Rep. Deming’s HB 527 to Defend the Guard is being introduced in committee tomorrow at 3pm. There are time constraints, so I may not be able to read any of this testimony because we want to prioritize the testimony of veterans, but below is what I will submit in writing.
Madame Chair, members of the committee, My name is Liam McCollum.
Today I come before you in support of HB 527 to Defend the Guard.
You are going to hear a lot of arguments from the opposition today about how this bill threatens federal funding or how this bill violates the Supremacy Clause, but I wanted to say that there is a rich history of Montana calling the federal government’s bluff when they threaten to pull federal funding or make these constitutional claims.
Firstly, on February 9th of this year, Republican Greg Gianforte submitted a letter to US Attorney General Merrick Garland that Montana would not be enforcing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive’s new pistol brace rule in pursuance of House Bill 258, which prohibits the enforcement of federal gun control rules after January of 2021 in Montana. Governor Gianforte said, “Our right to keep and bear arms is integral to Montana’s and our nation’s rich heritage. That's why we prohibited the enforcement of federal gun bans in Montana.”
As a second example, remember in 2007 when Democrat Governor Schweitzer “declared independence” from REAL ID rules and called on 17 governors to stand up with him? He said the rules were Department of Homeland Security “coercion.” The Montana legislature opted out of the Real ID enforcement, and Senator Tester commended it, issuing a floor statement calling it a blatant privacy violation. The federal government threatened to prohibit residents from Montana from entering federal buildings and even went as far as threatening to prohibit Montanans from boarding a plane without extensive patdowns, which would have critically burdened airports, but Governor Schweitzer called the federal government’s bluff, and to this day, I do not have a REAL ID, and I’m sure many others in this room do not either.
Quoting Governor Schweitzer in a 2008 NPR interview:
“Well, we are putting up with the federal government on so many fronts, and nearly every month they come out with another harebrained scheme, an unfunded mandate to tell us that our life is going to be better if we'll just buckle under on some other kind of rule or regulation. And we usually just play along for a while, we ignore them for as long as we can, and we try not to bring it to a head. But if it comes to a head, we found that it's best to just tell them to go to hell and run the state the way you want to run your state.”
For a third example, the state of Montana legalized recreational marijuana last session. There are many arguments that could be made about how this may risk the loss of funding for our police departments, or that the federal government could retaliate by pulling funding for our highways like they did when they tried to impose a speed limit on the state, and yet, contrary to federal law, many people purchase marijuana in this state recreationally. Now, as someone who is an opponent to REAL IDs and an ardent proponent of the second amendment and for people to consume marijuana or whatever drug as long as they don’t hurt someone or take their stuff, I think I would rank the issue of war and foreign policy as being a lot more significant than those issues. If the state can check federal law for weed, guns and driver’s licenses, they can do so to Defend the Guard.
There's also been a lot of discussions in the legislative session recently about the fact that when the states accept federal funding, often there are strings attached. Those strings attached are often unconstitutional too, but the states refuse to push back because they would prefer to get funding instead of doing what is right. Thankfully, many legislators in this session have been discussing this in debates on the floor.
Furthermore, I stood before this committee a few weeks ago in opposition to HJ3, which was a resolution in support of US intervention in Ukraine, and I think my opposition is very relevant to this bill because I provided many reasons why it is not in Montana’s interest to escalate tensions with Russia and China– namely the nuclear risk and the fact that we are part of the nuclear sponge with Minutemen ICBMs– but I neglected to mention one very important reason in that hearing that makes this bill the most important thing you could address this session: that it is highly possible that many of the men and women standing behind me and watching this hearing that are members of the Montana Guard could very well be sent to fight a war in Europe or in the Asia-Pacific theater under the current foreign policy legal structure, especially when you consider that the executive branch of the federal government, and many recent presidents across all parties, have had little hesitancy in regards to sending our soldiers to war without a constitutional declaration, and since Congress has shirked its responsibility to declare war.
Some members of the Montana Guard just got back from Syria last fall, and there is a high chance that these men and women would be sent to fight if the war in Ukraine or Taiwan continues to escalate. The United States recently agreed to send tanks to the war in Ukraine. Less than a year ago, President Biden himself said that sending tanks and fighter jets would be cause for WWIII. Evidently, he backtracked on those claims, though he is still currently refusing to send fighter jets, but we’ve gone against our word before in this conflict, and it seems like there is no proposed off-ramp. The president has said that we will not send troops to Ukraine. Still, considering how often we’ve changed policy in this conflict and how quickly we are escalating, it seems like a genuine possibility if we keep going down this path.
I believe that many of the men and women in the Montana Guard have the honor to pick up arms whenever they are called–they would answer orders when they are called up to service– and many of them would and have fought in undeclared wars. We should pay them back for that sacrifice by honoring their oath of service and ensuring that when they are called up and when they have the honor to fight, we respond with the integrity to only send them to conflicts that are legal and constitutional, that have gone through the deliberative body that is supposed to debate whether troops are necessary. If DC does believe that another war is needed, we should make Congress go on record so that we can hold our representatives accountable if they make the right or wrong decision.
Jeanette Rankin’s statue is just downstairs in this Montana capitol building, and she was the only Representative in US history to vote against both the first and second world wars. We would not know that, and we wouldn't admire her today for being the stalwart against war if the Founders hadn’t delegated the deliberative powers to Congress and if Congress didn’t act as the deliberative body.
If our men and women are to go to war, let's make Congress go on record. Let's make them debate whether it's necessary if they're going to send our men and women to war, and let's not let the executive branch unilaterally send our men and women to a war that our people do not support.
I think this is a critical bill that holds the federal government accountable. I believe there are multiple reasons to support it, but primarily, I’ve met a network of veterans who support this bill because it will require Congress to go on record if DC wants the Guard to fight in another war. I know many of these people have the honor to go to war even if it is undeclared, and many of them have, but I think it’s essential that we pay them back for that sacrifice by following the constitution and only sending them to war if it has the weight of Congress behind it and is something the people want to get behind. To this day, we haven’t won an undeclared war, and I’m not sure we will. I think if we’re going to spend our blood and treasure, Congress has to do its job first, and Montana has the responsibility to require them to.
Finally, if I may, I have printed copies of HJ9 that I’ll send around the room. This resolution was passed by this committee last session when it was chaired by Derek Skees, and it passed through this committee unanimously. It is a resolution in support of ending endless and unconstitutional wars. It also called on Congress to take back its war powers. There were some criticisms– most weren't criticisms against the principles of the resolution– instead, they were against the fact that the resolution had no teeth and that it was a “letter to Santa.”
Madame Chair, members of the Committee, the bill in front of you has the teeth to fulfill the spirit of that resolution.
On my own behalf, and at the request of a few members who currently serve within the Montana Guard and are therefore unable to speak in favor of this bill today, I urge do pass.
Liam - Thank you for speaking up to defend our state, its citizens and those who have sacrificed so much already with their service. We must stand up and speak out and you exemplify the very best with your leadership in educating us on the issues in front of our representatives. I am grateful for your service to the people of Montana. Thank you. Robin