Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 83: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad idea spawned by a bad idea that was spawned by still yet another bad idea--and it will likely spawn a lot of other bad ideas in the future.

The first bad idea was to bail out the auto industry in the first place. The second bad idea was for the government to essentially take over the auto industries. We all know that government is not very good at manufacturing anything, so it has to manufacture demand. And that's what this bill is about. It is defying the laws of economics and saying we can manufacture enough demand to keep the auto industries afloat without other measures that they need to take to stay afloat. We can't simply manufacture demand any more than we can defy any of the other laws of economics.

A list was given of those who support this legislation. It says it has broad support from Ford, GM, Chrysler, the Automobile Dealers Association, the labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce. Can anybody tell me honestly if

anybody on that list has ever turned down a government subsidy of any type? I would submit I've never heard it, not in the time that I've been here. So it shouldn't surprise anybody that this list of individuals or organizations supports this legislation. That doesn't mean that we should. We have a duty to represent the taxpayers as well here.

I should note that just this morning there was a press conference about PAYGO--pay-as-you-go, don't pay out anymore than you take in. Where is the money going to come from for this? Perhaps that's why it is on the suspension calendar so that what should govern this place-- what kind of PAYGO rules that we have--don't actually apply. But you've got to pay the piper at some point, and we simply can't continue to go down this road.

Madam Speaker, this is a bad idea. This is a clunker of a bill that ought to be retired, and we ought to apply the cash toward our unsustainable deficit.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me say from the outset, this is, I believe, a bipartisan amendment. A similar amendment has been adopted in previous authorizations. So I'm pleased to offer it.

H.R. 2200, as we know, establishes a new grant program that would provide grants to operators of general aviation airports for projects to enhance perimeter security, airfield security, and terminal security. Notably absent from the language, however, is the determination of how this grant money is to be spent.

Too often we have seen legitimate grant programs become vehicles for Member projects. Members will simply earmark these funds for projects back home. A great example of this is FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program. Originally, this program was intended to ``save lives and reduce property damage'' by providing funds ``for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the floodplain.''

Rather than continuing to award grants that have traditionally been awarded on the basis of merit, using a 70-page guidance document that details requirements and criteria, Congress decided in 2007 to earmark about half of that funding.

That same grant program was earmarked in last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill. I have little doubt that it will be earmarked again this year as well, because once earmarks start to flow, you can rarely cut them off. And so you have legitimate grant programs with a legitimate purpose. You have applicants waiting to apply, only to find that the money in the account has been drained by Member earmarks.

Let me just say another example of this is the COPS grant program. It was slated to cost $5.5 billion over the past 5 years. These are some of the most heavily earmarked programs that the Congress authorizes.

Specifically, the COPS Law Enforcement and Technology grant program appropriated about $187 million in fiscal year 2009. That accounted for more than 500 earmarks, included in both the House and the Senate, at the cost of more than $185 million. This means that nearly 100 percent of the funds for that particular COPS program were earmarked for particular towns and cities.

I'm mentioning this because that's an example of other areas where, in some cases like the Homeland Security program, we said many times we will not earmark these dollars, and yet unless we have a specific prohibition or language prohibiting it, it happens. And so these accounts go wanting later.

I'm offering this amendment obviously to prevent the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. If we're going to authorize grant programs to meet specific needs, we need to ensure that these are met in a straightforward manner.

This amendment is simple. It would establish the presumption that the general aviation security grants will be awarded using competitive means and based on risk. Should the TSA decide to use an alternative means of awarding these grants, the amendment requires that the TSA provide to Congress a report explaining that decision.

Lastly, the amendment would prohibit this grant program from ever being earmarked. If Congress is serious about enhancing security at general aviation airports, including this kind of instructive language is necessary. History shows that without it, these programs, these accounts will become earmarked and it will nullify any legitimate need for the program to begin with, and I urge support for this bipartisan amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank the chairman for working with my staff to insert language to make sure that these programs, the awarding of these programs will be based on risk. That was a great addition to this amendment.

