<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

      <rss version="2.0">		
        <channel>
          <title>WashingtonWatch.com - Comments for H.R. 718, The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007</title>
          <link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills</link>
          <description></description>
          <managingEditor>info@washingtonwatch.com</managingEditor>
          <generator>http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1</generator>
          
<item>
<title>Comment by EBA (January 31, 2008, 13:55:06)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_718.html#30049</link>
<description>The bill will only serve to complicate our national response to disasters. I am most concerned about the confusion it would create regarding Defense Support of Civil Authority (DSCA). The NGB and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) responsibilities would overlap and the mandatory placement of a National Guardsman as the Deputy Commander at NORTHCOM would limit the field of applicants for that role. If anything, we should make NGB a NORTHCOM subordinate command where it would coordinate between NORTHCOM and the National Guard units of the states. I do support the improvement of National Guard resources but I do not see how duplicating DSCA responsibilities will do anything but add complexity. The recent release of the National Response Framework (22 JAN 08) and NORTHCOM’s efforts to coordinate with NGB and the states have made huge improvements to unified efforts during a national emergency. Introducing further confusion about who's in charge of DSCA is not the solution....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">30049@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:55:06 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by mikey (December 9, 2007, 18:10:10)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_718.html#24403</link>
<description>This act serves to patch the holes in an existing framework enabling smoother response to situations like Katrina and other emergencies. It has little to do with war politics aside from legislating fair use of Guard members and equipment in the fight. It also provides for the much maligned lack of required equipment in response to state emergencies. There is nothing about this act that sets the organization up for failure and it is not a hinderance to the process at all. I'm not sure what the rest of you are smoking....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">24403@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:10:10 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by MC (December 7, 2007, 13:14:50)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_718.html#24323</link>
<description>Great - add another top layer of bureaucracy onto the DOD.  I am sure that will solve everything....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">24323@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:14:50 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Robert J. Furey (April 5, 2007, 10:15:42)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_718.html#14658</link>
<description>It is apparent that our National Guard has yet again supported our active Army in a war they could not conduct without this support. It is time that the DOD corrects this slight....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">14658@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:15:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
        </channel>
      </rss>
  		