U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

37–097 PDF 2007

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

‘‘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 

2

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. 

3

[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 

4

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. 

5

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 illadvised 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 tugof-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? 

6

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. 

7

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 GovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:16 Aug 09, 2007 Jkt 037097 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37097.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8

ernors 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. 

9

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 conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:16 Aug 09, 2007 Jkt 037097 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\37097.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
10

cludes 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. 

11

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 

12

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 

13

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. 

14

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. 

15

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. 

16

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 

17

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 

18

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 

19

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 

20

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.]

21


37097.001
22


37097.002
23


37097.003
24


37097.004
25


37097.005
26


37097.006
27


37097.007
28


37097.008
29


37097.009
30


37097.010
31


37097.011
32


37097.012
33


37097.013
34


37097.014
35


37097.015
36


37097.016
37


37097.017
38


37097.018
39


37097.019
40


37097.020
41


37097.021
42


37097.022
43


37097.023
44


37097.024
45


37097.025
46


37097.026
47


37097.027
48


37097.028
49


37097.029
50


37097.030
51


37097.031
52


37097.032
53


37097.033
54


37097.034
55


37097.035
56


37097.036
57


37097.037
58


37097.038
59


37097.039
60


37097.040
61


37097.041
62


37097.042
63


37097.043
64

Æ


37097.044