I appreciate being able to work with the chairman of the committee on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for introducing this. I think it's appropriate that the Congress at times names post offices, but I don't think that it is appropriate that we spend hours and hours doing it.

I think that if we ask our constituents at home if they want us to spend more time naming post offices or talking about post offices that have been named or talking about something important that will really affect them like cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax coming down the road, I think they'd say the latter. And I plan to vote for this post office naming, and I think it's appropriate that Carl B. Smith have a post office named after him in Maine.

Now, I think it's important that people across the country know what we're going to be debating this summer. It's going to affect them and affect them deeply, and if I was convinced that we're going to have adequate debate time on the floor for cap-and-trade, then I might feel more inclined to talk about post offices. But my guess is, when it comes to this, we're going to be having a very small amount of time actually on the floor. Very few amendments, if history is any guide, will be allowed on this cap-and-trade legislation, and there will be a truncated time and space that we actually have to talk about what is going to affect people all across the country.

Now, if I were supporting this cap-and-trade legislation that's coming down the pike, believe me, I wouldn't want to talk about it much here either because I think the more people learn about it, the more they fear about what is coming down the road here.

What is coming down the road are higher energy taxes. Let's be real here. And I think some on the other side of

the aisle have been honest enough to admit that. The Representative from Michigan said it best: I think nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a great big one. Even the President, we know, said during his campaign that electricity prices, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under cap-and-trade.

So we know that that's going to happen, but let's be honest about it. This is a high energy tax that Americans all over the country are going to be paying that's going to come to Washington, and then Washington is going to decide how to spend it, likely on something completely different.

If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then just impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral, give commensurate tax relief on the other side. Myself and another Republican colleague have introduced that legislation to do just that. Let's have an honest debate about whether or not we want to help the environment by actually having something that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as opposed to income. Then you would have a real honest debate at least here.

Instead, this is a revenue source to pay for other items. Not just that, it is a revenue source that is haphazardly imposed, more tax that is haphazardly imposed. I shouldn't say haphazardly because I think it's by design. When you look at this cap-and-trade legislation that is coming through committee now, you realize that certain sectors, certain utilities and others, have been exempted from it, will be given permits instead of sold permits to pollute.

And so this is nothing more than bringing more revenue to Washington, deciding who is going to be taxed in the end, and down the road somehow the environment is supposed to be helped.

But whenever you have just a new revenue source for Washington to decide how you're going to spend it, you don't really have an honest debate about what you're doing, let's face it.

What we're likely to have is something like we've had over the past few decades with ethanol policy where we've subsidized ethanol again and again, every year more and more, by tariffs, by market protections, by all-out subsidies. You name it, we've protected that industry. And in the end, what have we gained by it? I think it's a record that is dubious at best, and we keep saying we are just going to prime the pump just a few more years and it will be on its own, but it never is. Now, it's not working that well, but it's a bridge to something else.

Let's be honest about this debate. Let's have a debate where if you're going to help the environment, if you feel that we ought to put a value on carbon, then do it in a revenue neutral manner so you're not bringing more revenue to Washington, and that's what this cap-and-trade legislation is about.

I don't know how else you can put it. That's why it's important to talk about this rather than simply talk about post offices being named because this will affect the average American family in a big way. Some have estimated a few thousand dollars a year it might impact the average American family.

Whatever it is is going to impose a cost on the economy that is very difficult at this point to bear. And for what? What do we get in return? More revenue that Washington can spend on a different purpose or some other program? That's what this is turning into right now.

So I think it's appropriate, Madam Speaker, that we talk about cap- and-trade today, and I'm glad that we have something on the floor that allows us to do that.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I just saw the resolution. I don't know if it actually just punts the ball until the appropriations cycle is done or if it actually requires that the committee investigate.

Can the committee wait for 45 days and then announce that it is not investigating the PMA scandal, and then we're at the same place we are now?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

This resolution, as I understand it, does not require the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to do anything but report whether or not an investigation is occurring.

Does this motion require any action on the part of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct?

So no action is required.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Does the resolution require that the committee report back in 45 days or 45 legislative days?

