Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, my staff contacted the committee. They were told two copies were available in the anteroom. Beyond that, we know that the process is preloaded. I have just reviewed the list of amendments that are being allowed. There is not one single amendment that would cut $1 from any program. There is not one single amendment being allowed that would review the efficiency or the effectiveness of the procurement program. This has been going on for years here on the floor of the House. Members can take the amendments up there and they will not be allowed to talk to them on the floor. The only amendments here on the floor are going to be amendments that enhance the spending under this bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, May 17, 1998 marks the Sesquicentennial of the date that Walter and Thomas Montieth filed a land claim in what became known as Albany, Oregon. Found in the heart of the Williamette Valley along the banks of the Williamette and Calapooia rivers, Albany, is renowned for its beautiful victorian homes, gracious downtown district, and diverse economy. Albany has flourished as a center of business activity for the region while preserving its roots as a pioneer settlement. Oregonians should take great pride in the foresight of Albany's community leaders who preserved its historic architecture and in those who make it available to all of us to enjoy today. I'm proud to have the honor to represent the people of the Albany area in the United States Congress. I congratulate the City and its leaders on its 150th birthday.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) made some excellent points. The whole world, it is a dangerous world. It could explode at any moment. The question, given the past performance of our intelligence agencies is whether they could tell us about the world exploding before or after the fact or even recognize it after the fact. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, they could not predict that. The invasion of Kuwait with the Iraqis massed on the border, they could not predict that. Even the horrible tragedy which was mentioned earlier of the killing by terrorists of our troops, that was not prevented and it certainly was not predicted. These are horrible things that have happened and the intelligence agencies have not exactly been ahead of the curve. They are engaged in acquiring ever greater technology at ever greater expense and more and more money, as opposed to becoming more efficient and more effective, finely honed, leaner and meaner, getting the intelligence we really need and our Armed Services really need to defend our people. The gentleman talked about defending our people against chemical- biological attack. We just had an assessment about that. There is no preparation in this country. We are not investing in the civilian law enforcement agencies, the emergency response, the vaccines, and the other things we should be stockpiling to respond. But we are spending money on incredible satellite systems and the satellite systems are gathering so much data that 60 percent of it is never analyzed. Mr. Chairman, we wonder if they have got up to the point yet of analyzing the data that shows whether or not there is still a Berlin Wall. Just a couple of years ago, the National Security Agency, in doing a cursory review of its books, found that it had an extra $4 billion in accounts which it had secreted around, more than the annual budget perhaps, but that is a classified number so we do not know. But probably more than its annual budget, they had secreted it in various accounts and no one knew anything about it. So that speaks to me, and I think to other Members of Congress, that perhaps there is a little bit too much money washing around over there if they can misplace $4 billion. We are investigating misappropriations of hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars regularly, and rising to those issues.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, excuse me. I thank the gentleman for correcting me. I meant the NRO, not the NSA. That is part of the problem with this debate. This is not a debate which really takes place very often on the floor of the House, and does not take place in full light with full accountability to the public. We know last year's number. We know how much money we spent last year. But we cannot talk about how much money we are going to spend this year. We cannot talk about the number which we are debating here on the floor today. We cannot talk about whether it is an increase or decrease from last year's number because we have last year's number. It used to be at least we could talk about the percentage increase of the secret number, but now since we know what the number was, we cannot even talk about what percentage increase or decrease it might be in this year's budget. But we are debating it here on the floor and we do have some confusing acronyms, NRO, NSA, DIA, CIA, and others which we cannot even mention which are involved. The point that I am trying to make, and I think others here are, no, we do want to have a robust intelligence service, but we want to have one that is reorganized, that is not territorial, oriented towards preserving their own separate bureaucracies, but one which is better integrated, one which is more efficient, more effective, and provides realtime data that is of use both to our military services, our civilian law enforcement agencies, and in the defense of the people of the United States of America. I believe we could do that with more scrutiny instead of having this absurd debate every year