[pjw] UPDATE: Bill to keep Oregon's Guard in Oregon

[Peace and Justice Works]

Supporters of Peace and Justice

In last week's report back on Friday Rally, I mentioned that a bill was 
going to have a hearing in an Oregon Senate Committee On Veterans, 
Emergency Management, Federal and World Affairs this week.

I attended the hearing today and was able to read our testimony into the 
record. (I was quite surprised to be called first as I did not sign up 
until last night... but the Chair takes remote testimony first!)

The hearing lasted about 50 minutes (starting at about 1:50 PM, which is 
confusingly 32 minutes into the video). The video is available here:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/mediaplayer/?clientID=4879615486&eventID=2025021310

Other groups who spoke included the Libertarian Party (two people), the 
Pacific Green Party Liberty Caucus (a person from Beaverton) and Antiwar 
Oregon (two people). I'd never heard of that group until last 
month when a member gave us a heads up about the bill. Individuals were 
from Salem, Creswell, (unknown location- wife of disabled Viet Nam 
veteran), and Albany. So I think that was a total of ten people. And, I 
may have been the only person testifying from Portland.

Ours was the ONLY testimony to mention the problematic clause ("2b") 
saying the Guard can be called up to suppress insurrections and repel 
invasions. Everyone's testimony (including ours) was mainly focused on 
making Congress declare war before they send the National Guard overseas.

The good part of ours being the only mention is that nobody spoke _in 
favor_ of deploying troops for those purposes.

The bad part is that our message wasn't reinforced.

The next step is they will at some point hold a Work Session where the 
Committee can add amendments. There was a representative there from 
District 4 (Alek Skarlatos from Canyonville) who said he's working on a 
similar piece of legislation in the House. It may be a Resolution instead 
of a bill.

Overall the core message has cut across party lines, it seems, that if you 
want our Guard members you need to declare a war. (On the other hand, we 
also need to tell Congress DO NOT DECLARE WARS!).

An opinion piece from one of the two national groups (which I think may 
actually be interrelated) ran on the Oregonian's website yesterday.

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2025/02/readers-respond-defend-the-guard-act-deserves-support.html

For the record the groups are
Bring Our Troops Home
  https://bringourtroopshome.us/
and
Defend The Guard
  https://defendtheguard.us/

I've pasted in our full testimony below. I think they will take written 
testimony up until 1 PM Saturday if I'm reading the instructions 
correctly. The link to submit written testimony is on the page about the 
bill.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/SB667

--dan handelman
peace and justice works iraq affinity group

----

To the members of the Senate Committee On Veterans, Emergency Management, 
Federal and World Affairs:

My name is Dan Handelman, I use he/him pronouns and I'm with the group 
Peace and Justice Works. We've been around since 1992.

Beginning in 2004, we have sent a letter nearly every year to the various 
governors of Oregon urging them not to send our National Guard to 
undeclared war zones. We've picked up signatures from organizations around 
the state over the years including veterans organizations. In 2008-2009 we 
helped gather statewide support for a resolution to Keep Oregon's Guard in 
Oregon, which did not receive enough votes to pass.

We want to ensure the Guard stays home to help fight wildfires, conduct 
search and rescue missions, and handle unexpected events such as setting 
up temporary medical facilities for the coronavirus pandemic.

We believe the Guard should only be deployed overseas when there is a 
Congressional declaration of war as required by the Constitution (and this 
bill).

Late last year, Oregon's Guard were sent to Iraq, where the Authorization 
for Use of Military Force passed in 2002 was to engage in military action 
against the deposed government of Saddam Hussein, and Syria, a country 
whose government has also been deposed but to which Congress never issued 
an authorization for war.

So we support the bill's clause 2 and 2a being added to state statute.

We are concerned, however, about the inclusion of proposed clause 2B 
outlining other Constitutionally authorized reasons to deploy the Guard. 
While Congress might ask Oregonians to head to the Mexican Border because 
migration has been referred to as an "invasion," that is not an 
appropriate use of the military. The Constitution envisions people who are 
trying to come into the country and conquer territory on behalf of a 
foreign power, not those fleeing oppression or poverty and seeking better 
lives. Similarly, there were references to people who took to the streets 
for racial justice as a "rebellion," but again, they were not seeking to 
overthrow the government.

Remember, it was members of the National Guard who took the lives of 
people protesting the Viet Nam war at Kent State University in 1970.

If the clause must remain it might say "Takes official lawful action as 
authorized by Article I, section 8, clause 15, of the United States 
Constitution."

That is the approach taken in a guard home bill currently in the Maine 
legislature.

https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0168&item=1&snum=132

We only recently found out about the existence of this bill, so this 
testimony is coming to you on the day of the first public hearing.

We appreciate the effort to return decisions about making war to the 
legislative branch as required by the Constitution.

Thank you
dan handelman
--Peace and Justice Works
    PO Box 42456
    Portland, OR 97242
    (503) 236-3065 (call or text)
    pjw at pjw.info
    https://www.pjw.info