Madam Speaker, the reason I ask is because within 45 days, the appropriations cycle will likely be completed.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas, The Hill reported that a prominent lobbying firm,

founded by Mr. Paul Magliocchetti and the subject of a

``federal investigation into potentially corrupt political

contributions,'' has given $3.4 million in political

donations to no less than 284 members of Congress.

Whereas, the New York Times noted that Mr. Magliocchetti

``set up shop at the busy intersection between political

fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of

millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while

steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks

contracts back to his clients.''

Whereas, a guest columnist recently highlighted in Roll

Call that ``. . . what [the firm's] example reveals most

clearly is the potentially corrupting link between campaign

contributions and earmarks. Even the most ardent earmarkers

should want to avoid the appearance of such a pay-to-play

system.''

Whereas, multiple press reports have noted questions

related to campaign contributions made by or on behalf of the

firm; including questions related to ``straw man''

contributions, the reimbursement of employees for political

giving, pressure on clients to give, a suspicious pattern of

giving, and the timing of donations relative to legislative

activity.

Whereas, Roll Call has taken note of the timing of

contributions from employees of the firm and its clients when

it reported that they ``have provided thousands of dollars

worth of campaign contributions to key Members in close

proximity to legislative activity, such as the deadline for

earmark request letters or passage of a spending bill.

Whereas, the Associated Press highlighted the ``huge

amounts of political donations'' from the firm and its

clients to select members and noted that ``those political

donations have followed a distinct pattern: The giving is

especially heavy in March, which is prime time for submitting

written earmark requests.''

Whereas, clients of the firm received at least three

hundred million dollars worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2009

appropriations legislation, including several that were

approved even after news of the FBI raid of the firm's

offices and Justice Department investigation into the firm

was well known.

Whereas, the Associated Press reported that ``the FBI says

the investigation is continuing, highlighting the close ties

between special-interest spending provisions known as

earmarks and the raising of campaign cash.''

Whereas, the persistent media attention focused on

questions about the nature and timing of campaign

contributions related to the firm, as well as reports of the

Justice Department conducting research on earmarks and

campaign contributions, raise concern about the integrity of

Congressional proceedings and the dignity of the institution.

Now, therefore, be it:

Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct, or a subcommittee of the committee designated by the

committee and its members appointed by the chairman and

ranking member, shall immediately begin an investigation into

the relationship between the source and timing of past

campaign contributions to Members of the House related to the

raided firm and earmark requests made by Members of the House

on behalf of clients of the raided firm.

(b) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall

submit a report of its findings to the House of

Representatives within 2 months after the date of adoption of

the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, just moments ago I gave notice of my intent to offer a privileged resolution asking that the House Ethics Committee look into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions and the link between PMA, the PMA Group that is currently under investigation by the Justice Department.

Now, it has been raised several times that this privileged resolution is a blunt instrument and that the Ethics Committee is really not designed to deal with such a resolution. And let me be the first to concede that point. These resolutions that I've offered--this is the ninth one that was offered tonight--they are a blunt instrument. The Ethics Committee is not designed to deal with an investigation of this magnitude, but it's the only instrument we've got at this point. We are really out of other options.

Right now as it stands, when Members of Congress request earmarks, they have to sign a statement saying that they have no financial interest in the earmark that they are pursuing; in other words, that a family member doesn't work on or for the firm receiving the earmark. But to receive campaign contributions in close proximity to that earmark request is not considered financial interest by the House Committee on Ethics, and the guidance that they've issued to Members is that that does not necessarily constitute financial interest. Yet we know that there are numerous investigations going on outside of this body by the Justice Department that have to do with earmarks and campaign contributions.

So out of an abundance of caution, I would hope that this institution would say we need to stay above this fray, that when you can--when a Member of Congress has the ability to award a no-bid contract to a private company, and then executives in that private company--and the lobbyists that are retained by them--can turn around and make sizable campaign contributions to that same Member who awarded the no-bid contract, we are going to have problems here and we're going to have investigations go on. And it will continue to represent a cloud over this body, a cloud that rains on Republicans and Democrats alike.

