Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. For the record, I’m Tom Mannion, representing Hillsborough 1 – Pelham. I’m also a United States Marine Corps Infantry combat veteran that deployed twice to Iraq. It was my experiences there that motivated me to learn about US foreign policy, and got me interested in politics. When I first heard about this bill last term, it was entirely within that wheelhouse, and I’m happy to bring it before this committee this term.

HB104, known as the Defend the Guard Act, will prevent the New Hampshire National Guard from being deployed to a combat zone without a formal declaration of war issued by Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. I believe this premise is one just about all of us can all agree with, so I’ll focus on attacking the fiscal note.

Firstly, it mentions Federal funding may be put at “risk.” Which is intentionally non-committal language, and after a term here in Concord, I’ve heard in many other committees with regards to health mandates, education policy, vehicle inspections, you name it. Whenever the legislature files a bill the executive doesn’t like, they always like to roll out the ol’ “federal money” defense to try and stop it. Congress writes the checks, and no congressperson is going to commit political suicide by defunding a state guard unit, especially with Senator Shaheen on the committee. Both Congressmen Gossar of AZ and Massie of KY have affirmed that no member of Congress will defund any state guard when asked about this bill. I’ll be closing with more on this, but bear with me.

Secondly, the fiscal note mentions what is known as the Montgomery Amendment of 10 USC 12301 (f) which states “The consent of a Governor described in subsections (b) and (d) may not be withheld … because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty.”   We are not objecting on any of those grounds, we are objecting on the Constitutionality of the deployment. If the purpose of the Montgomery amendment was to completely remove Governor consent, then subsections (b) and (d) would have been amended to remove the consent requirement entirely. Would anyone here argue that Governor Newsom could withhold consent on the grounds that his state is in crisis?

Next, the fiscal note reads “[Title] 32 USC §108 states “If, within a time fixed by the President, a State fails to comply with a requirement of this title, or a regulation prescribed under this title, the National Guard of that State is barred, in whole or in part, as the President may prescribe, from receiving money or any other aid, benefit, or privilege authorized by law.”   We are not prohibiting any Title 32 activation. The section says “under this title” twice, meaning specifically Title 32 activation. Title 10 has no such provision.

Now – AUMFs. Authorizations for Use of Military Force are the very mechanism we are challenging with this legislation. Congress has ceded its Constitutional authority over war declarations to the Executive Branch, without a Constitutional Amendment to do so. As such, the President has been granted powers our founders warned against when they specifically vested the power to declare war with Congress. The fiscal note correctly points out that we have not formally declared war since 1941. Opponents will say “we need the freedom to act quickly!” We, as New Hampshire, have no say in what that President can do with active duty military forces, who will be first to fight. We are simply interceding between the President and our Guardsmen, requiring him to first go to Congress for a formal declaration of war before he can take our sons and daughters, our grandchildren, and our neighbors into that fight.

I want to add that the specific citing of the 2001 AUMF as justification for our military misadventures is particularly absurd. The war in Syria that we helped instigate and have been supporting for a decade, has resulted in the overthrow of Bashar al Assad, and the installing of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani as de facto leader. This man was a member of Al’Qaida in Iraq, the insurgency that came to the country to shoot at guys like me. He later folded into ISIS and then back out into various factions of al-Qaeda in Syria, and until a few weeks ago, had a $10M bounty from the US on his head for his terrorist activities. National Guardsmen have been attacked because of this conflict. In 2023, the Lousianna Guard came under rocket attacks in Northeastern Syria while defending oil fields, and last year Tower 22 in Joran, right over the borders of Iraq and Syria, came under drone attack that resulted in 3 Army Reservists from GA being killed, along with 41 National Guardsmen being wounded from AZ, CA, KY, and NY. And, it is my understanding through the Lance Corporal underground, that the NH National Guard had returned home from that base only weeks prior to the attack. It could have easily been our guys coming home in boxes.

In closing, the most important development has occurred since we passed Defend the Guard out of the House last year: the nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. A few days after we took that bipartisan vote, Hegseth said this on Fox and Friends:

“New Hampshire is simply pointing out that it’s supposed to be Congress that declares war. It has become an executive branch function, and as a result, unless Congress declares war, New Hampshire doesn’t have to send troops for foreign wars. To me it makes a lot of sense… I love this idea.” It’s my understanding he has since intensified his support for the bill, so the funding fears are more unfounded than ever before, when the guy in charge of the DoD supports this bill.

And with that, I’m open to any questions.