[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.