'More Than The Entire Marine Corps!': Sara Jacobs & John Garamendi Blast GOP Over DHS Budget

5 months ago

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing in July, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) and Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) spoke about the budget for the Department of Homeland Security.

Transcript

00:00We will now consider log number 5627R2 by Ms. Jacobs. For what purpose does a

00:07gentlelady from Southern California seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an

00:11amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment. Without

00:15objection to reading the amendments dispensed with, the chair recognizes the gentlelady for the

00:19purpose of explaining her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would

00:28prohibit FY26 FSRM funds for barracks and child development centers from being

00:33diverted to fund operations at the southern border. Our military's best asset

00:38isn't our fighter jets, it's not our destroyers, or our aircraft carriers. It's

00:43our service members, but the investments of this committee, the investments of

00:47Congress, do not reflect that. Many of our service members are living in barracks

00:51that are not up to standards, which compromises their health and their

00:54ability to complete their missions. All of us on this committee have seen the

00:58horrifying GAO report from the end of 2023. The issue of unsafe barracks is not

01:03isolated, it's not a few one-off incidents, it is a systemic problem affecting

01:07various bases across the entire country. That's why we have FSRM, or Facilities

01:13Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization funds, so we can do the

01:16necessary renovations, upgrades, and upkeep to ensure the health and safety of our

01:20service members. And look, all of you have been to military housing before. We are not

01:26talking about building Brits Carltons. We're talking about a basic level of

01:30health, sanitation, and safety. But unfortunately, we've seen reports that the

01:36Army shifted $1 billion, that's right, $1 billion, meant for barracks to instead

01:42fund its surge of troops to the southern border. And even if this money were

01:46replenished, it should never have been taken from the FSRM accounts in the first

01:50place. We don't need additional troops at the southern border, and you don't need

01:55to take it from me, though I do live there. Take it from the Chairman of the

01:59Joint Chief of Staff, General Dan Kane, who agreed with me in front of this

02:02committee last month that there's currently no military invasion on our

02:06southern border. And again, you all just increased DHS's budget to more than the

02:11entire Marine Corps. There's no invasion, there's no need to send our troops to the

02:17border, and there's certainly no need to take funds away from maintaining military

02:21quality of life infrastructure to do this. So I urge my colleagues to support

02:25my common-sense amendment that simply says no FY26 FSRM funds for quality of

02:31life infrastructure can be diverted to fund operations at the southern border. I

02:35yield back. Generally, he yields back, Chair, and I recognize as himself. This

02:39amendment seeks to outlaw something that isn't happening. Facilities

02:43sustainment money authorized and appropriated for barracks and child care

02:46facilities is not being spent on border security, and it cannot be reprogrammed

02:50for those purposes without congressional approval. This amendment is nothing more

02:54than a false effort to raise doubt about the tremendous progress the Trump

02:58administration has made to secure our border, our child members to oppose the

03:02amendment. And with that, I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.

03:05Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting. We now have three amendments, all of which

03:14revolve around the same issue. Mr. Vasquez raised the issue that walls may not be the

03:21best way to prevent immigrants from coming into the United States, that there may be

03:28other techniques available. He made a very good argument on that. I attempted to

03:33support him with a real-life example. Then Mr.

03:37Fallon came forward with how to pay for it, and how to do it in a more cost-effective way,

03:47contracting, rather than using military personnel and equipment. That's wise. We ought to be doing

03:54that. And then Ms. Jacobs raises the question here with her amendment and the issue that the specific

04:06accounts within the Department of Defense's appropriation should not be used for those contracts

04:14and for those facilities, remote or whatever they may be. But rather, the argument that I was making

04:24this issue really falls to the homeland security and specifically to the $170 billion that is now

04:34available as a result of the reconciliation, available to ICE, Customs and Border Patrol, and

04:42related immigration activities. That's where this should be paid for. And Ms. Jacobs raises a very,

04:51very important point, giving a specific example. We know that the barracks in the Texas base are antiquated,

05:00moldy, broken down, toilets don't work, and on and on and on. And we put forth in last year's,

05:07actually in this year's legislation, that's now in effect that a billion dollars was to be spent to

05:13upgrade those facilities for our military personnel, specifically on barracks. There's more over on the

05:20housing side of it. And that money is being ripped off. It's being ripped off to pay for a border wall.

