On the recordSeptember 13, 2005
as we face an uncertain future as it relates to terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction, I have some thoughts with regard to this law which was passed in 1878 which restricts in certain ways--and the predicate for doing so is wise--men and women of the Armed Forces--that is, a permanent U.S. military as opposed to National Guard--in matters relating to law enforcement. Traditionally, that has always been left to the local authorities, and that is the way it should be. But sometimes there may be one--I will have to examine the facts--that becomes so overwhelming or so incapacitated by a natural disaster, or perhaps a terrorist attack, that the Armed Forces may have to perform some of those duties. We want to make sure the President has that capability. Also, there are other permanent laws on the books called the Insurrection Statutes. At a very minimum, I would like to see the name changed that we put on this for reasons quite different than the threats and challenges that face this Nation today. But that statute also might be reviewed, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, to see whether other permanent pieces of law should be modified to meet the contingencies we face here in the future. I see the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Defense Committee. I wonder if I might direct a question to her.…
Source
govinfo.gov




