[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 70 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          HONORING MEMBERS IN THE 547TH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 7, 2009

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I also introduce a second bill in 
honor of members of the 547th Transportation Company, who deployed to 
Iraq last Saturday. The District of Columbia Executive Guard Act would 
give the Mayor of the District of Columbia some additional authority 
over the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG). In circumstances 
constituting local emergencies, including natural disasters and civil 
disturbances unrelated to national or homeland security, but not 
homeland security matters, the mayor of the District of Columbia should 
have the same authority as governors. The National Guards in the 50 
states operate under similar dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet, 
the President of the United States alone has the authority to call up 
the DC National Guard for any purpose here, local or national. Each 
governor, however, as the head of state, has the authority to mobilize 
the National Guard to protect the local jurisdiction, just as local 
militia did historically. Today, the most likely need for the National 
Guard would be because of natural disasters or to restore order in the 
wake of civil disturbances. The mayor, who knows the city better than 
any federal official and works closely with federal security officials, 
should be able to call on the DCNG to cover local natural disasters or 
civil disturbances without relying on the President, who should be 
preoccupied with national matters, including homeland security, which 
would remain the sole province of the President, along with the 
existing power to nationalize the D.C. National Guard at will. As it 
is, the President must rely on a delegated official with little 
familiarity of the city to call up the National Guard to duty here for 
any purpose. It does no harm to give the mayor the authority for civil 
and natural disasters. However, it could do significant harm to leave 
him or her powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that a governor 
would have control over the mobilization and deployment of the state 
National Guard, it makes the same sense for the mayor of the District 
of Columbia, with a population the size of that of small states, to 
have the same authority.
  The mayor of the District of Columbia, acting as head of state, 
should have the authority to call upon the D.C. National Guard in 
instances that do not rise to the level of federal importance necessary 
to implicate the authority of the President. Today, requiring action by 
the President of the United States could endanger the life and health 
of D.C. residents, visitors and federal employees. Procedures that 
require the mayor to request the needed assistance from the commander 
in chief for a local National Guard matter are as old as the republic, 
and as dangerously obsolete today. Moreover, this bill merely delegates 
the President's authority in specific circumstances and would not 
deprive the President of his authority over the D.C. National Guard at 
will, as the Congress can do in making laws for the District despite 
delegated home rule. This bill is another important step necessary to 
complete the transfer of full self-government powers to the District of 
Columbia that Congress itself began with the passage of the Home Rule 
Act of 1973. Congress delegated most if its authority to the District 
of Columbia. The District of Columbia Executive National Guard Act 
follows this model.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________