05:29And so the flow of these three amendments would indicate, first of all, a border wall may not be the

05:35solution. It may be the most costly and ineffective solution. There are other solutions available to stem the

05:42immigrants from coming across the border in certain places, all well and good. Mr. Fallon raised the

05:49issue of contracting. I think that's a good idea. But why should the Department of Defense be the

05:57contractor when it should be Homeland Security, and specifically ICE or Customs and Border Patrol?

06:05So we have a circle here. Three amendments, one Republican and two Democrats, all of which

06:13come together. And for us, and our task is to develop wise policy, wise solutions to profoundly

06:22important issues. I'm not going to debate the wisdom of border security and who did better or who did worse.

06:28That's not the point. The point that is facing this committee, what is the best way, given that the

06:35committee will probably go to continuing to build some sort of border security system? Let's do it wisely.

06:42Let's do it in a way that's most effective, cost effective. And let's make sure that the appropriate

06:48governmental entity that is responsible for this, Customs and Border Patrol and ICE,

06:55bear the burden of cost as well as the contracting. And that this is not a direct function of the

07:05Department of Defense. With that, I really think we have an opportunity here. And I would yield my

07:11remaining 57 seconds to Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Garamondi. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that they

07:18already can't use this money. But actually, here's an article from military.com that the Pentagon

07:24diverted $1 billion from Army barracks to fund border mission. Now, they did end up replenishing it,

07:30but the idea that they could do this again and not replenish it is available to them unless we

07:35specifically say in law that they can't, which is all I'm saying that we should do. Thank you.

07:40Does Chairman yield back? Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orden.

07:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've lived in barracks as a junior enlisted guy in the United States and in

07:57at least two other countries. I've also lived in Navy housing for a long period of time. And

08:05they deserve attention. I mean, this is a quality of life issue for our military members. However,

08:10Ms. Jacobs just stated the funds that this amendment are addressing or the potential funds has already

08:19been rectified. And we have to understand that more people have died from fentanyl overdoses and were

08:24killed in World War II. And when we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United

08:31States, it was against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And so this amendment is an attempt

08:39to kneecap the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense from deploying troops to an area

08:45where they're needed. We've had over 20 million people enter this country unlawfully under the Biden

08:53administration. The number of fentanyl deaths have skyrocketed under the Biden administration.

08:59We've had two months in a row where not a single person who entered this country unlawfully was returned

09:04or sent back into the United States. That's due to the Trump administration.

09:08And we're able to lower the numbers of people crossing the border because of Pete Hegseth

09:15and deploying troops to the border. So if my colleagues truly care about these people,

09:22and I'm sure they do, I just think they're misguided here, they have to understand that at times we need

09:28to take measures that some of us are uncomfortable with but are completely lawful and within the authority

09:35of the President of the United States as Commander-in-Chief and as Secretary of Defense who is acting

09:39as directed by the Commander-in-Chief. So I vociferously oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

09:49The gentleman yields back, Chair. I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlihan.

09:54Touche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Representative Jacobs for introducing what I

10:03believed would be a very important amendment to protect the very significant work that this committee

10:07here was able to accomplish just last year. We have to protect resources that Congress already allocated

10:13for barracks and for child care, amongst other things, from being moved to things such as border expenditures.

10:19Last year's NDAA was a triumph. It was a bipartisan effort to improve the lives of our service members

10:26and their families. And my friend and colleague Representative Bacon and I led the quality of life

10:30panel and our quality of life report served as the core of last year's bill. Last year's NDAA made

10:37significant strives to improve the lives of our service members and their families, and this committee

10:42bipartisanly voted to provide those funds to upgrade housing, to build child care facilities, and much more.

10:48Our military is strong because of our people, and we need to take care of them and their loved ones.

10:54Undoing our work, or possibly undoing our all the work from last year, or going back on our promises

11:01to our service members, of course does the exact opposite. So it's for that reason that I strongly

11:06support Representative Jacobs' amendment to protect this funding and to make sure that it is used, as intended,

11:11to support our service members. And I agree with the Chairman that we shouldn't have to bake this

11:16prohibition into law, because Congress does this constitutionally through Article I.

11:22But it seems clear that we may be in a place where we might need belts and suspenders in this case,

11:27to hold the role of Congress and the Constitution together, and this case and many others,

11:31unfortunately. And with that, I yield back.

11:35General Lady yields back, Chair. I recognize the General Lady from Hawaii. Ms. Takuda.

11:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this is not about kneecapping the President. This is about

11:46actually showing our service members that we care about them, so that maybe after they get sent to

11:51the border, or wherever else they might be—a few of us saw them out in Guantanamo—that perhaps they

11:56can come back to something better than barracks in such appalling conditions that you can literally see the

12:01black mold on the wall, the leaks, cramped spaces with little to no privacy, lack of kitchen facilities,

12:07unreliable electrical systems, no air conditioning in the heat of summer, I should notice.

12:14And if we ask ourselves why, why did they have to come back to these kind of unbearable conditions,

12:19unaccompanied housing being in such bad conditions, we can look back to the first Trump administration

12:25and see how the Pentagon diverted billions then, back then, documented, from barracks maintenance to the

12:30border wall. For the Army alone, we have over 300 permanent-party barracks that are in poor to

12:36failing condition. And this data understates the problem. When GAO visited barracks, supposedly in

12:43good condition, they found significant quality of life problems like air conditioning, plumbing not

12:49working, electrical systems broken. Some were even deemed uninhabitable at this time. And while there seems

12:57to be a dispute, although it's well documented and widely documented, that $1,051,500, I believe, was

13:06diverted from SFRM to maneuver units, the message that this sends to our service member is the damning

13:15part. To service members and our families, the discussion, and we know the fact, that a billion

13:21dollars in the first six months of this administration was diverted from barracks and quality of life and

13:27operations and maintenance to the border is sending the message that we really don't care about your

13:32health and wellness. We want you to sacrifice everything, put it on the line, and essentially,

13:37we're just going to do what we will with this money, and not Congress. I'm talking about this

13:41administration. And by removing a billion dollars in the first six months from this particular fund,

13:47we're essentially guaranteeing that we will ultimately never fix these barracks. And many of us have

13:52walked through them. We have seen the mold on the walls ourselves. We have talked to people who have

13:56had to live in these, you know, uninhabitable conditions. The reality is we're never going to

14:01catch up with this backlog. We're likely going to have to tear them down because we've waited too long

14:06to fix them. And if we can all agree, and it sounds like we can, that FSRM should not be diverted to the

14:12border wall, and at least right now we know they are flush as a result of the big, ugly bill that we just

14:16passed, then let's pass this amendment that Ms. Jacob is proposing. That FSRM should not and cannot

14:23be used and diverted for the border, and should be used, in fact, for its intended purpose, which is

14:30to make sure that the barracks and living conditions of our service members and their families are safe

14:36and well. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

14:38Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.

14:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my colleague from California for introducing this

14:48bill, and I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for putting it so eloquently, what I was pretty

14:54much planning to say, but I will reinforce the point, right? And, you know, to my colleague from

15:00Wisconsin, you know, this is not meant to take the kneecaps out from the President or the Secretary

15:07of Defense, but it is to ensure that we take care of the quality of life of our service

15:12members and their families, which is important. And I remind the committee that, you know, during the

15:182019 first Trump administration, that money was taken from the Army to support the the border wall.

15:29So to say that it can't be happened or that it won't happen is false because it's already happened

15:34before. And so this law would protect those funds that ensure that the administration carries out what

15:41Congress intended for it to carry out, that it actually executes the plan in the budget that

15:47Congress put forth. And so that's why I support this amendment. And with that, I yield back.

15:53The gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition to speak on Ms. Jacobs' amendment?

16:01There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs. So many

16:05is in favor, we'll say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.

16:11The gentlelady would ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is postponed until a later time.

'More Than The Entire Marine Corps!': Sara Jacobs & John Garamendi Blast GOP Over DHS Budget

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended