David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield, in light of the fact that the gentleman mentioned my name?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I said I will yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I will explain this. Let me explain the situation as it exists. Last Friday, we saw an agreement that was struck between the European Union and the People's Republic of China. That agreement will basically seal the deal whereby, as I said, the other 134 nations that are members of the WTO will be able to have access to the Chinese consumer market, and it is absolutely essential that the United States of America, if we as a nation are going to have that same access to the Chinese market, that we grant permanent normal trade relations. Why? Because under the Jackson-Vanik provision that exists, the constant review would, in fact, prevent us from having the consistent access that all the other countries have into the Chinese market. It seems to me that as we look at that, it is very important for us, as the world's paramount leader, to be not behind the 8-ball but, in fact, we are the ones who should be providing the leadership, and that is exactly what we have done to date. We have been encouraging the other member nations of the WTO to proceed with their negotiations with the People's Republic of China. We had, actually, what I thought was a very good arrangement a year ago this past April; and unfortunately it was not accepted. But negotiations continued and our great U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. Barshefsky was able to put together a very good deal last November when she sealed that package, and the contingency is that we must grant permanent normal trade relations to make that happen. Now I believe that we should continue to have some review. We do need to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that we raise tough questions about human rights policies, about other provisions. That is why we have included what is referred to as the Bereuter-Levin proposal. That proposal will allow us the opportunity to, through a Helsinki-type commission, have 14 representatives, 9 Members of Congress and 5 appointees from the executive branch, who will meet and make recommendations and observe the human rights policies that exist in China. So when my friend said that he believes it is important that we continue to review it, we are going to have a delegation of Members of Congress who will be part of this. I see my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) has just arrived, and I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. I agree there have been violations of agreements. That is why we have a retaliation mechanism within the WTO. We have not had a means by which we could retaliate. That is what the WTO is all about. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am happy to yield to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I have to go upstairs. I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), and if I can come back in just a few minutes I will try to do that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken out this Special Order to lead at this point what will be a one-man truth squad to try and respond to some of the things that have been said over the past hour about this issue. During that time, I am happy to yield to my friend from Oregon who refused to, I guess like the Chinese leadership, refused to yield to me when I was simply going to ask a question in response to the fact that the gentleman from Michigan referred to me. So let me just take a few minutes to respond to a couple of those points that were made that come to mind and then talk about this general issue, and then I should inform my friends that I would love to do this over the hour, but because of the fact that my colleagues would not yield to me and because of time constraints, I have to be upstairs for another commitment in about 12 minutes. There are two television programs. I am going to be debating, in fact, the minority whip on one of the television programs where he and I will discuss this, but it was a previous commitment that my office made for me. So I hope my friends will understand. But I will try within the 12-minute period that I have to, unlike my friends from the other side of the aisle, yield to them for a question or a comment, and I will do it just as generously as I possibly can. It will certainly be more generous than my democratic colleagues did. Let me say this: this vote that we are going to be casting the day after tomorrow is the single most important vote that we will cast, clearly, in this session of the Congress. I believe that as we look at this question, it really transcends simply the issue of job creation and economic growth. It has to do with whether the United States of America is going to maintain its role as the paramount global leader. Why is that so important? It is very important because this building in which we are all seated or standing, happens to be the symbol throughout the world for freedom, and one of the most important freedoms that exists happens to be economic freedom. Now, my colleagues were talking about the fact that over the past 2 decades, we have seen the United States grant Most Favored Nation status to the People's Republic of China, and look how bad the situation is. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to get an argument from me about many of the problems that exist in China today. I am the first to admit that we have very serious human rights problems. In fact, I will take a back seat to no one in this Congress or anywhere in demonstrating concern about human rights. I have adopted Refuseniks, I brought wounded Mujahadine in from Afghanistan during that war, I have worked for human rights, I marched to the Chinese embassy the week after the Tiananmen Square massacre in June of 1989. So anyone who tries to claim that those of us who believe passionately in economic freedom and want to expand that throughout China are somehow placing American business interests above the interests of our very precious American values are wrong. They are wrong in making that claim. They fail to realize the interdependence of political and economic freedom, and they fail to recognize that while over the last couple of decades we have dealt with a situation which has provided China one-way access to the U.S. consumer market, this is a vote that is unlike any in the past. This vote does, in fact, pry open that market with 1.3 billion consumers, nearly five times the population of the United