Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
Bill Introduction
The National Defense Enhancement
And National Guard Empowerment Act Of 2006
April 26, 2006

I am pleased today to join my friend and co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing far-reaching legislation that will strengthen our Nation’s defense and the National Guard, which is an inextricable part of the bedrock of our security.  The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would empower the National Guard.  It offers the Guard new authorities and a greater and more fitting voice in policy and budgetary discussions that is more line with the reliance that we place on this force of proud men and women. 

The Nation asks the Guard to provide a large part of the ground forces in Iraq, but then we give the force no say in strategic planning and budget discussions.  In fact, there have been recent efforts within the armed services to cut the force precipitously.  We ask the Guard to carry out missions at home in response to disasters and possible domestic attacks, but then give the force no real ability to develop new equipment for this unique mission.  And, in a crunch, our senior defense leaders — including the President — turn to the Chief of the National Guard for guidance in addressing and responding to emergencies within the domestic United States, yet those same senior Guard leaders receive only mediated and filtered advice at other points.  This gap between the Guard’s real world missions and its institutional position is simply unacceptable.  It is not efficient, and it is not smart.  It violates basic notions of logic, and it hinders our ability to get the full potential out of the National Guard. 

Our legislation directly addresses this troubling missions-to-authorities gap in three very specific ways.  First, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 would elevate the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of General with four-stars, also installing this senior officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The Joint Chiefs is the highest military advisory body to the President and the Secretary of Defense.  Without a Guard representative at the four-star level, the Secretary and the President receive only filtered advice from the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force about National Guard matters. 

The Army and the Air Force chiefs can provide keen insights about the Guard’s role as a prime military reserve to the active components.  However, they are not responsible for, and therefore are not experts on, disaster relief and homeland security functions that the Guard carries out at the State level, often under the command-and-control of the Nation’s governors.  Placing a National Guard General on the Joint Chiefs offers the fullest and most sensible guidance to our leaders on all aspects of the Guard, and this arrangement would give the Nation’s governors a straight line to the Joint Chiefs and the President on military matters. 

Creating a Guard senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the President streamlines and formalizes an arrangement that already arises in real emergencies.  During the darkest early days of Katrina, for example, the current National Guard Bureau Chief General Steven Blum was by the side of the Secretary of Defense and the President.  A permanent Guard presence on the Joint Chiefs ensures that this advisory relationship is in no way last-minute and ad-hoc.

The second way that this legislation puts the National Guard’s authorities more in line with its real-world missions is by giving the force more budgetary authority.  The Act gives the National Guard the ability to research, develop and procure equipment that is peculiar to its unique mission in the realm of homeland security.  This authority would be similar to the authority of the Special Operations Command, given under the Nunn-Cohen legislation of the mid-1980s, to develop unique equipment for the special forces. 

Last year, Congress appropriated almost $1 billion for the National Guard to procure equipment that has application for homeland security.  This legislation establishes more formal structure for the Guard to refine such equipment requirements and work in close coordination with the states to ensure an adequate force structure — fully adequate in domestic emergencies — is in place.

The final way that this legislation brings realistic authorities to the Guard is by ensuring that the Deputy Commander of Northern Command is a three-star general from the National Guard.  This Command is charged with planning for the active military’s response to federal emergencies, as well as coordinating the response with other federal agencies and civilian authorities.  Any military response in the domestic United States will surely include the National Guard, in many cases with the State governor overseeing the effort.  Currently, there are few if any senior Guard officers at the highest reaches of the Command, and the legislation would ensure expertise on the force exists there.

There has been a lot of discussion already about this legislation after Senator Bond and I last month expressed our intention to pursue it.  To clear up any confusion, let me say what this legislation does not do.  This legislation does not affect the National Guard’s role as one of the primary military reserves to the Air Force and the Army, which we believe is beneficial for the country.  It also does not inflate the size of National Guard headquarters here in Washington.  We put a firm cap on the size of the Guard Bureau in this legislation.  The legislation further does not create any new general office positions beyond the four-star Joint Chiefs position.  It only ensures that the adequate seats of representation is in place in key positions; in fact, the legislation actually removes a less influential Major General officer slot on the Joint Staff. 

What this bill does do — and with great intensity — is to give the National Guard the institutional muscle commensurate with the Guard’s missions.  With this bill, we can ask the Guard to do all that it does, but then say that, yes, it can have a seat at the table during key discussions involving the Guard’s missions and readiness.  With this bill, we can tap into the Guard for situations like the war in Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina and tell these proud men and women that we take are committed to taking real steps to keep the size of this force steady and improve its stock of available equipment.  With this bill, we can ensure that our senior leaders — the Secretary of Defense and the President — are making decisions about the National Guard based on the best available information.

With this bill, we strengthen the National Guard, the military chain-of-command, and the Guard’s ability to effectively serve each of the States and the entire Nation.

# # # # #