This is not a partisan resolution. This is not a partisan problem. No one party is above this. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have Members who are requesting earmarks for companies who then turn around and make sizable--I'm sorry--individuals in those companies turn around and make sizable contributions back to those same Members. And it is unbelievable that we continue to allow that to happen.

Now, I have said before, and I will say again, that I will stop offering this resolution as soon as we have an agreement not to allow the awarding of no-bid contracts for private companies. As soon as the leadership--both the Republicans and Democrats--agree in this body to stop that practice, to not have Members of Congress have the ability to award no-bid contracts--in other words, to get earmarks for private companies--then I will stop offering this resolution. It is a blunt instrument. I recognize that. The Ethics Committee is not really meant to deal with issues of this magnitude, but as long as we continue this practice and allow this to happen, then this institution is going to be under a cloud, as it is now.

So, again, I've noticed this resolution tonight. I don't have to call it up later this week. I would prefer not to. I would prefer not to have another vote on this resolution. But as long as we continue the practice of allowing Members of this body to award no-bid contracts to companies, private companies, who can then turn around and have their executives and the lobbyists they retain make sizable contributions to those same Members, and as long as we allow that practice to continue, we're going to need to address it somehow; and this is the only forum, this is the only vehicle that we're allowed right now.

So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can bring this resolution to some type of conclusion, that we won't have to offer a 10th next week or in some week to come, that we can actually deal with this meaningfully. This institution deserves far better than we are giving it.

I think when most of us were elected, we believed that we had a higher purpose than to come here and grovel for crumbs that fall from appropriators' tables, that we're here to debate the great issues of our time. And when you

have an issue like we have now where Members are able to award no-bid contracts to private companies, then we simply have to stop the practice.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate that he offered the amendment on my behalf and that it was accepted.

The prior amendment is simply to ensure that the programs done here are not earmarked later. Now, we've had that problem in prior bills. People say, well, this isn't set up for earmarks. This is going to be distributed, this money, in a merit-based way. But then a few years later, that account from which the money is drawn is completely earmarked, and those schools, in this case, or other groups who apply for the money can no longer get access to it because it's completely earmarked. So I think that this is an important amendment, and I appreciate the ranking minority member offering it on my behalf and the majority for accepting it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas, The Hill reported that a prominent lobbying firm,

founded by Mr. Paul Magliocchetti and the subject of a

``federal investigation into potentially corrupt political

contributions,'' has given $3.4 million in political

donations to no less than 284 members of Congress.

Whereas, the New York Times noted that Mr. Magliocchetti

``set up shop at the busy intersection between political

fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of

millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while

steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks back to

his clients.''

Whereas, a guest columnist recently highlighted in Roll

Call that ``. . . what the firm's example reveals most

clearly is the potentially corrupting link between campaign

contributions and earmarks. Even the most ardent earmarkers

should want to avoid the appearance of such a pay-to-play

system.''

Whereas, multiple press reports have noted questions

related to campaign contributions made by or on behalf of the

firm; including questions related to ``straw man''

contributions, the reimbursement of employees for political

giving, pressure on clients to give, a suspicious pattern of

giving, and the timing of donations relative to legislative

activity.

Whereas, Roll Call has taken note of the timing of

contributions from employees the firm and its clients when it

reported that they ``have provided thousands of dollars worth

of campaign contributions to key Members in close proximity

to legislative activity, such as the deadline for earmark

request letters and passage of a spending bill.''

Whereas, the Associated Press highlighted the ``huge

amounts of political donations'' from the firm and its

clients to select members and noted that ``those political

donations have followed a distinct pattern: The giving is

especially heavy in March, which is prime time for submitting

written earmark requests.''

Whereas, clients of the firm received at least three

hundred million dollars worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2009

appropriations legislation, including several that were

approved even after news of the FBI raid of the firm's

offices and Justice Department investigation into the firm

was well known.

Whereas, the Associated Press reported that ``the FBI says

the investigation is continuing, highlighting the close ties

between special-interest spending provisions known as

earmarks and the raising of campaign cash.''

