Governors poised to regain control over Guard - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Governors poised to regain control over Guard

Governors’ emergency response planning for future hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters might soon be easier once they regain more authority over their National Guard troops in responding to domestic emergencies.

That would happen if President Bush signs congressionally approved legislation to repeal a year-old law that gave the president more power to take control of National Guard units to react to natural disasters or other public emergencies without a governor’s consent.

But the White House announced Friday that Bush was expected to veto the defense authorization bill, which contains the repeal, because the bill has an unrelated provision allowing damage lawsuits against the Iraqi government stemming from the Saddam Hussein era. Congress is expected to address the problem when it returns to session in mid-January.

Governors say failing to repeal the law would continue to sow confusion over who is in charge of the National Guard during emergencies.

The governors, backed by their state adjutants general and local law enforcement officials, said the old law hurts domestic response planning, diminishes state authority and exceeds the traditional limits of presidential power in times of crisis.

“It was a dumb idea fortunately extinguished,” said South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a leader on National Guard matters for the National Governors Association. “We didn’t think it made sense at the time, and I think we will be better off for it.”

The law stemmed from a dispute between President Bush, himself a former Texas governor, and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco over control of National Guard troops in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Congress responded by slipping the expanded authority for the president into legislation last year with little notice and without consulting the governors.

“As currently written, it calls into question whether the governor or the president has primary responsibility,” North Carolina Gov. Michael F. Easley said earlier this year.

The 2006 law expanded the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows presidents to use active-duty or National Guard troops only for domestic police actions to put down rebellions or to enforce constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.

The law also said the president could take control of National Guard troops without a governor’s consent in cases where public order breaks down as a result of natural disasters, epidemics, terrorist attacks or “other conditions.”

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a former governor, said the phrase “other conditions” needed to be repealed because its ambiguity makes it almost certain that presidents would take control during state emergencies.

“We had to get that out,” said Bond, a co-chairman of the 80-member Senate National Guard Caucus. “As a former governor, we commanded the National Guard and in times of emergency the governors do an excellent job.”

Delaware Adjutant General Francis D. Vavala, said the 2006 law was unnecessary and questioned the constitutionality of it.

“In my personal opinion, it was sort of a knee-jerk reaction to the finger-pointing that occurred around Katrina,” said Vavala, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

The Bush administration had sought the increased authority and opposed the repeal.

The result would be “detrimental to the president’s ability to employ the armed forces effectively” to respond to major domestic emergencies,” the statements said.

”It was in essence a real power grab,” Sanford said. ”The presumption has always been, from an operational standpoint, that people who are local probably have a better sense of how to deal with a problem than somebody 500 miles away.”

Sanford said that for example, his state holds exercises and conferences during the year with the National Guard and emergency responders on dealing with a hurricane disaster.

”How dumb would it be to ... have somebody come in who has not been part of any of that and say I’m in charge now,” Sanford said. “That’s exactly what this proposal would have done in the event we are hit by a hurricane.”

Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute in Alexandria, Va., agreed, noting that probably the most effective leader coming out of the Katrina disaster was Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

“I think everybody recognizes that the governors have a better grasp of what is required in their states than Washington ever will,” he said. “The idea that somebody in the Pentagon or the White House would be second-guessing Barbour on what Mississippi needs in a disaster sounds ridiculous on its face.”