school teachers, higher education faculty, edu- cation support professionals, school admi nis- trators, and others interested in public education. The NEA, which was founded in 1857, is the oldest and largest U.S. organization dealing with public education, comprising more than 3.2 million members. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the organization has approx- imately 555 staff members in its headquarters and regional offices. The association’s budget for fiscal year 2006–07 was more than $307 million. The NEA has 51 state-level affiliates that include 50 state associations and the Federal Education Associa tion. The more than 14,000 local NEA affiliates include approximately 800 higher education affiliates. Anyone who works for a public school district, a college or university, or any other public institution devoted primarily to education is eligible to join the NEA. It also has special membership categories for retired educators and college students studying to become teachers. The NEA is a volunteer-based organization supported by a network of staff at the local, state, and national levels. At the local level, NEA affiliates are active in various capacities, such as conducting professional workshops on disci- pline and bargaining contracts for school district employees. At the state level, NEA affiliates regularly lobby legislators for the funds for public education, campaign for higher professional standards for the teaching profes- sion, and file legal actions to protect ACADEMIC FREEDOM . At the national level, the NEA coordinates innovative projects to restructure how learning takes place and lobbies Congress on behalf of public education. NEA members nationwide set association policy by meeting at their annual representative assembly every July. NEA members at the state and local levels elect the more than 9,000 assembly delegates, who, in turn, elect the top NEA officers, debate issues, and set NEA policy. The NEA has been a vigorous opponent of efforts to privatize education through the use of tuition VOUCHERS. It rejec ts the arguments of voucher advocates that vouchers improve student learning, provide meaningful parental choice, and increase educational opportunities for low-income students. Instead, the NEA contends that vouchers are costly and that they are not the panacea for the problems in public education. The NEA has also expressed concerns about laws permitting the creation of charter schools, which are deregulated, autonomous public schools. Advocates of charter schools believe that freeing some public schools from many state and local mandates will encourage educa- tional innovation, create greater parental involvement, and promote impr ovement of public education in general. The NEA, while not opposing the concept of charter schools, has lobbied for sufficient oversight of these new schools, believing that public accountability is necessary. The election of GEORGE W. BUSH as president in 2000 and the gain of Republican seats in both the House and Senate in 2002 strengthened the position of voucher supporters and gave increased urgency to continuing NEA opposi- tion. In 2001 Bush pushed for the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1495. During the 2000s the NEA was critical of the act’s provisions. As Congress debated whether to reauthorize the act during the late 2000s, the NEA advocated for reconsideration of the balance between state and federal in volvement in educatio n. The NEA has typically endorsed Democratic candidates for president, including BARACK OBAMA in 2008. However, for congressional and gubernatorial offices, the NEA has sup- ported candidates from both major parties as well as independent candidates. The NEA funds political candidates through the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education, which is the NEA’s federal POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. FURTHER READINGS Lieberman, Myron. 2000. The Teacher Unions: How They Sabotage Educational Reform and Why. San Francisco: Encounter Books. National Education Association. Available online at http:// www.nea.org (accessed May 18, 2009). The NEA Fund for Children and Public Education. Available online at http://www.neafund.org (accessed May 18, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Education Law; Public. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 4331 et seq.) was a revolutionary piece of legislation. NEPA estab- lished for the first time national policies and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 188 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 goals for the protection of the environment. NEPA aims to encourage harmony between people and the environment, promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environ- ment and the biosphere, and enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to the country. NEPA is divided into two titles. Title I contains a basic national charter for protection of the environment. Section 101 is entitled “Declaration of the National Environmental Policy.” Title II establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an EXECUTIVE BRANCH watchdog organization that monitors the progress toward the goals set forth in Section 101 of N EPA. The CEQ advises the president on environmental issues and provides guidance to all federal agencies, which are required by NEPA to cooperate with the CEQ. The CEQ prepares an ANNUAL REPORT on environmental quality, evaluates federal pro- grams and activities affecting the environment, and gather s and provides statistical information. NEPA requires that every federal agency submit an environmental impact statement (EIS) with every legislative recommendation or program proposing major federal projects that will most likely affect the quality of the surrounding environment. An EIS may be required for such projects as rerouting an interstate highway, building a new dam, or expanding a ski resort on federally owned land. The first question NEPA asks is whether the proposed action merits a “categorical exclu- sion.” If an action has been studied in the past and does not have significant impact, or if it can be compared with different activities that the law defines as not having significant impact, then no further NEPA studies are necessary. The agency can then implement its proposed action. If the proposed action is no t excluded from further study, the next question asked is whether the action will have a significant impact on the environment. If the answer is yes, NEPA outlines a detailed process for an EIS. If the answer is unknown, a less detailed study or an environmental assessment (EA) is prepared. An EA is an overview of potential impacts. Enough analysis is done to determine either that the more detailed EIS is necessary or that the action will not have a significant impact on the environment. Preparing the EIS is a well-defined process. A notice of intent is published in the Federal Register informing the public that a study will be done. The general public, federal and state agencies, and Native American tribes are given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Next, a draft EIS is written, and a forty-five-day period for public comment is set. At the end of the comment period, the federal agency drafts a final EIS that responds to oral and written comments received during the public review of the draft. The agency, after a 30-day waiting period, issues its record of decision, which discusses the decision, identifies the alternatives, and indicates whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative were adopted. The federal agency may then begin to implement its decision. The EIS is a tool to assist in decision making, providing information about the positive and negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking and its alternatives. The EIS must also examine the impact of not implementing the proposed action. In this no-action alternative, the agency may continue to use existing approaches. Although NEPA requires agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions, it does not force them to take the most environmentally sound alternative nor does it dictate the least expensive alternative. FURTHER READINGS Matthews, Joan Leary. 2003. “Restrictive Standing in State NEPA and Land Use Cases: Have Some States Gone too Far?” Zoning and Planning Law Report 26 (May). “The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.” NEPAnet. Available online at http://www. nepa.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm; website home page: http://www.nepa.gov (accessed September 7, 2009). Snowden, Suzanne O. 2003. “Judicial Review and Environ- mental Analysis under NEPA: ‘Timing is Everything’.” Environmental Law Reporter 33 (January). CROSS REFERENCES Air Pollution; Environmental Law; Environmental Protection Agency; Land-Use Control; Pollution; Solid Wastes, Hazard- ous Substances, and Toxic Pollutants; Water Pollution. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES The National Federation of Independent Busi- nesses (NFIB) is the largest U.S. advocacy organization representing small and indepen- dent businesses. NFIB has a membership of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES 189 350,000 business owners, including commercial enterprises, manufacturers, family farmers, neighborhood retailers, and service companies. Businesses belonging to NFIB have an average of six employees, and more than 90% of these businesses have fewer than 20 employees. Most of the businesses have annual gross receipts of between $350,000 and $500,000. Founded in 1943, the NFIB was created to give small and independent business a voice in government decision making. NFIB is recog- nized as one the most influential LOBBYING organizations in the United States, working with state and federal legislators and regulators. Its administrative headquarters are located in Nashville, Tennessee, but its public policy headquarters are in Washington, D.C. The NFIB also has state legislative offices in all 50 state capitals. The governance of NFIB differs from that of more traditional lobbying organizations. NFIB uses the balloting of its membership, rather than a steering committee or a board of directors, to determine NFIB policies. In addition, it seeks to prevent UNDUE INFLUENCE by one member or group of members by setting a maximum contribution of dues. NFIB follows these procedures so that the policies it advances will reflect the consensus of the business community rather than the narrow interests of any particular trade group. Once the ballots are counted—five times per year on federal issues and at least once per year on state issues—NFIB lobbyists carry the message to Congress and the state legislatures. NFIB opposes higher taxes on business and government regulation. At the state level, it works to lower the rates businesses are required to pay for workers’ compensation insurance. At the federal level, it has campaigned for cutting the federal deficit, stopped an effort to raise employment taxes, and fought to increase the deductibility of HEALTH INSURANCE premiums for the self-employed. NFIB has been a critic of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY , the OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION , and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE , believing that these federa l agencies stifle the productivity and profitability of business through over-regulation. It emphasizes the need for a free-market economy, not ing that small business produces 38 percent of the gross domestic product. In the late 1990s NFIB broadened its scope and began to support pro-small business candidates for state and national office. In 2000 the organization established the NFIB Legal Foundation, which advocates for small business in the courts and strives to educate its members on legal issues. In addition, the NFIB POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE “NFIB SAFE Trust PAC” uses member contributions to support candidates who are pro-small business. The NFIB Research Foundation conducts research to provide empirically based evidence about small businesses. In the late 2000s NFIB focused on several key issues, including: affordable health care; reduction of taxes and simplification of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; MEDICAL MALPRACTICE law; caps on civil damages; and removal of certain regulations that apply to small businesses. NFIB conducts a monthly survey used to calculate the organization’s “optimism index.” During the recession of 2008 and 2009, this index declined, reflecting widespread concerns among small business owners. In April 2009 the index fell to the second-lowest reading in the index’s 35-year history. FURTHER READINGS Maltby, Emily. “Biz Owners Still Hurting, but Gaining Optimism.” CNNMoney.com. Available online at http:// money.cnn.com/2009/05/12/smallbusiness/small_biz_ optimism/ (accessed May 18, 2009). National Federation of Independent Businesses. Available online at http://www.nfib.org (accessed May 18, 2009). CROSS REFERENCE Business Affected with a Public Interest. NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934 In the 1930s, the United States faced a run of much-publicized gangster violence, led by such well-known criminals as John Dillinger, Al Capone, Baby Face Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde (Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow). The sensa- tionalistic aspect of their crimes convinced the administration of President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT that something needed to be done to control the spread of weapons into the general population. U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings and his staff began the process of drafting recommended legislation that would achieve this goal. The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two types of guns: machine guns GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 190 NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934 and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on transfers of such weapons. Despite these limitations, it led to a precedent-setting U.S. SUPREME COURT decision. Cummings and his staff quickly determined that, rather than ban weapons and run afoul of the SECOND AMENDMENT, they would try to tax such weapons out of circulation. As originally proposed, the NFA covered a fairly broad range of weapons, but as passed by Congress, its scope was narrowed to cover only “A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun.” The statute levied a $200 tax on each firearm defined as above, for any transfer involving the firearm. The tax was to be paid by the transferor and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the commissioner. It was declared unlawful for individuals to sell or receive a firearm in violation of this section, and they could be fined $2,000 and imprisoned for up to five years for violating it. Whereas the $200 tax does not seem like much in the early 2000s, it represented a very large amount in 1934; in many cases the tax was more than the cost of the firearm itself. The act also required dealers of the listed firearms to register with the federal government, and it also required for firearms sold before the effective date of the act, that “every person possessing a firearm shall regi ster, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employ- ment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof.” The NFA did not inspire as much contro- versy in 1934 as gun-control acts do in the early 2000s, in part because of the general public’s perception that crime was out of control and in part because anti-gun-control groups such as the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (NRA) did not have nearly the strength or LOBBYING power they gained later. In fact, the NRA formed its legislative affairs division, a precursor to its powerful lobbying arm, in 1934 in belated response to the NFA. Nevertheless, the NFA did result in several la wsuits claiming the law was unconstitutional, one of which reached the Supreme Court. In Miller v. United States, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (U.S. Ark. 1939), two men were charged with transferring a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun in violation of the NFA. A federal district court quashed the indictment, ruling that the NFA did indeed violate the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice JAMES MCREY- NOLDS famously dismissed the defendants case with this statement: “The absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated MILITIA, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” McReynolds added that “certainly it is not within JUDICIAL NOTICE that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” He also noted that many states had adopted gun-control laws over the years. The Supreme Court changed the face of gun control legislation when it issued its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, __U.S.__, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). In its decision the Court struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that banned the possession of handguns in the district and declared that people have an individual right to possess firearms, which the state cannot take away. Justice ANTONIN SCALIA, in his majority opinion, addressed the breadth of the Miller precedent. He concluded that Miller said only that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short- barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right.” The NFA is still in force, codified in amended form at 26 USCA § 5801 et. seq. As the first federal gun-control legislation, it set the stage for all other federal gun control laws, and its legacy overshadows the scope of the law and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934 191 the limited number of weapons to which it actually applied. FURTHER READINGS Doherty, Brian. 2008. Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. 1994. Guns in the United States. New York: Watts. Halbrook, Stephen P. 2008. The Founders’ Second Amend- ment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms. New York: Ivan Dee. Spitzer, Robert. 2007. The Politics of Gun Control. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. CROSS REFERENCES Second Amendment; Gun Control. NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) is a nonprofit organization that supports grassroots organizing and advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. It is the oldest LGBT organiza- tion in the United States. Founded in 1973, NGLTF works to strengthen the gay and lesbian movement at the state and local levels while connecting these activities to a national agenda. It is recognized as the leading activist organiza- tion in the national gay and lesbian movement and serves as a national resource center for state and local organizations. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. NGLTF works to combat antigay violence and antigay legislative and ballot measures. It also lobbies state and federal governments to end job discrimination and repeal SODOMY laws. With the arrival of HIV and AIDS in the 1980s, NGLTF sought government funding of medical research. NGLTF has campaigned for reform of the HEALTH CARE system as well. In 1997 NGLTF played a major role in the creation of a new national political organiza- tion, the FEDERATION of Statewide Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Political Organiza- tions. The purpose of the federation, which draws its membership from 32 state groups, is to strengthen the efforts of these statewide groups through a network that will foster strategizing across state lines, building stronger state organizations, and developing good work- ing relationships between state and national groups. The need for the federation grew out of meetings of statewide activists at the NGLTF annual Creating Change Conference, held each November in a major U.S. city. The federation consists of 16 executive committee members, selected from each region of the country, who will develop the federation’s mission. NGLTF serves as coordinator of the federation, supporting its work through the creation and dissemination of information and materials and the making of regular conference calls. At the federal level, NGLTF was unsuccessful in its opposition to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which permits states to bar legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. In 1988, NGLTF renewed its efforts to have Congress expand the federal mandate for prosecution of HATE CRIMES, including those committed against people because of their sexual orientation. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 1529 and H.R. 3081) would add hate crimes based on an individual’s real or perceived sexual orientation to the list of bias crimes that the federal government can prosecute. In 2002 the NGLTF Policy Institute released the first and largest-ever study of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender African Americans. This study documented among these groups significant numbers of individuals with chil- dren, high levels of political participation, and widespread experiences of racism and homo- phobia. NGLTF, through its policy institute , con- ducts research and publishes studies on many topics, including CIVIL RIGHTS, workplace DIS- CRIMINATION , violence, health, campus activities, and families. In the first years of the 21st century, the NGLTF released studies of sexual orientation among Hispanic and Asian populations in the United States. The Policy Institute also released reports on homelessness and religion among the LGBT populations in the United States. In addition, the organization lobbied on behalf of anti-discrimination ordinances in jobs and employment and laws legalizing same-sex marriage. FURTHER READING National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Available online at www.ngltf.org (accessed December 31, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights; Discriminat ion; Equal Protection; Gay and Lesbian Rights: Same-Sex Marriage. