[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 19279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        INTRODUCTION OF DC NATIONAL GUARD HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 22, 2003

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to give the 
mayor of the District of Columbia the same authority over the National 
Guard as the governors of all 50 States. My work as a Member of the new 
Select Committee on Homeland Security has convinced me that this bill 
is necessary now more than at anytime in the District's history. In 
some circumstances where a suspected terrorist incident occurs and in 
all circumstances constituting local emergencies, the mayor of the 
District of Columbia should have the same authority as governors. The 
National Guards in the 50 States operate under dual jurisdictions, 
Federal and local, but the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) has no local 
jurisdiction, no matter the local emergency. The President of the 
United States as the Commander in Chief alone has the authority to call 
up the National Guard for any purpose, local or national here. 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 have always done historically. Most often this has meant 
calling upon the National Guard to restore order in the wake of civil 
disturbances and natural disasters. Today it could mean acting quickly 
to respond to an incident that may be local or terrorist-related 
because it may be impossible to tell which. The mayor, who knows the 
city better than any Federal official, certainly should be able to call 
on the DCNG to cover local natural disasters or civil disturbances 
without relying on the President, who may be preoccupied with national 
matters, including perhaps war or security matters. It does no harm to 
give the mayor the authority. Today it may do great harm to leave him 
powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that a Governor would have 
control over the mobilization and deployment of the State National 
Guard, at the very least it makes the same sense for the mayor of the 
District of Columbia, with a population the size of that of small 
States, should have the same authority.
  The mayor of the District of Columbia, acting as head of state, 
should have the authority to call upon the DCNG in instances that do 
not rise to the level of Federal importance to implicate the powers of 
the President. Today requiring action by the President of the United 
States could endanger the life and health of D.C. residents and 
visitors and those who work here in the event of an emergency. 
Procedures now in use require the mayor to request the needed 
assistance from the Commander in Chief for a local National Guard. My 
bill does not cause the President to lose his power over the D.C. 
National Guard. The President could still nationalize the Guard at 
will, as he can with the Guards of the 50 States.
  Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, I succeeded in 
including a provision in the Homeland Security Act recognizing that the 
District of Columbia must be an integral part of the planning, 
implementation, and execution of national plans to protect city 
residents, Federal employees, and visitors by including the District of 
Columbia, as part of the region, as a separate and full partner and 
first responder in federal domestic preparedness legislation. Allowing 
the mayor control over the DCNG helps recognize the new responsibility 
he now has in protecting the entire Federal establishment--the 
Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the Federal 
agencies--from terrorist attacks. At a minimum, such recognition also 
demonstrates the respect for local governance and home rule that every 
jurisdiction that recruits members of the military to its National 
Guard deserves, especially today when the Guards are no longer weekend 
warriors, as the Iraq war demonstrates. If the mayor has local control 
over his own Guard, the Executive would give up nothing of his 
necessary control because the President would retain his right to 
nationalize the DCNG at will, as he can for the states. The confusion 
that accompanied the September 11 attack plainly showed the danger 
inherent in allowing bureaucratic steps to stand in the way of 
responding to emergencies in the Nation's Capital. September 11 has 
made local control of the DCNG an imperative.
  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. District authority over its own National Guard apparently was not 
raised during the Home Rule Act process. However, then it was 
unthinkable that there would be war in the homeland, much less 
terrorist threats to the nation's capital. What should be unthinkable 
after 9-11 in an era of global terrorism is allowing to stand old and 
antiquated layers rather than stripping them away. Giving the mayor of 
the District of Columbia authority to call up the National Guard could 
make the difference in protecting the safety of the residents, Federal 
employees, and visitors alike. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.

                          ____________________