Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which protects defense-related activities from the aggressive use of the Endangered Species Act.
This amendment would curb the Endangered Species Act's application in areas used for national defense-related operations and prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from designating areas necessary for military operations as crucial habitats.
Compliance with environmental laws has created restrictions on how DOD manages, plans, and conducts training exercises on its installations. According to DOD, 85 percent of Army installations have threatened endangered species present. Two million acres of Army training and testing lands have training restrictions in place related to stringent ESA requirements. These restrictions, when applied, harm our readiness and our mission.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, the issue that I bring forward is a longstanding issue.
A 2004 review by GAO discusses issues at the Barry M. Goldwater Range at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, where officials reported that nearly 10 percent of the F-16 training exercises were canceled due to the presence of an endangered species on the training range impact area. That doesn't include the long-range missile testing that now has to be canceled and rescheduled on a regular basis.
Nearly 80 percent of Marine Corps Aviation units train at the Goldwater Range before deployment. The range provides the space and infrastructure for marines to receive this critical tactical aviation training, air-to-ground and air-to-air.
Maybe DOD hasn't asked for it, but my colleagues should go out to the Barry M. Goldwater Range area. If my colleagues are so doggone concerned about biodiversity, they should get their tails down to the border to take a look at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Look at the garbage that has come through because of the illegal aliens and the trash that is there. It is tons. The biodiversity that has been impacted there is incalculable.
They have cut roads through this otherwise pristine desert that sits right next to the Barry M. Goldwater Range. We have the animals that are driven through. We have the individuals.
If biologists determine that a Sonoran pronghorn may be present within 3 miles of training range impact areas, missions are redirected or canceled. That is a regular occurrence.
I get a kick out of people who live in Northern Virginia. They sell cars. They want to talk about car sales for EVs. Get your tail down to the border. Look at the biodiversity degradation that is there. Talk to the people who run the Barry M. Goldwater Range and other military installations. They are going to tell you that our readiness project is endangered because of strict ESA rules.
This amendment would help protect our mission and our readiness.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, when you say zero evidence, I guess the GAO report gets discounted. I guess the evidence from the people who run the range gets discounted. I guess hearing from the contractors who work there and have to reschedule repeatedly because of the enforcement of the ESA is not evidence either. I guess the fact that China doesn't have to worry about environmental impacts from an ESA impacting their readiness is zero evidence.
When we look at it, in the Southwest, you have the acuna cactus. That is preventing, in many areas in the entire eastern portion of the Goldwater Range, the use of military targets and off-road vehicles, which impedes the ability to get mission ready.
With the continued rising threats abroad, Congress must ensure that military readiness is not negatively impacted by regulatory compliance constraints from radical environmentalists. This amendment ensures that the Department of Defense can conduct the training necessary to keep the men and women of our Armed Forces prepared.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, as I have done for each of the past 5 years--this is the sixth year in a row--I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which would prohibit funds for any project or activity related to NATO until the Secretary of Defense certifies to congressional defense committees that each member of NATO has spent 2 percent of their respective GDP on defense expenditures.
In 2006, NATO members agreed to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense spending to ensure the readiness of the alliance. By 2014, just three members had reached the agreed-upon 2 percent funding level. Under a new 2014 agreement, each member country has until 2024 to reach their 2 percent goal.
Unfortunately, as of 2023, just 11 of the 32 countries, including the United States, contributed at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. This has to change.
In 2023, Italy was projected to spend just 1.46 percent of its GDP on defense, and its Defense Minister stated that they will certainly not meet NATO's target in 2024 and will likely not meet NATO's target by 2028.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, in 2023, Germany stepped back from its commitment to meeting NATO's target of spending 2 percent, going back on its 2022 commitment to invest more than 2 percent of their GDP to defense year after year.
In 2024, that number is expected to grow, and about two-thirds of NATO member countries are expected to at least meet the 2 percent target. That would be great. Much of the growth that we have seen recently was due, in large part, to President Trump's push to our NATO allies to increase spending to meet the 2 percent standard.
However, more work must be done to ensure NATO allies are paying their fair share. The U.S. continues to spend far more than its fair share and takes on the overwhelming responsibility of being the world's police.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, we hear about Ukraine and NATO. We haven't even discussed China and other areas around the world that are concerns.
What is our number one threat? For 20 years, we have been told it is our national debt by bipartisan leaders of the military and the Department of Defense. Why do we end up carrying free riders? Why do we lead the way on everything? Because we are America, but let me tell you something: That can't endure.
Why did the USSR go away? The USSR went away not because there was a coup or an uprising. It was a business enterprise that had to declare bankruptcy. That is why the USSR failed, ultimately. At $35 trillion in national debt, we have that danger, as well. We cannot afford to carry free riders indefinitely.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, if you want to strengthen NATO and you want to stop free riding, maybe you use leverage. Maybe you use leverage. If you want to strengthen our country, maybe use leverage to get your partners who are supposed to be your partners to start paying their share.
The only reason that this is even improving is because the previous administration made that a big issue and made that demand. We should make that demand still.
I reiterate: The number one security threat, according to a long line of DOD officials, is our national debt. At some point you simply can't keep funding the military operations you want to fund. If your partners aren't willing to pay their share, you don't strengthen them, you weaken us.
That is what this amendment is designed to do. It doesn't prevent us from putting forward our operations anywhere, but it does encourage and leverage our partners to actually pay their fair share.
Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source