[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 68 (Thursday, May 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. FLOYD SPENCE

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 19, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4301) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for 
     other purposes:

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
burdensharing amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank].
  This amendment, under the guise of burdensharing, seeks to 
dramatically reduce the number of U.S. troops deployed in Europe. It 
may surprise some of my colleagues to know that, contrary to the 
inaccurate conventional wisdom, less than 10 percent of the defense 
budget is actually allocated for the overseas activities of American 
forces--very little of which has to do with protecting some other 
country.
  More to the point, U.S. Forces based in the European theater are 
responsible for promoting and defending America's interests in some 82 
nations, spanning an area of responsibility that encompasses not just 
Europe but parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan 
Africa. In the past year alone, these forces have been called upon to 
perform a wide variety of missions critical to American national 
interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to be amazed by the logic used by proponents 
of these burdensharing amendments. I am always glad to hear my 
colleagues talk about the need to save the taxpayer money. Yet, the 
only place they ever seem willing to cut is in an already declining and 
underfunded defense budget.
  Who stands to benefit from a reduced forward-deployed American 
military presence in Europe as implied by the Frank amendment? Not the 
United States and certainly not our allies. The principal beneficiaries 
of American retrenchment would be our adversaries. I can assure my 
colleagues that no tears will be shed in North Korea, Libya, Cuba, or 
Iraq, if Congress ultimately compels the President to reduce 
drastically our military presence abroad.
  The best way to protect our interests is to remain strong militarily 
and to maintain our many international alliances which have brought an 
unprecedented measure of stability and security to Europe since World 
War II. In that context, it is vital that the United States sustain a 
credible force abroad, especially in Europe. As the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili, has observed, ``Our 
military contribution [to NATO] is significant compared to those of 
other member nations; so is our influence. Nothing can be more 
favorable for U.S. interests in Europe than to retain that degree of 
influence.''
  The amendment authored by Mr. Frank would not reduce costs, it would 
simply reduce America's ability to influence global events. It is a 
wrong-headed approach to protecting and promoting U.S. security 
interests and should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this ill-considered amendment.