where we do not know what we are debating. Let us talk about the individual components of this budget and what they are spending it on. There is no one in the world who can benefit from knowing that. In fact, our potential enemies already know it, but the American people cannot know it and the elected officials cannot know it and they cannot speak about it and debate it on the floor. Mr. Chairman, that is an absurdity and that is what the debate is about today. If they could defend their numbers and defend them category by category as we do every other department of the United States of America, including the Pentagon and the Defense Department, then there would be a fair debate and the numbers that the gentleman cited in support of that budget would be fair numbers. But those are numbers where the Members did not even know what they were voting on. That happens fairly often around here, but this is one for sure that they did not know what they were voting on. So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to cut the amount of money, whatever it is, by 5 percent and make these agencies more efficient, more effective, and better protect the people of the United States.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding. Make no mistake, there is no substantive legislation before the House of Representatives on the issue of Social Security today. This is our regular biennial election year dodge of a tough issue. We had a Commission on Social Security. They were deeply divided, but they came up with reams of data and alternatives and voted among themselves. Any Member of Congress who sits here today who cannot go home to his or her constituents and tell them what they think should be done to make Social Security as a viable program for the next century does not deserve to sit in this body. What we are trying to do, or what the majority is trying to do here today is hide their real opinions, the radical breakup of Social Security, which we never wanted, and privatize the proposals to make Wall Street rich, turn it into 200 million IRAs, and let people rise or fall with the stock market. God, think of the billions of dollars in commission that could be made under that proposal. Well, I think that is wrong. I support a much more modest proposal. Take the money we are stealing from Social Security on an annual basis. Social Security will collect $80 billion more this year than it needs to pay benefits. That money is supposed to go in a Trust Fund. It does not. It is being borrowed and replaced by IOUs. Take that money and invest it in real assets like a number of other retirement programs do around the country. Do not let Congress spend it. Do not replace it with IOUs. Do not let them give it away in a tax cut for the wealthy. Put that money in real investments to begin to take care of the baby boom in the next century. That is only one alternative, and it was one that was put forward by the last Commission. We do not need another Commission. But, truthfully, the White House is dodging, too. They have got this staged debate going on between the Concord Coalition and AARP around the country. Who anointed those groups as the gurus or the seers to get us to a very difficult solution on Social Security? It is up to this body, the United States House of Representatives, to put forward some solutions. Stop dodging. Yeah, this is a tough issue, but make our views known. Go home and campaign on them. If they really believe Americans want to destroy Social Security and set up 200 million IRAs and roll the dice, then go home and campaign on that. And I do not think I will see them next year. But if they have other solutions, let those be known to their constituents. Sponsor legislation. Introduce legislation. Go home and make their views known to their constituents. Do not hide behind another phoney commission so just after the election they can try and jam through an unpopular proposal which destroys the integrity of Social Security under the guise of saying, ``Hey, it was not my idea. The Commission told us we had to do this,'' and it is all we have got before us. This is a bad bill. It is a limited bill. It is amazing to me that we are having a debate with so little interest about a program so vital on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, yes, taxes are high today on the American people. But they are highest because of the high FICA taxes on Social Security. More than half of American workers pay more in FICA taxes than they do in income taxes to the Federal Government. The wealthy are paying a rate of taxes less than 50 percent of what the gentleman talked about in those years. Less than 50 percent. That is what this bill is all about today: the wealthy and the powerful. Not about middle income people, not about working people who are paying more in FICA taxes than they are income taxes. We should be considering real reform today here on the floor of the House. The Tax Code could be reformed. It could be a lot simpler so people do not have to hire accountants. And if we make it simpler, we are going to cut out a lot of those loopholes and special interest tax breaks. That would be real reform. We could have the IRS reform, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that passed the House of Representatives last year which is held up by a Republican majority in the Senate for some strange reason. That would be real reform. We could middle income tax relief. That would be real reform. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to get people working and not confiscate taxes from people who earn below the poverty level. That would be real reform. But, no, what that is about today is quite simple. The Republicans are trotting out their same old tired, bait-and-switch constitutional amendment. It should be called ``The Special Interest Loophole and Deficit Promotion Act.'' It is not targeted toward average Americans. What are the Republican majority afraid of? Are they afraid that they are going to raise taxes on average Americans, so that they want to require a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives? I do not think so. What they are afraid of is that the outrage, and there is real outrage that the previous gentleman spoke about, among the American people that they are being screwed because the wealthy, the large corporations and the foreign corporations are not paying their fair share, that that might sink in with the American people and they might demand real reform. They are afraid that they will not be able to protect their corporate and special interest sponsors here on the floor of the House from a real grass roots movement to reform the Tax Code. Foreign corporations in this country, 73 percent of the foreign corporations operating in America pay no Federal income taxes because of a very generous loophole provided in our Federal Tax Code not provided by any of our competitor Nations. Won here, a gift to foreign corporations. It is beyond me why we cannot close that loophole and raise $15 billion a year from foreign corporations that make money in this country by just asking that they pay at the same pathetic rate that American corporations pay. But, no. We allow them to pay zero. Nothing. And under this bill that will never change, because it requires two-thirds vote here on the floor of the House to require foreign corporations to begin to pay income taxes, maybe so we could provide income tax relief to middle income Americans. U.S. multinationals use the same loophole to get around taxes. We have the pharmaceutical industry, a real darling. We have noticed the reasonable price of pharmaceuticals in this country. $3 billion tax loophole because they say all of our profits are made in Puerto Rico where we do not have to pay taxes, and all of our losses and development costs are here in the United States of America where we sell the drugs at inflated prices to the same people who are paying high taxes. Now, that would be real reform but, no, we are going to protect against reforming and closing that loophole by this amendment. Accelerated depreciation, the biggest loophole in the Tax Code. It would be nice if average Americans could get that. Eastman Kodak paid an average of 17.3 percent on their products last year. American Home Products, 15.6 percent on $4.2 billion of earnings. And Allied Signal, 10.7 percent on $3.4 billion of earnings. It would be nice if a teacher working full-time could pay taxes to the Federal Government at the rate of 10.7 percent like Allied Signal did with their tax loophole. But that will never happen in the Republicans' world if this amendment passes. We will never close those loopholes. We will never provide that tax relief to average Americans. This is not about wage earners. It is not about the middle-class. It is about the wealthy. It is about the people who have written the special interest loophole-ridden Tax Code that we have today, and it is about desperate attempts to protect those special interest loopholes against a real revolt by the American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, it is time to send this phony amendment packing as we have three or four times previously, and to take up real reform on the floor of the House with a simple majority. Close the tax loopholes; make the special interests, make the foreign corporations, make others pay their fair share, and give the American workers the tax relief they deserve.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for the time. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a few Members come to the floor and seen some press accounts that there is too much in this bill. Now the question will be, too much? Is it that we are meeting and overfulfilling the transportation and infrastructure needs in the United States? No, not at all. In fact, this bill will still leave us with a $30 billion per year deficit in transportation, $16 billion for highways and $14 billion for transit, 254,000 miles of pavement in poor condition, one out of three highway bridges structurally deficient or obsolete, one out of every two transit yard stations and bridges for mass transit in poor condition. In my own State we need an additional $244 million a year to meet our needs for preservation and maintenance and $351 million for capital improvements. It is not too much in terms of the needs of the country. Now is it too much in terms of what we have to pay for transportation? No. In fact this bill will not spend all the money which the American people are paying in taxes dedicated to transportation. Every time an American drives to the pump they pay 18.4 cents a gallon gas tax, and this bill, as good as it is, as robust as it is, will only spend about 14 to 15 cents of that tax, and the rest will go elsewhere in the Federal budget. It will go to deficit reduction, or it will go to pay for secret programs at the CIA, or over to the Pentagon or somewhere else, maybe for tax cuts for the wealthy. That is not why Americans pay a gas tax, and there should be no diversion of the gas tax money until every infrastructure need of this country is met and up to date. So it is not too much to ask that we fulfill the needs, and it is not too much to ask that we spend every penny of that dedicated regressive tax on the transportation