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 192 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE NATIONAL GUARD The National Guard is the term for the state- organized units of the U.S. Army and Air Force, composed of citizens who undergo training and are available for service in national or local emergencies. National Guard units are orga- nized in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. They are subject to the call of the governor of their state or territory, except when ordered into federal service by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Entry into the National Guard is by voluntary enlistment. The National Guard is trained to work in conjunction with the active forces of the Army and Air Force. Much of its value comes from its service in times of peace, when the Guard provides emergency aid to victims of national disasters and assists law enforcement authorities during civil emergencies. “Citizen-soldiers” have come a long way since the American Revolution. The Army National Guard has fought in every major war in which the United States has been involved, from the American Revolution to the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the Guard has been engaged in all U.S. national defense missions. Not only is the National Guard devoted to the defense of the United States and its allies, it is also involved in a number of other activities, such as responding to emergencies like civil distur- bances, riots, and natural disasters, and helping law enforcement agencies to keep illegal drugs off the streets. After the American Revolution, the First Congress of the United States did not consider the formation of a MILITIA a top priority, and it disbanded the Continental Army. Congress did not officially debate the notion of a militia until the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Constitution authorized a standing army in its Army Clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 12) and provided for a militia under the Militia Clauses (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16). Under the Constitution, the militia is to be available for federal service for three distinct purposes: “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Congress is to organize and disci- pline the militia, and the states are to appoint officers and train the soldiers. The National Guard, whose main responsi- bility since its inception had been the protection of colonial settlements, faced its first significant challenge when it tried to defend the settlements from Native American domination. In 1789 the federal government formed a War Department of approximately 700 men for the purpose of defending U.S. soil and its settlements from Native American attack. These small armies failed, and Congress responded to their failure to fight off Native Americans in the West by enacting the Militia Act of 1792 (May 8, 1792, ch. 33, I Stat. 271 [repealed 1903]); this act was the militia’s only permanent organizing legisla- tion for more than 100 years. While the act governed the militia, the United States endured three wars—the WAR OF 1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War—and the militia was ineffective in all three. Congress replaced the act with the Dick Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775) to transform “a frontier poli ce force into a respected and modern fighting machine.” The Dick Act provided for an organized militia—to be named the National Guard—that would conform to the organization of the Army, be equipped through federal funds, and be trained by Army instructors. The act consisted of 26 sections and set forth new provisions that had previously only applied to the Army but now also applied to the newly formed National Guard, including a nine- month limit for reservists’ service on active duty, a provision that when on active duty, the reservists would be guided by Army rules and regulations and would receive the same pay as that given to Army soldiers, and a new requirement for the performance of 24 drills Members of the National Guard assemble a tactical vest duing a training sessions. Since 2003, thousands of guardsmembers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to help fight the War on Terror. U.S. ARMY PHOTO BY SPC. WILLIAM E. HENRY, INDIANA NATIONAL GUARD GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NATIONAL GUARD 193 per year and a five-day summ er camp. The act also gave states’ governors certain powers over their Guard units, such as the power to excuse their troops from any of the drills or summer camp. Congress amended and strengthened the Dick Act when it passed the National Defense Act of 1908, on May 27, 1908, ch. 204, 35 Stat. 399 (amending Dick Act of Jan. 21, 1903, ch. 196, 32 Stat. 775), which provided that the Guard could not only be called into services within or outside of United States territory but could also be called into service for as long as the president deemed necessary, no longer subject to a nine-month limitation. The National Defense Act of 1916 (June 3, 1916, ch. 134, 39 Stat. 166) separated the Army, the reserves, and the militia and “federalized” the National Guard. Several years later, Congress de clared the National Guard a part of the Army, and the National Guard became solely authorized by the Army Clause of the Constitution when Congress passed the Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 149, 155). This act provided that reserve soldiers would no longer be drafted into federal service and that they would be ordered to active dut y only if “Congress declared a national emergency and authorized the use of troops in excess of those of the Regular Army.” Since 1933 federal law has provided that persons who enlist in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as state National Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service. The authority to order the Guard to federal duty was limited to periods of national emer- gency until Congress passed the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 481), which authorized orders “to active duty or active duty for training” without