Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I was to offer an amendment tonight that would require disclosure of paid lobbyists' contacts with Members. I thought it would be extraordinarily valuable to the public and the lobbyist community. But in the interests of getting this bill passed and getting some improvement in this situation here in Washington, I will withhold that amendment tonight and would urge everybody to oppose all amendments because it is a ruse to kill the bill. We have got to get this bill, begin reform, and then we can come back with more significant reforms later in a second piece of legislation that we will bring up after the first of the year.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, can anybody look at a 1,754-page bill that finally brings fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC and say, there is only one way to write that bill? Well, that is what the Republican majority is telling us. No Democratic alternative will be allowed. I have a plan to balance the budget in 7 years. I just happen to have very different priorities than the majority. I do not want to give more tax breaks to large corporations and repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax; and I do not think most Americans think that is the way to balance the budget. I do not believe we have done so well at the top that we should give them tax breaks. I do not believe we should continue agriculture subsidies. I do not believe that we should continue to give away Federal minerals for free. I believe we should begin to assess royalties. There are responsible ways to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years without cutting student loans, without cutting Medicare, without cutting veterans' benefits. I have produced such a plan. I voted on a similar plan when we brought the budget to the floor, but that vote will not be allowed today. They are saying there is only one way, their way, which is business as usual, serving the same powerful interests that have run this country for 25 years.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the legislation which would restrict deployment of United States troops to the former Yugoslavia pending congressional approval. The language establishes an important requirement: no United States ground forces should be employed in Bosnia to enforce a future peace agreement until the Congress has approved such a deployment. This would give an important and necessary opportunity for Congress to debate introduction of United States troops to former Yugoslavia. Equally important, it articulates a clear decision by Congress to exercise its constitutional duty with regards to war. However, I strongly object to the short time allocated for its debate. A constitutional question as important as whether Congress approves sending U.S. troops into harms way should receive more than a few hours of consideration. This congressional debate should not be construed as representing an adequate consideration before sending United States forces to the Bosnian--or any other--conflict. For more than 40 years, Congress has allowed the executive to continuously broaden its authority to put U.S. troops into harm's way. Congress' exclusive constitutional authority to initiate war is routinely ignored by Congress and Presidents alike. Unfortunately, the current War Powers Resolution implicitly grants broad authority to the President to engage in wars of any size without advance congressional authorization. It requires the President to come to Congress only after he has put the prestige of our Nation and the lives of its soldiers on the line. I have introduced a joint resolution (H. J. Res. 95) that seeks to reform the War Powers Resolution. The House of Representatives to address the balance of Presidential and congressional authority to make war. Indeed, the Constitution demands the collective judgment of the President and Congress on the grave question of war. The time is ripe for a congressional debate on the need to restore the balance of powers between the executive and legislature as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. I welcome and support this legislation. However, it is my hope that Congress will spend more fully debate this issue and adopt a more effective War Powers Resolution.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate a 7-year balanced budget for the United States of America in 3 hours. We spent 4 hours on shrimp-turtle excluder devices, yet they cannot give us another hour or two to debate a balanced budget for the United States of America. I am a balanced budget Democrat, but this party would have us believe there is only one path. They do not allow any alternative. They are giving us a bigger and better business-as-usual budget. More money for the Pentagon, more weapons we do not need, B-2 bombers that do not work, more tax cuts for the wealthy. There is another way to balance the budget, but you are going to go after the Pentagon, get rid of cold war weapons that we do not need, that do not work, challenge corporations to give up welfare, do away with agriculture subsidies, even cut back on foreign aid, and maybe charge royalties for mining on Federal land. But that takes on the rich and the powerful who have been running this city for a quarter of a century, and that party does not have the guts to do it, and they will not even let us offer one alternative. Not even one alternative on the floor of the House. A balanced budget, yes. Seven years, yes. Let us have an alternative. Let us have a balanced budget.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. If I could at the end of my remarks. [[Page H 12301]]

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Earlier I heard some confusing statements from the other side talking about the Clinton ICC. You know, two of the three current sitting commissioners are Reagan-Bush appointees. They talked about the reversal of this decision by the Clinton ICC. Would that it were. Would that there were five members, would that, you know, five members sitting, that a majority had been appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate. But that is not the case. So this precedent which was talked about earlier is not the result of the current administration reversing the field here. But what I rise to do is speak in support of the Whitfield amendment. There is a question of equity here now with the recent Burlington Northern-Santa Fe merger. We have the top seven executives at Burlington Northern getting golden parachutes worth $35 million.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I got my information on this side. It was the reverse of that. Perhaps we can straighten that out later. I thank the gentleman. The ranking member of the committee tells me that one of the appointees was a Republican, but was a Clinton appointee. So I stand partially corrected. The point here is there is an issue of equity with the recent Santa Fe-Burlington Northern merger. The top seven executives of Burlington Northern got golden parachutes worth $35 million. That is an average of $5 million each. There were a few thousand employees, line employees, who worked for the same railroad for a lifetime. They got nothing. They did not even get a year's severance. So there is a question of equity. This is an industry that enjoys an unusual degree of Federal regulation, a degree which actually deprives the collective bargaining rights of thousands of Americans who work for rail. They are denied the right to use the one most effective tool they have to get better wages and working conditions and contracts, including provisions in the contracts for severance. That is the right to go out and stay out on strike. So if that law is to remain, then we must provide some balance and some equity, and the Whitfield amendment, despite all of what has been said on the floor here, is very modest. With the Whitfield amendment, if a small railroad purchases a line, lays off employees, get nothing, does not change anything. I think it should go further, and we should do something for them. But it does provide a year's severance when a midsized railroad purchases a rail line or merges with a smaller railroad, not a $35 million golden parachute, not $5 million each like the executives at Burlington Northern, but 1 year's severance for someone who has dedicated their life to a company and been a productive employee. I do not think that is too much to ask for line workers. The bill preserves the Interstate Commerce Commission under a new name at the Department of Transportation. It preserves a number of the essential functions of the ICC. It is essentially a status quo bill. It is a modest solution. It really is. This agency has the unique authority to break collective bargaining agreements. Balance is restored only by telling the agency that at least when midsized railroads are involved, they have to provide some sort of balance and equity for the restrictions that have been placed on those employees over the years, and that is one of severance for the employees who lose their jobs. I would argue strongly that the Whitfield amendment is modest. It is an improvement to the bill. I personally would go much further. But it is a modest compromise that is the bare minimum needed to make this a bill acceptable, I believe, to a majority of the Members of this House.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 2621, a transparent political gesture by the Republic leadership. This is nothing more than Speaker Newt Gingrich and other House Republican leaders trying to blackmail the President into accepting their Medicare premium increase as part of a temporary Government funding bill. Congress under its new leadership has utterly failed to complete its constitutional responsibility to fund the Federal Government this year. Instead of playing high stakes political games with the hopes and fears of Federal employees, retirees, and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries, Republican leaders would be well advised to finish the work they should have finished more than 1 month ago.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the resolution regarding sending United States troops to the former Yugoslavia. The language makes a simple statement: no United States ground forces should be employed in Bosnia to enforce a future peace agreement until the Congress has approved such a deployment, nor should United States negotiators assume that United States forces will be committed. The constitutional principle is simple and sound: before the Nation commits its young men and women into foreign military adventures, Congress must act to authorize their presence. I am appalled by the destruction and loss of life that has taken place over the past several years in the former Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the fighting and more than a million made homeless. There are no easy answers to the bitter ethnic divisions in the region. As with any negotiating process, no solution will prove effective until the various military factions stand ready for a peaceful solution. It is my sincere hope that recent developments will move all sides in the conflict to a lasting ceasefire and eventual peace. I support U.S. efforts in facilitating the negotiations toward this goal. However, I remain skeptical about the use of U.S. troops to enforce a peaceful solution in a conflict that has been raging for well over 700 years. We have seen all too often how placing U.S. soldiers into a conflict--even with the best of intentions--can easily become a nightmare for our country. Just as important, United States military presence in Bosnia could become merely a target for both sides to vent their anger. Although I welcome and support this resolution, it is my hope that Congress will take a more universal approach to its constitutional role. For more than 40 years, Congress has allowed the Executive to continuously broaden its authority to put U.S. troops into harm's way. Congress' exclusive constitutional authority to initiate war is routinely ignored by Congress and Presidents alike. Unfortunately, the current War Powers Resolution implicitly grants broad authority to the President to engage in wars of any size without advance congressional authorization. It requires the President to come to Congress only after he has put the prestige of our Nation and the lives of its soldiers on the line. I have introduced a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 95) that seeks to reform the War Powers Resolution. The House of Representatives to address the balance of presidential and congressional authority to make war. Indeed, the Constitution demands the collective judgment of the President and Congress on the grave question of war. The time is ripe for a congressional debate on the need to restore the balance of powers between the Executive and Legislature as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are past the debate about balancing the budget. Fiscal responsibility has come to Washington, DC. But the question is whose priorities will we use in balancing the budget? The Republican majority says that we should start out by, first, reducing taxes on the largest most profitable corporations in America, reducing taxes on the wealthy; that we should increase military spending, buy weapons that even the Pentagon does not want, like the B- 2 bomber, at $1.5 billion per copy, a weapon that does not work, has no earthly purpose and the Pentagon does not even want. Now, Mr. Chairman, if we start there then we have to do what they are doing. That means $10 billion out of student loans. The Republicans are going to cut $10 billion out of student loans. Members of that party got student loans like I did to get here. The Speaker of the House got student loans to get here. Now we are going to pull up the ladder and say, ``Sorry, we do not have the money anymore.'' That is absurd. We have got to balance the budget with the right priorities. Now, it is pathetic. We cannot even tax foreign corporations operating in America. American corporations operating overseas have to pay taxes, but no, the United States of America cannot levy a minimum tax against foreign corporations operating here. They take all their profits out and pay nothing in taxes to this country. That would raise $25 billion a year. That would offset the cuts in student loans and in the low-income housing tax credit program. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about running the government like a business. If we are running the government like a business, look at the subject before us at this moment, the natural resource policy of the United States of America. Mining royalties, no one else gives away their precious natural resources. No other country on earth, no other landowner, no government; just the United States Government at $2.50 an acre. Mr. Chairman, we got $10,000 last year for a $20 billion gold mining claim, and we gave it away for $10,000 to a Canadian company that does not pay taxes in the United States. Is that running Government like a business? This bill would not fix that problem. This bill has a phony, sham mining royalty clause that would raise $14 million over 7 years. Hey, that is pretty stiff. The Congressional Budget Office, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], a Republican, says that we could do $540 million without even drawing a breath, and we would still have plenty of mining activity in the western United States. New loopholes for the poor and suffering oil and gas industry. You know, they have not been too profitable lately. Actually, they have been quite profitable, but they need new loopholes. Why? Because it is payoff time here. There was an election. There was an expensive election. There is going to be an election. That is going to be an expensive election. Do my colleagues know what? Those PACs, the banking PACs, the mining PACs, the oil and gas PACs, are dumping money into the new majority and they are getting their payoff right here today. The Republicans are talking about cutting welfare. Cut corporate welfare first.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, what strange version of democracy is this? We have a program that affects the lives, directly, of 40 million Americans, affects the lives of their children or their parents or their grandparents, a tremendously important program, and without any hearings on the final version of this legislation, this House is going to be forced to move forward with 3 hours of debate. Mr. Speaker, we spent about 10 times as much on the Waco hearings as we are going to spend on Medicare for every American. Medicare has problems. Yes. Does this bill address those problems? No. Is it a thoughtful approach? No. Is it something that will stabilize Medicare into the next century and anticipate the retirement of the baby boom? Absolutely not. Mr. Speaker, it is purely budget- and politics-driven. Medicare does have a problem. It has a $90 billion shortfall over a 7-year period. They are taking $273 billion to fix a $90 billion problem.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from the First District of California, Representative Riggs, in supporting an extension of State jurisdiction into the exclusive economic zone [EEZ] for the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. Certain fisheries, such as Dungeness crab, scallops, and thresher shark are not covered by a Federal fishery management plan [FMP]. States lack the authority to manage these fisheries while the Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS lack the resources to manage them. In the absence of management and conservation authority, these fisheries can easily be exploited by fishermen fishing exclusively in the EEZ and then landing the product in State or foreign nation without landing laws addressing that species of fish. The bill as it is currently written grants authority to manage in the EEZ to Alaska. I am hopeful that similar authority will be granted to Washington, Oregon, and California. I applaud the commitment by Representative Young to work toward resolution of this issue.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I think many Members feel, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] indicated just a few minutes ago, that the vote tomorrow will probably be the most important vote that we have cast in our career; certainly in my 17 years it qualifies. Mr. Speaker, when we began this session of Congress, there were great protestations about past abuses, closed rules that did not permit open debate, and amendments of all sorts from all across the spectrum here to be offered. We talked a lot about open meetings. To quote Woodrow Wilson, it was all going to be open covenants openly arrived at. This was going to be a new era. Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell you that what is happening to this most fundamental piece of legislation that all of us feel is so impactful on 40 million Americans in the Committee on Rules at the moment is a travesty. There are people who have yet to commit to vote for this legislation being offered by the Republicans who are angling for a little amendment that hopefully the Speaker will unilaterally without any congressional committee approval insert into an amendment offered by somebody when we get to the floor, probably the manager of the bill. Those people up there who have yet to commit to vote for this on the Republican side are struggling to get some cover so that they can vote for a piece of legislation that will be terribly destructive, not just to senior citizens, not just to rural and urban communities, but to the fabric of American life and the quality of our health care. It is a travesty because most Members who are not about to vote for something like this are going to be excluded from the process. They are not going to be put in a position to have the opportunity to offer a rule that would, for example, cut this from a $270 billion hit over the next 7 years, far more than the trustees would indicate is necessary, to something like $90 billion. We are not going to be able to repair the damage that this bill will do because we are being shut out of the process. I know people have heard it, they are probably sick of it, but 28 days of hearings on Whitewater, 10 on Waco, 8 on Ruby Ridge. I do not mean to say these are not important issues, but it tells you something. We had 1 day of hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, none in the Committee on Commerce, and now not a week of debate on this issue, something far less: 3 hours of general debate. Why? Because people do not want to talk about what is about to happen. Republicans offering this legislation do not really want the American people to fully comprehend the impact it is going to have on them. Otherwise we would spend a week and take 8 hours a day extolling the virtues of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I asked today in the Committee on Rules that we have 20 hours. I would be happy with 10. I would now take 5 based on what I expect. It is the antithesis of what we were told this Congress was going to be about when we kicked off in January and took up the vaunted Contract on America. It is a great frustration to anyone who appreciates the legislative process, who thinks that, regardless of the outcome of these issues, we ought to have a full debate. We ought to be able to exchange words and language in amendment form, just as we do in committee. The committees attempted to make some changes. Those changes were unilaterally and uniformly rejected by Republican majorities. But that does not mean that those of us who are not on those committees are shut out of the process. We ought to be able to have some of those key debates right here on the floor, not have just one alternative made in order, not the ability at all to deal with the intricacies of Medicare, a program that probably more than anything but Social Security is the hallmark of what American government is all about, what means the most to the American people. So I am just here today to kind of let out a protest on process. I will have more to say, as many of my colleagues will, about the inherent weaknesses in this approach, this budget-driven, tax-cut- justified approach. It is not, however, my purpose today. I am simply here to say that, from my perspective, this treatment of what is the centerpiece of the Republicans' effort to radically change the course of this country is being treated so cavalierly as to require protest by all of us simply because of the nature of the process in which it is being considered. I hope the Committee on Rules, before it finishes tonight, will hear our words, will make in order a number of amendments and will allow for the real debate that this radical legislation demands. I doubt if we will be satisfied by their ultimate decision.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Were it so that this bill has been scrubbed so clean. It seems out of a number of earmarks, that it would have been chosen for some reason. Now, was this particular earmark chosen to be eliminated because it lacks merit? I think not. What we are talking about here goes to some of the essential themes before this Congress. It is about health care in America. It is about providing more efficient health care. It is about saving lives for fewer dollars. That is what this project would do. I represent a district that is the 45th largest district in the U.S. Congress. Many people in my district live a couple hours away from the nearest hospital. We have a lot of rural clinics. Those rural clinics will be tied in by this system, which is developing a model for rural medicine across America, so that when Blue River, OR, has a nurse- practitioner and there is a serious accident and they take the x ray, they can get real-time consultation with experts up in Portland and decide whether or not we have to dispatch a helicopter, a very expensive helicopter, on a mercy flight, or whether that person can be stabilized and transported an hour by ambulance to the nearest hospital. Those are the sorts of decisions that will be made in an informed manner with this system. It is a system not just for the State of Oregon. Oregon is going to be the model, and it is going to set the template for the rest of the Nation, a way to provide rural health care in this country and meet our fiscal constraints. So it is not that this program lacks merit. I would wonder what are the merits of the Florida State University earmark, the Southern earmark, the University of Vermont earmark, the earmark for A&M College Systems in Baton Rouge, LA. I think there is an important person representing that area, lives down that way. The University of Florida solar program. These are all earmarks that are still in the bill. This is not a clean bill that suddenly has achieved great virtue, although the chairman would have us believe that. A couple of things have been chosen, for whatever reason, to be eliminated. I guess the question is, should this remain in on its merits? It saves money. Ultimately, it will save tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars across the country, for rural Oregonians and rural Americans. It will save lives. The most outrageous thing about this amendment is this was funded previously. The program was begun on September 15. Funds have already been committed, people have been hired. The software is being written, the technology is contracted for. And now we are going to cut it off in midstream, because we are saying that the Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield, somehow no one knew what the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was doing, that he snuck this in in the dark of the night. As Members heard from the former chairman of the committee, Portland State, the Oregon Health Sciences Center came forward with information last year.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I hope before the end of this debate we can get those numbers. I think that the serious money in the Department of Energy, if you look at the Department of Energy budget, it is not any more dedicated to energy independence and conservation of resources in this country. It is dedicated only to nuclear weapons production against a lot of enemies that no longer exist. These three labs get the lion's share of the money. Things that would make America truly competitive in the next century, like solar energy research, research conservation, we are gutting and doing away with. During the Reagan years, [[Page H 9850]] we sold all of our solar energy division here in Washington, DC. We privatized it. You know who bought it? Seimens, the Germans. Now what? They are the world's leader in solar energy technology. The United States is far, far behind. So we are going to unilaterally disarm, that is, give up any research that makes America more competitive in the international energy markets, international energy wars, but we are going to keep on building hydrogen bombs that we do not need when we have already got 10,000 of them. So the gentleman here, it looks good on the surface, but I wish the gentleman would do away with the obsolete nuclear weapons laboratories, ones that are building hydrogen bombs, and save the real money as opposed to picking on the things that have a real product, research for the civilian sector, research that makes this country more competitive in the international marketplace. It is an ill-intentioned amendment from that direction since it does not go after the big bucks.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have a question for the maker of the amendment. If he would, I would like to know the comparative budgets. You have excluded Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore. What is their budget compared to the total budgets of those which you would sell?

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is not, in effect.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to talk a little bit about something here, the advance agreement regarding the costs allowability of benefits due to the change of control, as defined in the various plans. Did your eyes glaze over yet, colleagues? Well, that is the idea. They are trying to put Members to sleep here, because they are trying to pull a fast one on the American taxpayer. What that language means and what this agreement says is that the U.S. Government, its U.S. taxpayers, are going to give golden parachutes to executives of failing defense contractors. Can you believe that? There is going to be a $92 million golden parachute to the directors of Martin Marietta. Now, that might be OK if it was coming from the stockholders. But one-third of that money, $31 million, is coming from the U.S. taxpayer. Somehow it is in the interests of the defense of the United States, somehow it is in the interests of the taxpayers, that we should pay the directors of a failing corporation who have merged with another corporation a subsidy. Lamar Alexander, Republican candidate for President of the United States, the guy in the flannel shirt, the ordinary guy, he is going to get $236,000 for merging these two companies together, $80,000 of that paid by the U.S. taxpayers. I do not believe anybody thinks that is right. The president of the firm is going to get $9.2 million for merging his firm with another, putting 30,000 skilled Americans out of work, who do not get so much as a thank you or a golden watch, let alone a golden parachute. One-third of his bonus for doing this, $3 million, will be paid by the Department of Defense, by the taxpayers of the United States of America, unless this motion to recommit is approved. Now, everything goes on around here with a wink and a nod. This language was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives, and now they are trying to pull it out. Mr. Speaker, vote ``aye'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall 645. I was unavoidably detained, and had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a bizarre version of reality from the other side of the aisle. First of all, let us talk about at what stage that 2 percent of the money that goes into research, in drug research in this country, is paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. Often private companies enter into agreements with the NIH to develop new drugs using that public research. [[Page H 8410]] In my State they developed a drug which came from a yew tree, a tree that grew on public lands. Here is the way it works: The taxpayers paid for all the research, we discovered and developed Taxol, the NIH entered into an exclusive agreement with one company, Bristol-Myers- Squibb, to sell that drug. The drug research was done by the taxpayers. The resource grew on public lands. The company got the profits. A $500 production cost dose of that critical cancer drug for ovarian cancer costs $10,000. Now we are saying, ``Oh, well, these drug companies, we would not want to control their prices.'' Then if they do not want to have price controls, they should not benefit free from public research. That is the bottom line here. They are not paying the development costs; the taxpayers are. Then the taxpayers have to go out and pay for profit rates of 20 times the cost of production. Mr. Chairman, this is, plain and simple, another ripoff. It is all about money. It is not only about taxpayer money, it is about political contributions; $357,500 in the first 2 months of this year were contributed to the Republican National Committee by the pharmaceutical industry. We can bet there will be a lot of righteous indignation on that side of the aisle tonight, because it is about what really runs this place, campaign contributions, and taxpayers' money, while we fleece them out of the other pocket by talking about free enterprise.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have noted that repeatedly the gentleman from New York has stood up and made a rebuttal statement or a statement that does not pertain to the yielding of time or to the introduction of the next speaker. I would like to know if the rules of the House allow for that or whether or not all of those comments should be counted against his time or whether those are out of order.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.