States. Do they have a standard of living or a wage rate that is anything like that of the United States? Absolutely not. Mr. Speaker, I want them to. I want them to. I aspire to seeing economic strength throughout the world and even for the impoverished hundreds of millions in China. Now the minority whip talked earlier about some quotes that came from Chinese leaders stating that if in the area of insurance, for example, they do not like a decision that is made, they will ignore it. They talked about the area of agriculture and some leader in China saying if they do not like exactly what is taking place in some deal that is put together, that they will just null and void it. That is the whole point of what it is we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to put into place a structure whereby the People's Republic of China, a country that, yes, has violated agreements in the past, a country that has not been forthright, a country that has been very repressive, they will, under this agreement, be forced to live with a rules-based trading system; and, as I said, for the first time they will be forced to open up their markets. What happens if they decide to thumb their nose at an agreement that is made? We have for the first time, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity with 134 other nations, this international organization known as the WTO, and I know many people like to criticize it, but do they know what the goal of the WTO going right back to when it was the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1947, established following the Second World War, do they know what the goal of it was? To cut taxes; to cut taxes. That is the raison d'etre for what was the GATT and now the WTO, because, Mr. Speaker, a tariff is a tax. A tax, unfortunately, creates a situation whereby we do not allow for the free flow of goods and services. Let us talk about the issue of automobiles, and I will say that on the issue of automobiles we have a situation where we export about 600 cars a year into China. That tariff is 45 percent. It drops under this agreement. I cannot say that every one of the 1.3 billion Chinese will be able to buy a sport utility vehicle at $50,000, but I will say this, that there will be an opportunity to sell more U.S.-manufactured automobiles in China. I will say another thing. They keep saying on the other side of the aisle that we are trying to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that companies have a chance to move to China, set up operations there. Well, Mr. Speaker, they can do that today. Guess what? They have to do it today because of domestic content requirements that exist in China. But under this agreement, those domestic content requirements are thrown out. So the incentive that many companies have to open up their plants in China today will not be as great. I do not want to stop any company from making a business decision if they want to move to China. I do not think it is my responsibility. I do not think it is government's responsibility to block the free flow of goods, services, ideas, or businesses, but I do think that anything we can do to provide an incentive for a level playing field, whereby these companies can stay in the United States and still sell their products there, is the right thing for us to do. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield if there is a question or two to my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), if he would like to pose a question to me.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. DREIER. I have yielded to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and I think it is only fair, since I have to leave in 3 minutes.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that the pages are snickering because when someone put an easel up next to me here, I said I do not need charts. Well, this is one business where one can never admit to having learned anything, but the fact is I have learned that one can use charts if they are really good. So I have a really good chart here which points to the fact that when we are looking at MTOPs levels, MTOPs are millions of theoretical operations per second, MTOP levels, we are actually debating very, very small computers here. We are not talking about these supercomputers that go up to 3.2 million millions of theoretical operations per second. So the fact is, we are talking about computers that are widely available, and what we have done here is we have said that we simply want to make sure that since the rest of the world is making these very small computers available, that we in the United States should be able to compete with them. It seems to me that is the right thing to do. Now today, current law says that we have a 6-month review period. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) pointed out, we have all kinds of other things that are approved with a much shorter period of time, 30 days. Now, people are concerned about the exports. My friend from San Diego, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), raised his question on this. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and I introduced the legislation calling for 30 days, but I want to see it reduced from the 6-month level, because if we look at the 3-month innovation cycle that exists out there we need to make sure that we do not have to be burdened with that 6-month period of time, and at the same time, recognize the top priority of national security. So in light of that, we have come to a compromise. I have to say that I am troubled by those who would try to politicize this compromise because it is one that we have worked out. I have talked to everyone involved in this and gotten most people to agree. Again, the man for whom this legislation, the defense authorization bill, is named, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the committee, has made a very supportive statement here. The coauthor of the amendment is my friend from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), a Democrat. My colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and I suspect that my friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), will be supportive when we do have a vote on this because it is the best we can do at this juncture. So I believe that it is the right thing to do and it is going to help us go a long way towards making sure that we do not have an incentive for our very, very important industry, the computer industry, which frankly is responsible for 45 percent of the gross domestic product growth that we have had in this country over the past 3 years, is not in any way provided with an incentive to leave the United States and go elsewhere because we put in the way hurdles for their continued success. So I urge support of this very important amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close the debate on this?