[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______


                      HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 18, 1996

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 13, 1996, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 244, 245, 246, and 247 
during the debate on H.R. 3610, the fiscal year 1997 National Security 
Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on 
rollcall 244 (Schroeder amendment), ``No'' on rollcall 245 (Shays 
amendment), ``No'' on rollcall 246 (DeFazio amendment), and ``Aye'' on 
rollcall 247 (final passage).
  The reason I would have opposed the amendments to cut the defense 
budget--as the Schroeder and Shays amendments attempted to do--and 
supported the bill on final passage is based on my concerns about 
cutting the defense budget too deep, too quickly. Defense spending, 
adjusted for inflation, has been cut each year since 1985. While I have 
supported budgets that lower our defense spending in the past, I am 
wary about reducing our defense capabilities any further.
  Dangers still exits--such as the situation in Bosnia, Haiti, and 
North Korea--and future threats are impossible to predict. It is clear 
that the United States must maintain a significant military force to 
deter and defeat future aggressors and to safeguard our Nation against 
the threat of nuclear proliferation, continuing regional conflict, and 
global instability. I believe that H.R. 3610 sets forth defense 
spending levels that are fiscally responsible while providing an 
appropriate defense of our Nation.
  Finally, I would have opposed the DeFazio amendment, stipulating that 
none of the funding included in the bill to develop an anti-missile 
defense of U.S. territory could be used for space-based antimissile 
weapons. In my view, it would be shortsighted and irresponsible to 
limit our options in seeking to find the best way to defend our Nation 
against a nuclear missile attack.

                          ____________________