A House committee on Wednesday adopted an amendment that would block the use of private funds for National Guard deployments across state lines.
Rep. Veronica EscobarVeronica EscobarCourt rulings put Biden in tough spot with Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy Supreme Court ruling on Texas abortion law rattles lawmakers Sunday shows - Biden domestic agenda, Texas abortion law dominate MORE (D-Texas) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would not allow National Guard deployments from one state into another to be financed by private or nongovernmental grant donations unless it was used for emergency or disaster relief.
“I don't believe that our National Guard should be up for auction or up for sale. I think that limits transparency. We have no idea who is funding private donations for what some could or might possibly consider political purposes,” Escobar said after introducing the amendment.
“We don't know if any of those sources are foreign government sources that are being funneled through private entities. We don't even know if those sources are adversaries to our interests,” she continued.
The amendment comes after South Dakota Gov. Kristi NoemKristi Lynn NoemOSHA faces big challenge with Biden vaccine mandate Overnight Health Care — Departing FDA vaccine regulators argue against COVID-19 booster shots DeSantis: Local governments will face K fines for imposing vaccine mandates MORE (R) used private money by way of a Tennessee billionaire’s donation to subsidize the deployment of National Guard members to Texas.
“The border is a national security crisis that requires the kind of sustained response only the National Guard can provide. We should not be making our own communities less safe by sending our police or Highway Patrol to fix a long-term problem President BidenJoe BidenTrump endorses challenger in Michigan AG race On The Money: Democrats get to the hard part Health Care — GOP attorneys general warn of legal battle over Biden's vaccine mandate MORE’s Administration seems unable or unwilling to solve,” Noem said in a statement in late June.
However, the amendment received some pushback, including from Rep. Austin ScottJames (Austin) Austin ScottThis week: Democrats kick off chaotic fall with Biden's agenda at stake House committee moves to block private funds for National Guard deployments House Republican takes part in hearing while driving car MORE (R-Ga.), who balked at the idea that the National Guard was for sale.
“I'm opposed to the amendment. I think that's an absolutely ridiculous accusation that National Guards are up for sale. You know, the governor of one state would have to coordinate with the governor of another state, so you get two or multiple sets of elected officials that would have to be in agreement for the Guard to be deployed into a separate state,” Scott said. “There's just no reason for this amendment, and I'm opposed to it.”
“I do want to point out that sadly this is not a hypothetical. This actually did happen. All that coordination that Mr. Scott just mentioned would have to happen happened. And a private person basically worked with the governor to rent out the National Guard to go perform a mission outside of that state,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithStumbling plutonium pit project reveals DOE's uphill climb of nuclear modernization Congress should control its appetite for legacy programs when increasing defense budget House panel advances 8B defense bill MORE (D-Wash.) responded.