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the very thoughtful remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) in support of the legislation that I and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) introduced. Obviously I am a proponent of that 30-day period. The fact of the matter is it was necessary for us to put together a compromise, because obviously the 6-month period with which we have had to deal over the past several years has been inadequate, and the most recent experience we had actually delayed from July 23 of last year until January 23 of this year the ability to increase the MTOPS level, and we tried then to move for some kind of movement. Quite frankly, it took the administration quite a while, because it was nearly 5 months before that July 23 letter that the President sent that we made the request of him to move for a lifting of the export control level. So now we have come up with a compromise, which I believe is a balanced one. Again, my first choice is the legislation that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and I introduced. But we have come to a compromise, and I am very appreciative of the fact that my colleagues the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the others who have come to support this, have agreed to do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and classmate, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, who would like to make an announcement.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on International Relations for his coauthorship of the amendment and his very thoughtful statement. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the man for whom this very important defense authorization act is named. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution. I will say that as the gentleman was speaking, I was reminiscing in my mind about 7 years ago when we stood at this table as a team debating the question, should U.S. trade policy be used to enforce human rights. We took the negative in one of the three Oxford-style debates that were held here in the Congress. One line that we used over and over and over again was that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political repression. When my friend mentioned Taiwan and South Korea, and the fact that we are going to be seeing on July 2 a very historic election, for the first time in seven decades we may see an opposition party in fact win the election there. It is just an incredible thing to see the kind of political pluralism that has spread throughout Mexico, but also in this hemisphere two other countries that immediately come to mind in the last decade and a half, countries in which we have had very strong economic engagement and we have brought about political reform, who can possibly forget the very repressive human rights policies that existed in Chile? In that country we for years saw a strong economy. They were the only country during the decade of the 1970s and 1980s that was successfully servicing its debt as many other countries in South America were having a great deal of economic difficulty. We maintained strong ties there. That economic involvement I believe played a big role in bringing about political pluralism, the recognition of human rights, and an overthrow and change of the repressive policies of Augusto Pinochet. Similarly, in Argentina we saw very repressive policies, and again, bold economic reforms there. In fact, they moved in many ways in Argentina, as we know, more boldly than the United States in the area of economic reform, and that brought about the recognition of political freedom. So the way my friend appropriately described the interdependence of economic and political freedom is right on target. I am happy to further yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. DREIER. My friend is absolutely right. I thank him very much for his very thoughtful contribution to this debate and for his strong support of this. I am not going to argue with him, but I will make one point in slight disagreement. That is, I do not make it a pattern of standing here and praising President Clinton unless he is right. In the 1992 campaign, he opposed George Bush, saying that a policy of engagement and trade with China was wrong. We Republicans have stood firmly as a party for free trade since the failure of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the 1930s. Guess what, President Clinton has come to our position on this. I can criticize his trade policy, and my good friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is here and we can talk about fast track negotiating authority, about his statements in Seattle last December, about the fact that a year ago last month when Zhu Rongji was here with a terrific deal on WTO, better the one we ended up with, the President made a mistake in turning that down. So there is room for criticism. But I do believe that the event that the President held, which had former President Jimmy Carter, former President Gerald Ford, former Secretaries of State from past administrations, did in fact bring together a bipartisan coalition. Again, everyone knows that Republicans are going to be providing many more votes for this than Democrats are, because the Republican party is the party of free trade. But there are some thinking Democrats who have agreed to support this, and I congratulate and welcome their support. I would like to continue, as my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has, to encourage the President to continue his work. I think it would be great if in the next week he could go on television and make as compelling a case as he possibly can. Today the presumptive Republican nominee for President, George W. Bush, made a spectacular speech in Seattle, Washington, in which he talked about the benefits of trade. So we do need to do this in a bipartisan way. In many respects, if we look throughout history, trade has been a bipartisan issue. We want to do everything we can to encourage that. I welcome President Clinton to our position, even though he was dead wrong in 1992 when he was campaigning for President. I thank my friend for his contribution. Let me just say that there is no one in this House who has done more on behalf of the cause of free trade than the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). He is an expert on it, has a great understanding, and has provided inspiration and leadership to many of us. I had the privilege of attending the world economic forum at which President Clinton said in his remarks that it would be a grave mistake for the future of the United States if we did not do that. I attended that meeting, along with my friend, the gentleman from Tucson, Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and most recently he led a great delegation for the largest congressional turnout in two decades for the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Conference. On a wide range of these issues he has done a great job. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I would compliment him on his sartorial splendor at the same time.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would just say that Winston Churchill was obviously one of those on the cutting edge of the establishment of what was the initial organization that has today become the World Trade Organization. It was in 1947 and it was the general agreement on tariffs and trade, following the war, we observed an effort made by the free countries in Europe and the United States, who came to the realization that protectionist policies, in fact, played a role in the rise of the Third Reich. And if you look going back to the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which, I am embarrassed to say, it was a Republican initiative, but I should say it was a Republican initiative that began as a tariff reduction measure and ended up being the greatest tariff increase since 1893, but it led to the Great Depression, and I believe and most economists agree that those protectionist policies strengthened the hand of Adolph Hitler. Well, following the defeat of Nazism, we saw the free countries come together and realize that the goal of eliminating tariff barriers was a very, very important priority. So in 1947, when the general agreement on tariffs and trade was established, that was the goal, and it has had a great deal of success over the years, and then in the middle part of the last decade, we established the WTO, which has been the follow-on organization, heavily criticized by many people in this Congress and around but, in fact, it has continued with that goal of tax reductions because we all know a tariff is a tax, so it has continued that pursuit of tax reductions. My friend mentioned a 27 percent tariff level which exists. In fact, we export about 600 automobiles per year to the People's Republic of China. The tariff on automobiles is 45 percent. Now, under this WTO structure, with that tariff level reducing, it seems to me that we will have a greater opportunity to export more U.S. manufactured automobiles into the People's Republic of China, and in light of that, while we have the United Auto Workers and other friends of ours within organized labor adamantly opposing this measure, why are they doing it, I ask rhetorically? Because we know if the tariff barriers come down in the PRC, the chance to export more automobiles is enhanced. So what I have concluded is that the pro-union member vote is for permanent normal trade relations, because the U.S. worker, which is the most competitive and dynamic and successful on the face of the Earth, will have an enhanced opportunity to get that expertly crafted vehicle or other good into the People's Republic of China. I think we have a wonderful, wonderful opportunity to benefit the U.S. worker. I think that while a lot of us have become friends with some of the union leadership here in Washington, I think that union members are being ill-served by this call by union leadership to oppose the granting of permanent normal trade relations. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman very much. If the gentleman was to continue those sorts of kind remarks, I would hope that the gentleman would cancel that event that the gentleman is headed to downtown and continue talking that way. I understand that the gentleman has probably said all the nice things about me that he possibly could, so he should get off to his event now. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend and an able member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is why it is so important to recognize that we should not considering withdrawing the one good thing which is encouraging that reform there. It is the Chinese people who are going to in fact lift themselves up and improve their standard of living so that they are able to buy more U.S. goods and services, and if we decide that we are going to pull up the drawbridge and erect some kind of barrier, letting the rest of the world into that market but cutting the United States of America out, we would be, for lack of a better term, cutting off our nose to spite our face. I believe that if we look at a tiny spot of 24 million people, the Island of Taiwan, known as the Republic of China, where Chiang Kai-Shek in the latter part of the 1940s, 1949 fled trying to get away from the Communism that had taken over in China. This is a wonderful, wonderful spot, and these are people who have desperately sought and have now been able to successfully obtain freedom, and they unfortunately are being targeted often by Beijing, and it is wrong. I am a strong supporter of the Taiwan Relations Act we passed. And I voted for the Taiwan Security Act here, but it is important to note that the candidate who, according to news reports, was the least desirable candidate on the part of Beijing was elected President of Taiwan. His name is Chen Shui-bian and he had an interview with the Los Angeles Times the morning after his election, and in that interview he said that one of the most important things that needed to take place was for the People's Republic of China to become a member of the World Trade Organization. Taiwan is, as I say, a small island with 24 million people, juxtaposed to the nearly 1.3 billion people in the People's Republic of China, but they stand for the things that we as Americans embrace, and something that I like to point to is the fact that they are playing a role just as the United States is in extending freedom throughout China, because there are 46,000 businesses on the mainland that are owned by Taiwanese nationals. They, too, are working to pursue that, to encourage the people of China, to improve their standard of living, so they will be able to again be the beneficiaries of the U.S. manufactured goods and services which we finally achieve as they lower those tariffs and live with the rules based trading system in China by opening up their markets for us. I think that Ronald Reagan, and I was honored to have been elected to the Congress the same day he was elected President of the United States back in 1980, and he said, if we give people a taste of freedom, they will thirst for more, and that is why when I said earlier that the genie is out of the bottle, the people of China are getting a taste of freedom, and the technological changes which have taken place here in the United States and throughout the world have eliminated so many of these barriers that existed in the past. Thank heavens that genie is out of the bottle and so they have gotten that taste of freedom, and it is obvious that the people of China are thirsting for more. And so it would be a great disservice if we as the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, the symbol of freedom for the world were to say you go it on your own and we are not going to stand up for the principles that make this country so great. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution. I know that he is here, and we in about 3\1/2\ hours are going to be meeting in the Committee on Rules on the Department of Defense authorization bill, and we have got lots of work ahead of us. As I said at the outset, this is the most important vote that we will cast at least in this session of Congress. I hope very much that the American people will understand how key this is to our global leadership and the need for us to maintain our economic prosperity and will urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend. I appreciate his requests. Let me say that we all know that the reason that we have dealt with this two-rule process is due to the tragic situation that hit the Stupak family, and the fact that many of our colleagues are this afternoon going to go to Michigan, and that led to this situation. We are still working on the issue that my friend has raised, and we hope to have a resolution to that. I can assure the gentleman that when we meet later today in the Committee on Rules, we hope to have what I hope will be a satisfactory response. Let me just conclude by saying as we look at where we are going in our Nation's national security, we have had a pattern over the past few years of seeing an administration which, unfortunately, has called for deploying troops all over the world, in fact, 139 countries with 265,000 Americans. We have seen that number, and at the same time there have been reduced requests for the level of commitment from Washington to our national defense. Look at what it really has brought about. Unfortunately, it has brought about reduced readiness. We know that there is lower morale that exists in the military today; recruitment difficulties, we have heard many stories about those. And we have in this high-tech economy today a need to focus more investment on high-tech for our national security. We have some real problems that need to be addressed, and I believe that this bill will go a long way towards doing just that. And again, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend, has just said making sure that we have everything that is necessary for our men and women in uniform. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have begun this debate. It is an important one that we will be having, and I hope very much that my colleagues will join in support of the rule and in support of the bill when we finally get to passage. I should say just before I do that that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend, and I are going to be jointly offering an amendment to deal with the issue of high-speed computers, which is an important one, that allows us again to maintain our commitment to national security, but at the same time our competitiveness around the world, which is a priority. I urge support of the rule and support of the Dreier amendment that will be coming up later and support of this bill itself.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Charlotte, North Carolina, (Mrs. Myrick), my very good friend, the former mayor, who has done a wonderful job managing this rule. She has just come back, and we are all happy to see her doing so extraordinarily well, and it is very fitting that we would be here on an issue which is near and dear to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and that is the national security of the United States of America, that she is leading the charge in this rule. Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) said, I want to recognize the fact that this is a great accomplishment and a great tribute to a wonderful individual to have the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Reauthorization Act established in his name, and I believe this is a very, very important piece of legislation, because as has been pointed out, we are really beginning this effort to rebuild our capability. This morning in the Republican Conference, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) referred to the fact that over the past decade and a half, we have seen this continued diminution in the level of expenditures for national security, and we have been trying in recent years to rebuild it, and the steps that we are going to begin taking today will go a long way towards doing just that. This has been one of the four top priorities that this Republican Congress has established for us, along with rebuilding our defense capabilities, saving Social Security and Medicare and, obviously, providing tax relief to working families, that has been a priority, and then improving public education. Those have been the four guides that we have had, but nothing is more important than our national security, because as we look at the issue, these other issues can be dealt with by a different level of government, but only Washington can deal with our national security. My friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter) in 1980 came in and got on to this Committee on Armed Services so that he could make sure that we proceeded as vigorously as we could at rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. We did that during the Reagan years, as we all know so well, but we have had this pattern of reduction; the threats have changed. The thing that I find very, very troubling has been over the past few years we have had continued requests made by the administration.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from Missouri has done that already, so I am happy to yield to the gentleman, in light of the fact that he already interrupted me.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4205.