any emergency require- ment but provided that such orders could not be issued without the consent of the governor of the state concerned. The act also set forth the mission of the reserve components and defined some important terms. For example, the act clarified that the U.S. armed forces are the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, and that the seven reserve components are the National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. Accord- ing to the act, the purpose of the reserve components is to provide “trained units and qualified individuals to be available for active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States in time of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the national security may require.” Further, the act declares that “the National Guard [is] an integral part of the first line defenses of this Nation [and must be main- tained at all times] . [ W]henever units and organizations are needed for the national security in excess of those of the Regular components , the National Guard shall be ordered into the active military service of the United States and continued therein so long as such necessity exists.” The legal basis of the National Guard is founded not only in federal constitutional and statutory law but in state constitutions and statutes as well. The original “militia,” which eventually became known as the Army National Guard, began as a domestic force made up of untrained men led by political generals. The Army Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide and maintain a Navy and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and nav al forces. The Militia Clauses of the Constitution authorize the states to organize the National Guard but give Congress the power to employ the Guard in the service of the country. Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution states that the president of the United States is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actu al Service of the United States.” The Framers of the Constitution authorized Congress to recognize a militia that was largely controlled by the states. The states ge nerally have maintained control over the militi a during times of peace but not during war or national emergency. However, after two state governors refused to consent to federal training missions abroad for their Guard units, the gubernatorial consent requiremen t was partially repealed in 1986 by the Montgomery Amendment, which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent for reservists to be on active duty outside the United State s because of any GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 194 NATIONAL GUARD objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. The SUPREME COURT affirmed the constitutionality of the Montgom- ery Amendment in Perpich v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE , 496 U.S. 334, 110 S. Ct. 2418, 110 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1990). According to the Court, the Militia Clauses of the Constitution granted independent rights to both the states and the federal government to train the militia. Con- gress is free to train the militia as it sees fit, provided it does not prevent the states from also conducting training. Ultimately, the National Guard enjoys a dual status as both a state militia and as an integral part of the federal armed forces. Although the Guard continues to perform important domestic functions, the federal government has ultimate power when it requires the National Guard for national defense In 2005 the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the signifi- cance of the National Guard as a major part of the country’s national defense system increased. In 1991 more than 75,000 reservists participated in the first Gulf War (“Desert Storm”). Since that time, components of the National Guard have completed missions in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, more than 50,000 Nati onal Guard members were called upon to provide security at home and abroad. In 2003 National Guard members and reservists played a crucial role in the war in Iraq. Since then thousands of members of the Guard have been deployed to Iraq and Afghani- stan. The strain on units because of multiple deployments and loss of equipment led the Department of Defense to announce in April 2009 that it would take steps to improve equipment levels and also address the implica- tions of the Guard’s new role as an operational reserve. FURTHER READINGS Bovarnick, Jeff. 1991. “Perpich v. United States Department of Defense: Who’s in Charge of the National Guard?” New England Law Review 26. Breitenbach, Roy W. 1989. “Perpich v. United States Department of Defense: Who Controls the Weekend Soldier?” St. John’s Law Review 64. Derthick, Martha. 1965. The National Guard in Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. National Guard. Available online at www.ngb.army.mil (accessed July 6, 2009). Rich, Steven B. 1994. “The National Guard, Drug Interdic- tion and Counterdrug Activities, Posse Comitatus: The Meaning and Implications of ‘In Federal Service’.” Army Law 35. Theurer, Kenneth M. 1994. “Low-Level Conflicts and the Reserves: Presidential Authority under 10 U.S.C. sec. 673b.