needs of this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, our democracy is dying under a flood of special interest campaign dollars, and it is a problem on both sides of the aisle, I admit that, and it needs to change. But the Republican leaders today, instead of tossing the American people and our democracy a life preserver with real campaign finance reform, tossed out a big lead sinker. The debate on Monday will require a two-thirds vote to pass any tiny part of what they have deemed to be campaign finance reform, which does not even go to the heart of the issue, the soft money to the so-called ``issue ads,'' and why is that? Because apparently, for now, according to the New York Times, there is a majority in the House to pass an overhaul bill that would ban political parties from taking unregulated money known as ``soft money'' and would also curb issue ads by outside groups. It is fiercely opposed by the Republican leaders whose party generally has a fund-raising advantage. Fiercely opposed, they did more than fiercely oppose it; they gutted democracy here today on the floor with this travesty. That will be nothing but a travesty of a debate on Monday. It is disgusting, the worst thing I have seen in 11\1/2\ years in this House of Representatives.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, just 3 years ago the Republican leaders and the Clinton administration touted all the benefits that would flow from telecommunications deregulation. Cable would compete with phone, phone with cable, lower rates, better service, new technology. Three years' experience has shown those promises to be hollow. There is no competition between phone and cable. Cable rates have skyrocketed, local phone rates are going up, service has deteriorated. Then we get all those evening phone calls. This is not a consumer- friendly bill. But, all in all, it has delivered a golden egg for Wall Street and a few companies and a goose egg for Main Street consumers and small business. Now the Clinton administration and the Republican leaders want to rush to deregulate our electric power. Lower rates, new technology, more competition. We have heard it before. Wall Street and a number of large energy companies are just slathering over the products. The results for consumers and small business will be the same as telecommunications, evening phone calls, higher rates, worse service.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. It is extraordinary to me that we are engaged in a debate here today where the majority party is going to break a sacred lease with local government and violate one of the principles of Ronald Reagan's tenure in office, which is local control, to remove things from the awesome bureaucracy of Washington, D.C. and get them back down to the local level. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the agreement which gave the compact to the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia, and it is an extraordinary document. It is one of the most comprehensive lease agreements you have ever seen. And actually he was right, because they have done things that I am sure the Federal Government and Congress never could have done in terms of developing that beautiful terminal at Washington National Airport. The investment that has gone in there would not have gone forward had it remained totally under Federal control, given the lack of interest in this Congress, which is also a scandal, in the infrastructure of this country. But back to the issue at hand: This legislation would preempt, probably illegally and probably actually is doomed to lose in court should it be challenged, the authority, the full authority, the full control, the dominion, for the use, the development of this airport, extraordinary terms in a 50-year lease. Fifty-year leases are akin to ownership. In the courts they are interpreted that way. And yet Congress now is going to wade back in, the Republican majority, in order to rush through something for Ronald Reagan's birthday. They cannot wait for the Nimitz class aircraft carrier. They can't be happy with the largest Federal building in the world outside of the Pentagon. And we could rename the Pentagon, if they so chose, and I would probably support that. Mr. Chairman, to preempt the name of George Washington, the Father of the Country, the first President, from this airport, it is extraordinary to not only violate the principles set down by Ronald Reagan, that is local control, local authority, a legal and binding contract and lease agreement signed by Ronald Reagan, endorsed by the Congress, which now Congress is attempting to usurp, and to remove the name from the airport of the Father of our Country, the first President of our country. It is extraordinary, and it is no way to honor Ronald Reagan or his principles, despite our many disagreements. I think this is a disservice to your greatest living President.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we are a country with a rule of law; and few things are more sacred under a rule of law than contracts. I always hate and hesitate to disagree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), my esteemed chairman, but I have got to disagree in this matter of how the airport was delegated and what authority the Federal Government retained. It is quite clear. We gave them a 50-year minimum term lease, interpreted by most courts as being akin to ownership. We give them full power and dominion over and complete discretion in operation and development, development, of the airport. Not just operation, but development. And they shall have the same proprietary powers and be subject to the same restrictions with respect to Federal law as any other airport, which goes to some of the earlier arguments. We did say this will be treated as any other airport in the United States. That is, we are not recognizing nor continuing the Federal authority to wade in and change the name or something else that we do not like, unless they violate the term of the lease. The agreement went on to say that it would not be subject to the requirements of any law solely by reason of the retention of the United States Government of the fee simple title. In paragraph after paragraph, principle after principle, we gave control to a local authority, a local authority that is doing an admirable job in improving a facility which was outdated and undersized for current demands. They have created a beautiful new gateway to the Nation's capital at Washington National. But now we are saying, well, we are all for local control, except when we disagree with the conclusions reached by majorities of local boards. I mean, we are either for it or we are against it. We stand on, I believe, no legal ground here. If Congress does make this empty gesture today in passing this legislation and it becomes law, surely, as Congress has twice before in recent history, Congress will lose in the courts. Like it or not, we signed a 50-year contract. Contracts are sacred under the Constitution in this country. And, as I said earlier, we are also violating the spirit of one of the principles with which, and I think Ronald Reagan made some good changes in this country, and that is some of the movement back from a huge centralized Federal bureaucracy to local governments. Mr. Chairman, I was a county commissioner at the time; and I agreed with the principle that he set forward. I disagreed with the fact that he took away all of our revenue-sharing money to carry out some of those duties. But I felt the principle was good, that the solutions that work in New York do not necessarily work in Springfield and Eugene, Oregon; and the Federal Government did not necessarily have the best handle on how to solve the problems of Eugene, Oregon, nor the people of New York. We need here just to rein it in a little bit. Yes, his birthday is coming up Friday. But, just think, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already honored the President by naming the largest, newest, most expensive Federal building in the United States of America in terms of square feet outside of the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan. There is an aircraft carrier which will be launched in the year 2000 which will be named for Ronald Reagan. There are many other things which do not have names which could be named for Ronald Reagan, the B-1 bomber which he was a great champion of and Star Wars, for instance. So I believe that rather than removing the name of the first President of our country, usurping the control which we granted by sacred contract to a local board, that Congress would be better served today to approve this amendment and say if the local board agrees and the local communities agree, we will go forward. But if they do not, this renaming will not go forward; and Congress will choose, in its full authority in cases that are fully clear, fully within our dominion, to name other things as the majority so wishes. Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for offering this amendment, which I offered in committee; and I particularly want to thank the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who actually first brought this issue to my attention and the attention of my staff several weeks ago in saying that this was causing a local fire storm. I mean, this is against the desires of local communities, local business, and the duly appointed local authority to whom Congress has given local control and dominion. This is not an appropriate tribute. This amendment should be adopted; then it becomes an appropriate tribute.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the defeat of fast track trade authority earlier this week could perhaps mark a turning point for new trade policy in this country, a trade policy finally in the favor of the vast majority of Americans as opposed to a few multinational corporations, and foreign interests have been doing so well with our failed trade policy. As my colleagues know, our trade policy has not changed one bit since World War II, not one bit. Despite 50 years of dramatic changes in the world economy, we have gone from being the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation in international trade. We have seen our standard of living erode, we have lost our industrial base, and the defenders of the so-called free trade policy say, well, it is working exactly as we intended. Well, what do we intend; $160 billion trade deficit this year? Is that what we intend? Is that a success? No. Fast track was the last gasp for the apologists for a failed and archaic trade policy. It is time for a new trade policy that brings prosperity to this country, projects our values in terms of the environment, projects our values in terms of worker safety and standard of living. Once again, America should stand tall and lead the world to a prosperity for all of us, not just a select few.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I will wait for 1 minute later to respond.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if I could, the minority side is not represented at the moment, and I would ask to claim the time on the minority side, since we are not represented.