Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman of the full committee in opposing this amendment, but I must say if the House gave an award to the most improved amendment writing, the authors of this amendment would certainly win that award. It is a vast improvement over the burden sharing amendments of prior sessions. But it still has the same fundamental flaw. It proceeds from the notion that our forces stationed and deployed abroad are there in defense of Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Belgians or someone else. They are there in the interests of the national security of the United States. They are not mercenaries. The amendment is totally simplistic in seeking to say, in effect, we will unilaterally define what fair share burdens will be. You will pay it or otherwise sanctions will be imposed. How are we going to determine that Portugal should be paying the same share as a France or Germany? The amendment simply does not have a practical underpinning to support it, and should be resisted.
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to burden sharing for U.S. forces stationed abroad.
Share
More from Herbert H. Bateman
Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that there is a world of difference between not exceeding which is a floor, not a ceiling. I would further remind my colleagues that everything they have heard on behalf of this bill or this amendment…
earlier today we said a sad farewell to one of the best our Nation has to offer. I know Mike Boorda was a friend, a very special friend. Last Thursday our colleague from Mississippi, General Montgomery, spoke of him as a brother. I too…
I do have to tell my colleagues in the House that within the last hour, I have spoken to General Wilhelm; and General Wilhelm says that he does not believe this figure of a 300-person cap on military personnel in Colombia is realistic. And…