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 62. CROSS REFERENCE Militia. NATIONAL HEALTH CARE The development of a national system of health care has remained a major topic of debate throughout the United States, especially since the 1980s. Healthcare costs in the United States rose dramatically between 1965 and 2005, due in part to longer average life spans; older citizens require greater care and technologies that extend life generally result in greater spending. Insurance costs have likewise increased dramatically, and a relatively large percentage of U.S. citizens and other residents are unin- sured or underinsured. According to informa- tion from the Census Bureau in 2009, 46 million Americans, constituting 15 percent of the population, did not have health insurance. The U.S. healthcare system is largely con- trolled by the free market, which is believed to provide limitations on how much physicians and other specialists can charge to their patients. However, many critics of the current system, including organizations composed of physicians, note that the system has become largely bureaucratic and that cost-cutting measures and pressures caused by competition and the need for profit have reduced the effectiveness of medical practice. Despite these problems, many commentators have not been able to agree as to the proper level of control that state or federal governments should have over health care. Following WORLD WAR II, the number of Americans that had private insurance policies grew dramatically. In 1965 Congress approved the development of MEDICARE and MEDICAID to assist the elderly and the poor in paying for medical care. The vast majority of U.S. citizens were covered by either private or public insurance at that time. However, healthcare costs experienced a dramatic growth during the 1970s, and employers were forced to pay for the bulk of this increase as they paid their employees’ premiums. Many companies in the early 1980s began to require employees to pay deductibles on their insurance policies, and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIONAL HEALTH CARE 195 some small companies began to refuse to provide insurance at all. Beginning in the 1980s, scholars and other commentators began to propose a variety of major reforms to the healthcare system to create a truly national system. In 1989 David Himmelstein and Steffe Woolhander in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine maintained that the syste m of health care in the United States was failing. Along with others, they focused on overhead costs and other administrative expenses incurred by insurance companies and healthcare provider s. According to one study in 1987, the total cost of healthcare administration was an estimated $96.8 billion to $120.4 billion, accounting for 19.3 to 24.1 percent of the total spending on health care in the United States. In 1989 the more than 1,500 private health insurers in the United States consumed an estimated 8 percent of the ir total revenues through overhead costs. A number of commentators compared the healthcare syste m in the United States with the national system in Canada. Administrative healthcare costs in the United States were estimated in 1983 to be 60 percent higher than those in Canada, and Canada’s system provides healthcare coverage for all of its citizens. Canada employs a so-called single-payer form of national health insurance in which the federa l government administers and finances the plan. All Canadians are covered under the plan, which provides for a basic benefit package. Citizens are not required to pay a deductible or co-payment, and the government forbids pri- vate insurance companies from duplicating the services provided under the government plan. The single-payer approach reduces overhead expenses dramatically because the government pays the medical costs directly to the provider. Although many in the medical community supported proposals to adopt a form of the single-payer model, critics pointed out that the population of the United States is roughly ten times the population of Canada. Thes e critics also noted that the costs of such a system would be paid for with taxes, so citizens are required to pay for this syste m indirectly. Moreover, adoption of such a system would involve a high level of governmental involvement, which conservative commentators dislike. Other proposals for national health care have been introduced and have likewise been advocated unsuccessfully. Some proposals include mandates that all employers provide insurance coverage to all employees. Other proposals focus on market-based solutions, including the development of medical savings accounts holding funds, which individuals could use to spend for healthcare costs. The competing sides to the debate are generally unable or unwilling to compromise their positions, and the reform effort remains larg ely a matter of rhetoric. The issue of healthcare reform was a major debate during the 1992 presidential campaign. Most of the Democratic candidates, including eventual nominee BILL CLINTON, advocated their own strategies for this reform, as did the incumbent president GEORGE H. W. BUSH.Clinton’s proposal, which was a compromise between several reform alternatives, purported to guar- antee practically universal coverage by requiring employers to provide health insurance to all full-time employees. The plan would have also established a national health board and an administrative agency that would have been responsible for determining the maximum allowable growth rate of insurance premiums of private insurers. After Clinton was elected, the healthcare reform initiative was a top priority in the first two years of his first term. However, Clinton encountered many roadblocks. He was criti- cized for having his wife, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON , take the lead in promoting the proposal. The plan was also very complex, and the administration was criticized for failing to articulate it properly to the public. Several bills that would have given rise to major healthcare reform were introduced before Congress in 1993 and 1994, but Congress refused to take action with respect to most of them. Repub- licans won a sweeping victory in the 1994 congressional elections, and the enthusiasm for providing a national healthcare system declined. The debate over healthcare reemerged with the political campaigns leading to the 2008 presidential election. Senator HILLARY CLINTON (D-N.Y.) and her rival Senator BARACK OBAMA (D-Ill.) proposed major reforms that sought to insure every American through a federal government initiative. On the Republican side, nominee Senator JOHN MCCAIN (Ariz.) proposed a market-driven solution that relied on individ- ual consumers purchasing health insurance from a variety of competing plans nationwide. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 196 NATIONAL HEALTH CARE When President Obama took office in 2009, he announced that health care would be a top priority; in fact, he sought to have a reform plan enacted before Labor Day. By July 2009 the shape of this proposal was clear. Everyone would be able to obtain insurance, regardless of any preexisting conditions. Moreover, it was likely that everyone would be required to purchase health insurance. Wealthier Ameri- cans would likely pay higher taxes to fund the new system. Individuals could keep their employer-based insurance or other private insurance if they were satisfied. If they were not, or if they lacked insurance, they could access a new insurance marketplace, or exchange, where individuals and small employ- ers could compare plans side by side and choose the best plan for them. Many Democrats in Congress insisted that a public option be included in the legislation. Such an option would create a government-run insurance plan, much like Medicare, that would help dec rease healthcare costs through strong competition with private insurance companies. Not surpris- ingly, Republicans and insurance companies argued against this option, contending that the government would have an unfair advantage that would ultimately lead to a single-payer healthcare system similar to those in Canada and Europe. In March 2010 President Obama signed health insurance reform legislation (P.L. 111-148, the Patient Protection and Affordabil- ity Act of 2010). FURTHER READINGS Jonas, Stephen, ed. 2007. An Introduction to the U.S. Health Care System. 6th ed. New York: Springer. Pozgar, George. 2006. Legal Aspects of Health Care Admi- nistration. 10th ed. New York: Jones and Bartlett. Sultz, Harry, and Kristina Young. 2008. Health Care USA: Understanding Its Organization and Delivery. 6th ed. New York: Jones and Bartlett. CROSS REFERENCES Medicaid; Medicare. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT OF 1933 Economists, scholars, politicians, and the public at large were deeply divi ded as to the underlying causes of the Great Depression and the best means to bring it to an end. In the months following his inauguration, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s advisers, along with mem- bers of Congress and representatives from business and labor, drafted the legislation that was introduced in Congress on May 15, 1933, as the National Industrial Recovery Act. The division of opinions about the Depression was reflected in those who drafted NIRA, and the act drew both praise and criticism from across the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the urgency of the economic situation (with unemployment exceeding 30 percent in many parts of the country) pressured Congress to act. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) was one of the most important and daring measures of Roosevelt’s NEW DEAL.It was enacted during the famous First Hundred Days of Roosevelt’s first term in office and was the centerpiece of his initial efforts to reverse the economic collapse of the Great Depression. NIRA was signed into law on June 16, 1933, and was to remain in effect for two years. It attempted to make structural changes in the industrial sector of the economy and to alleviate unemployment with a public works program. It succeeded only partially in accomplishing its goals, and on May 27, 1935, less than three weeks before the act would have expired, the U.S. SUPREME COURT ruled it unconstitutional. The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES had passed the NIRA by a vote of 325 to 76. When it reached the Senate, however, several powerful senators opposed the bill. Some progressives favored alternative legislation authored by Alabama Senator Hugo L. Black antitrust laws at the same time that it called on businesses to play a major role in draf ting “codes of fair The NIRA created the National Recovery Administration (NRA) to oversee the drafting and implementation of the codes of fair competition. Businesses adopting the codes were encouraged to advertise the fact by displaying the NRA blue eagle logo and motto, “We do our part.” FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT LIBRARY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT OF 1933 197 . federal gun control laws, and its legacy overshadows the scope of the law and GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934 191 the limited number of weapons to which. Federation of Independent Busi- nesses (NFIB) is the largest U.S. advocacy organization representing small and indepen- dent businesses. NFIB has a membership of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD. covered two types of guns: machine guns GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 190 NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934 and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt