Senate Finance Recommends ITL for 'Defend the Guard' Bill After Contentious Hearing
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony for and against HB 104 — the "Defend the Guard" Act, which would require a formal congressional declaration of war before federalizing the National Guard — the Senate Finance Committee moved into executive session and voted to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate).
The Senate Finance Committee reviewed House Bill 104, known as the "Defend the Guard" Act, which would bar the state’s National Guard from being federalized for overseas Title 10 combat deployments until Congress issues a formal declaration of war.
Tom Manny, the bill sponsor, said the measure would restore the Constitution’s Article I allocation of war-declaring power to Congress and prevent the National Guard from being sent overseas without that formal declaration. "This bill requires Congress to formally declare war pursuant to Article I, Section 8… before we will release our National Guard to Title 10 service for deployments to a foreign combat zone," Manny said.
Supporters, including several veteran speakers and cosponsors, argued the change would protect troops and state readiness and force a national debate on the use of military force. Representative Jonah O'Ryan Wheeler, a cosponsor, said the measure responds to long-standing concerns about undeclared conflicts since World War II.
The adjutant general and other military and veterans' groups urged the committee to reject the bill. Major General David Michalaitis, Adjutant General of the New Hampshire National Guard, opposed the measure on statutory and operational grounds, citing federal supremacy and examples where federal authorities have threatened to withhold funding or reassign units. He warned that federal reimbursement for training, equipment and operations (Title 10 and related streams) could be jeopardized, with long-term impacts on readiness and state capabilities. "If you don't think there's 15 other Air National Guard Wings in the country with the Eisenhower here era KC-135 wants the refuelers, just ask," he said while explaining the operational interdependence and federal funding structure.
The committee moved into executive session and a motion (mover identified as "Jerry" in the transcript) to recommend ITL — "Inexpedient to Legislate" — on HB 104 was made, seconded and approved. The chair announced, "The ayes have it." The transcript records no roll-call tally.
Supporters called for an up-or-down vote and emphasized constitutional arguments and veteran experience; opponents pointed to federal law (Title 10/Title 32), federal supremacy, possible loss or reassignment of federally funded assets, and court precedents. Witnesses also referenced prior cases cited in testimony where federal funding or readiness was at issue.
What’s next: the committee recommended ITL in executive session during this meeting; the transcript does not show subsequent floor action. The bill is therefore unlikely to advance from this committee based on the recorded recommendation.
Clarifying details: sponsor framed the bill around Article I, Section 8; adjutant general cited Title 10/32 and recent examples where federal agencies threatened to remove funding or assets; a later amendment makes the bill effective only if four other states pass similar legislation (as noted by supporters).
