‘It’s Cheaper Because They Cut Corners’: Sara Jacobs Pokes Holes In Pat Fallon’s CBP Hiring Plans

Forbes Breaking News

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing before the Congressional recess, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) raised concerns around Rep. Pat Fallon’s (R-TX) cost-cutting proposal to hire contractors at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Transcript

00:00We will now consider log number 4778 by Mr. Fallon. For what purpose does the

00:07gentleman from Texas seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I got an amendment at the desk.

00:11Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, a reading

00:14of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas

00:17for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is

00:20about synergy. This amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to hire contractors

00:25to support border security by providing services like logistics, monitoring,

00:29transportation, data entry, and more to assist US Customs and Border Patrol. The

00:34military has been aiding with operations at the southern border for more than two

00:38decades. When military personnel are at the border, they assist in several types of

00:43roles, including things as simple as logistics, clerical roles, even directing

00:47traffic. Many of these roles currently are filled by military personnel, could be

00:52filled by contractors for a, here's the key, fraction of the cost. This is a

00:57common-sense amendment that was proposed by both the Biden and Trump

01:02administrations. The DOT estimates that using contractors instead of military

01:06personnel in FY24 could have saved 105 million dollars in lodging per diem and

01:13family separation costs, which range from about 166 to 304 dollars per day and

01:20250 dollars per person per month. So the average cost savings would be about 20%. If you

01:25look at fully integrating this, come FY26, we're talking 533 million dollars in

01:32savings. So I think it's a common-sense amendment and hopefully it'll pass with

01:38flying colors. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

01:40The gentleman yields back. Does anyone seek ranking members recognized?

01:45Thank you, Mr. Chair. I oppose this amendment. Basically, what we're making DOD do

01:52now is DHS's job, which is contracting for border security. Now, we recognize that, you

01:59know, bipartisan administrations and Congresses support DOD in a support role

02:04on border security. They've performed that role, you know, in a variety of

02:08different ways, which people support broadly, may disagree about some of the

02:13specific aspects of it. But this is a pretty significant expansion of that

02:17because it puts DOD in the position of contracting. It is something that the

02:23Department of Homeland Security is supposed to be in charge of and should be

02:27doing. It is mission creep and costs the Department of Defense money they

02:31shouldn't have to spend. So I oppose the amendment and yield back.

02:35The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs, is recognized.

02:40Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, this amendment would grant the Pentagon open-ended

02:46authority to hire troops and private military contractors for routine border

02:50enforcement, blurring the bright line between national defense and domestic

02:54policing. Our armed forces exist to deter foreign adversaries, not to police

02:59immigration checkpoints. Every soldier, aircraft, and dollar shifted to the border is

03:04taken from critical missions, such as deterring aggression in the Indo-Pacific,

03:08responding to disasters or safeguarding sea lanes. And before you say what could be

03:12more important to our national security than stopping an invasion, I'll remind you

03:16that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appointed by this current

03:20president testified to our committee only weeks ago that there is no invasion at

03:25our southern border. And y'all just increased DHS's budget beyond even the budget of the

03:30the entire Marine Corps. So the idea that on top of that misguided investment, they would

03:36also need to use U.S. military assets is laughable at best and deeply concerning at

03:41worst. Bringing in private military firms only magnifies these risks. Rushed hiring, thin

03:48training, limited accountability, and a powerful lobbying class with a financial stake in

03:52permanent militarization. It's cheaper because they cut corners. We've seen how contractor

03:58scandals overseas damage U.S. credibility. We should not import that problem onto American

04:04soil. Border communities thrive on cooperation with CBP and local law enforcement, not on the

04:10site of Humvees and concertina wire along Main Street. And I would know, because unlike many

04:15of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I actually represent a border community. And a

04:20standing military presence chills commerce and erodes trust without fixing the real gaps in

04:24our immigration system. This proposal diverts resources, muddles oversight, and undermines

04:29the foundational principle that the military stays out of the day-to-day domestic law enforcement.