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly aware of the merits of this bill, but I would like to go to the procedure before us. The House is being kept here because Republicans are unable to get the Committee on Rules to meet and bring forward the appropriations bills. We could bring those bills forward tomorrow in the regular order. There is no reason the House, which was kept in session until midnight or later 3 or 4 nights last weekend while they tried to force the votes on fast track, there is no reason to keep the House here again tonight. So I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the other side consider where we are going. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is here, and perhaps he has some news about the appropriations bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman, he will be out here at 9 o'clock with both the bills. Is that as good a promise as the moving target on fast track last week, which was going to be on the hour or the half-hour for 5 hours?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I accept that rather strong assurance from the chairman that within 40 minutes we will be completing the real business before the House, as opposed to the legislation before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of the time to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Having been demeaned by the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to respond.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] yield me 1 minute?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I am glad we are back in the regular order and that the ranking member representing the minority is now on the floor of the House. I am sorry that the majority felt that they had to proceed out of the regular order with this legislation and, in fact, that they felt that they had to hold the House here late in the evening for legislation which could have been dispatched tomorrow during regular business hours. Mr. Speaker, the legislation, as described by the gentleman from Virginia, whom I do hold in high regard, obviously has merit, and we appreciate the gift. I wish that the Library of Congress did not have to go begging for gifts and that the Republican majority would better fund the Library of Congress, but given the fact that they do not have adequate funds, these sorts of gifts are absolutely vital to maintain our national heritage. To the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], whom I hold in minimally high regard, I do not appreciate his words, and I would say that they are generally characteristic of his performance on the floor. That is why he is held in minimal high regard by so many Members of this body.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, the proponents of fast track would have us believe today's legislative battle is about whether or not the United States will trade. This is not about a battle between protection as free traders, but rather a struggle over the conditions of that trade and who will benefit from that trade. On one side, the President, the entire administration, the Republican leadership, and a fleet of corporate CEO's who have actually been given office space right downstairs in the Capitol in violation of the House rules. On our side, 80 percent of the Democrats and a small group of Republicans. We think it is time to overhaul our failing trade policy, a policy that has brought $160 billion trade deficits, exported jobs, driven down wages, weakened our environmental and food safety laws, all in the name of free trade. A policy that undermines our values to encourage a race to the bottom; enriching a few multinational corporations and their CEO's at the expense of the majority of American workers and communities. ``No'' to the threats, ``no'' to the silent promises, ``no'' to the legal campaign bribery, ``no'' to fast track, and ``yes'' to the beginnings of a new trade policy that benefits all Americans.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has meritorious suggestions before the House, and I would urge Members to support it. But beyond that, at the moment, I would like to go to another issue which I will not be allowed to raise because of restricted rules of the House, and I would have raised it as a point of privilege to the honor and integrity of the House. It came to my attention and the attention of a number of other Members that directly below this chamber, in H-137, for a number of days that private-interest lobbyists, paid registered lobbyists, have been conducting what is called the war room right here on Capitol grounds using taxpayer-funded phones, lights, facilities, a beautiful room, something not made available to people who are opposing fast track, but only to a group of industries who are supporting the fast track legislation. I believe that this demeans the integrity of the House. A number of my colleagues intend to put this question to the Speaker. My understanding is that, because of restricted rules of the House, at the moment we cannot raise it as a privilege on the floor. But this is certainly something that the public and other Members should be aware of. We do not normally make facilities available to private outside interests and or the National Association of Manufacturers, Boeing Company, and other large corporations, at taxpayer expense, to lobby on behalf of legislation right here in the Capitol right beneath us, absolutely prime real estate. I think it is outrageous. And I think that Members should raise this question with the Speaker privately if we are not allowed to do it publicly. I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop] for yielding me the time, and I wish him luck with the bill.