Reject Guard plan.

Byline: The Register-Guard

It's a rare occurrence when the nation's governors agree on anything - whether it's health care reform or the merits of motherhood and apple pie. So Congress should pay close attention when the National Governors Association votes unanimously to protest legislation that would allow the president to take control of National Guard forces in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

In a sternly worded letter sent recently to congressional leaders, the nation's governors, including two from U.S. territories, expressed unanimous opposition to a Bush administration proposal that would allow the president to unilaterally assume control of National Guard troops in emergencies. Governors must now consent before Guard troops are placed under federal control.

Democratic governors, including Oregon's Ted Kulongoski, are vehemently opposed to the proposal, which is buried in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act that is now pending in the Senate. But their Republican colleagues match their intensity. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the outgoing chairman of the National Governors Association, says the provision "violates 200 years of American history."

The governors weren't consulted about the measure and became aware of it only recently. The administration, taken aback by the governors' reaction, says only that it's intended to bolster the federal government's ability to respond to disasters or emergencies.

Yet history has proven repeatedly that governors have a better understanding of what their states need than the White House. The governors already have the ability to request federal assistance, and federal officials should be capable of picking up a phone to inquire if more help is needed.

Administration officials aren't saying so, but it seems a safe bet that the proposal is a reaction to Hurricane Katrina. But the White House seems to have forgotten that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was the primary culprit in the initial botched response, is a federal and not a state agency.

There may well be a need to improve how states and the federal government work together in responding to disasters. But any adjustment in the traditional balance between state and federal control of the National Guard deserves serious study and open debate. It shouldn't be hidden in the dense thicket of a defense bill in the hope that no one will notice.

If the White House and Congress are serious about improving this nation's ability to respond to disasters, they should start by making certain the National Guard, strapped by wars and equipment shortages, has the funding, staffing and equipment it needs to respond to missions both at home or abroad.

The Oregon National Guard, for example, has more than 1,000 troops deployed abroad, most of them in Afghanistan. Only 50 percent of its equipment is available for training and use in responding to forest fires and other disasters.

The Senate should reject this proposal, and the conference committee that reconciles the House and Senate versions should make certain the final bill does not include this unwarranted and unwise power shift.