04:34I urge my colleagues to reject it and keep the Pentagon focused on genuine external threats.

04:38I yield back.

04:40I must say I'm impressed that the young lady used the term y'all with such comfort. She must

04:49be from Southern California.

04:54Chair, I recognize the young lady from California, Mr. Garamendi.

05:02A brief question to Mr. Fallon, if I might, if he would take a question.

05:08Yeah, sure.

05:10The money for these contracts, does it come from the Department of Defense's appropriations?

05:17I know it saves the, yeah, the Defense Department would save them half a billion dollars.

05:22So it is the Defense Department dollars?

05:24I believe so.

05:31Reclaiming my time.

05:33In the Reconciliation Bill, there's 150, maybe 170 billion dollars for the border security,

05:51Department of Homeland and ICE and related activities, Customs and Border Patrol, 170 billion dollars,

05:59of which, and that's all additional money over and above their base.

06:05I believe that is more or less the right numbers.

06:09So my question here, Mr. Fallon, not to you, but to this issue is, why are we using the Department

06:19of Defense money to do contracts with private entities, which we can argue the wisdom of

06:26that, and I don't oppose that, depending upon the nature of the contract.

06:31But why would that contract be paid for by the Department of Defense rather than Homeland

06:37Security, in this case either ICE or Customs and Border Patrol?

06:43Now I've been on the readiness committee for quite a while, and I'm going, that will undoubtedly

06:51be readiness money that will not be available for the military to train, equip, repair, well,

07:01maybe even upgrade barracks and living facilities.

07:07That money is going to be used for the purposes of immigration control, when I don't intend

07:15to debate the wisdom of that, they say, that's okay, let's do it.

07:19But why use the Department of Defense money?

07:22You argued correctly that it's cheaper to contract than to send the troops out there, and we've

07:30seen this significantly in Southern California, the extraordinary expense of having the, well,

07:43troops, National Guard, and others standing in front of federal buildings, just with no purpose

07:54other than to stand there, and yet the clock is ticking, and the money is spent.

08:01So my opposition here is not on the notion of contracting, but who's going to pay for the contracting?

08:09There's another argument to be made, that the military shouldn't be doing this in the

08:12first place.

08:13We heard that earlier with the posse comitatus issue, and we're going to probably hear it

08:17again.

08:18I won't bring that point up here, but if this is to pass, and it probably will, considering

08:25where, how divided we are in this committee.

08:28If it is to pass, I would urge Mr. Fallon that you consider amending this bill so that

08:38if the military is to do the contract and the military is reimbursed from the $170 billion

08:45of new money that Homeland Security, and specifically ICE and Customs and Border Patrol, will have

08:54available to them, and that we use the Department of Defense money to deal with those things

09:02that increase the readiness and the lethality of our troops.

09:07With that, I yield back.

09:08The gentleman yields back.

09:11The chair and I recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez.

09:15Thank you, Chairman.

09:16And thank you so much to the gentleman from Texas for putting forward this proposal.

09:20If you're interested in cost savings and border security, I have got a proposal for you.

09:24And it's going to save not millions, but billions of dollars.

09:27In fact, I just talked about it.

09:29Now, when we skip the campaign speeches and actually get to saving taxpayer money, we can

09:34achieve more secure border using better technology and using innovation.

09:40And you've just proved my point.

09:41So I appreciate you bringing this up.

09:43And although my amendment will likely be voted down, let's just think about the billions

09:47versus the millions of dollars that I'm proposing to save on border security and have this discussion.

09:53But until then, that extra $46.5 billion that goes to DHS for securing our border should

09:58stay in DHS and shouldn't be robbed from our servicemen and women.

10:03The gentleman yields back.

10:05Does any other members seek recognition on the Fallon Amendment?

10:10There's no further debate.

10:11The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Fallon.

10:14Those who are in favor will say aye.

10:15Aye.

10:16Those opposed, no.

10:17No.

10:18No.

10:19Second.

10:20Chair, the ayes have it.

10:21The amendment's agreed to.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended