and they
came. General Blum knows our situation there well. He knows in
a small area in New England and all, the New England States
respond immediately to each other. We respond to upstate New
York.
Again, I mention this because it is not a geographical
line, but it is not a question of whether the Federal
Government has to step in to make that known. The Governors
work it out pretty well, do they not?
Governor Easley. They do, and I think it is important to
note that the Federal Government does not have the resources to
do but so much. If you look at 9/11, the response was the New
York City Fire Department. Those are the people who have to
respond to these types of events. And when we have them across
the country, in one or two or three or four States, they do not
have the resources on the Federal level to come in and handle
one State, much less three or four or five.
That is the point I made earlier about pandemic. Mike
Leavitt, who is a former Governor, now Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, has been to every
State and made the point very clear to us that the States are
in charge, you are responsible, you are the ones that are going
to be held accountable, and you better set up your program.
Now, we will help you. We will give you logistical advice and
that sort of thing. But you are going to have to respond
yourselves.
That is why it is particularly disturbing to see that
language ``of serious public health concern'' in 1076, because
that sends a signal to us that if we have a pandemic or a
serious public health issue in a State, that might be the time
that the President would nationalize the National Guard at the
very time that we need them the most.
Chairman Leahy. I understand that. In fact, Senator Bond,
who was here earlier, he and I put in a supplemental bill, our
amendment was to add $1 billion for new equipment for the
Guard. It does not begin to cover all the need they had, and
there is controversy over the issue of Iraq, of course. But I
found no controversy from either party, across the political
spectrum, on that money.
Well, gentlemen, I appreciate your being here, and I again
apologize for the delay. This has been extremely helpful. You
will get copies of the transcript, and when you get them, if
you think there is something that you wish you had added, we
actually keep the record open so you can.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]