Whereas, the persistent media attention focused on

questions about the nature and

timing of campaign contributions related to the firm, as well

as reports of the Justice Department conducting research on

earmarks and campaign contributions, raise concern about the

integrity of congressional proceedings and the dignity of

this institution.

Now, therefore, be it: Resolved, that

(a) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or a

subcommittee of the committee designated by the committee and

its members appointed by the chairman and ranking member,

shall immediately begin investigation into the relationship

between the source and timing of past campaign contributions

to Members of the House related to the raided firm and

earmark requests made by Members of the House on behalf of

clients of the raided firm.

(b) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall

submit a report of its findings to the House of

Representatives within 2 months after the date of adoption of

the resolution.

Tomorrow, I plan to offer a privileged resolution regarding earmarks and campaign contributions. This will be the eighth such resolution that has been offered.

The House leadership maintains that this privileged resolution is a blunt instrument and that the Ethics Committee is not designed to deal with issues of this magnitude. Let me be the first to concede the point. These resolutions are a blunt instrument, and the House Ethics Committee is not designed to deal with issues of this magnitude. But it's the only instrument we've got.

Here's the problem. Many of the earmarks that have been recently approved by the House represent no-bid contracts to private companies. In many cases, executives at the private companies and the lobbyists who represent them have turned around, have made large campaign contributions to the Members who secured these no-bid contracts for them.

It would seem to me that overly burdening the House Ethics Committee should be the least of our worries here.

We're informed that with the PMA investigation, the Justice Department is looking into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. The Justice Department just indicted former Governor Blagojevich, in part, based on allegations of official acts promised in exchange for campaign contributions. And we're worried about overburdening the House Ethics Committee?

Let me repeat. The House just awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of no-bid contracts to companies whose executives and their lobbyists turned around and contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Members of Congress who secured those no-bid contracts. It seems to me that concerns about overly burdening the Ethics Committee are misplaced.

I want to applaud members of the Democratic freshman class who have now been subjected to intense pressure from their leadership. These freshmen came to this body with the bright and untarnished respect for the institution. The curtain has now been pulled back and my guess is they don't like what they see. I know just how they feel.

I think that they know that the ability of Members of Congress to award no-bid contracts to private companies whose executives and lobbyists turn around and give them campaign contributions cannot be explained, let alone justified.

I think that these freshmen and other supporters of this resolution fully understand that these privileged resolutions are an unwieldy instrument, but that the process these resolutions are attempting to expose is not being addressed in any other substantive fashion.

As for myself, I have been asked why I don't just file an ethics complaint against an individual. This is not about any one individual. This is not about any one party. The practice of awarding no-bid contracts to private companies whose executives turn around and make contributions to those Members who secured the no-bid contract or earmark goes on in both political parties. Consequently, the ethical cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike.

This is not about retribution. I feel much the same about this issue as the President feels about enhanced interrogations or torture. Let's move on. But let's move on into a world in which we understand that awarding no-bid contracts to private companies whose executives and lobbyists turn around and make campaign contributions to the Member of Congress who secured the no-bid contract is neither right nor proper.

Now, some may say that these concerns are addressed in the earmark reforms that have already been adopted. This is simply untrue. Among the tens of thousands of earmark requests that have been made for the coming fiscal year are thousands of no-bid contracts for private companies.

I'm planning to give notice, as I mentioned, of another privileged resolution tomorrow, but I'm prepared to hold off asking for a vote on the resolution next week if the House leadership is willing to put a stop to the practice of awarding no-bid contracts for private companies.

The ball is in the court of the House leadership. If they want to continue to defend the practice of giving no-bid contracts to private companies whose executives and their lobbyists turn around and make campaign contributions to those Members who secure the no-bid contracts, then I suppose we'll have to continue to use this blunt instrument.

Mr. Speaker, we owe this institution far better than we're giving it. Let's treat this Congress with the same respect and reverence that it deserves.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, a lot has been said about the last 8 years. And just to make it known, there were a lot of us who weren't happy with the level of spending that went on during that time. We were headed for a fiscal cliff. We knew that. A lot of us knew that, and a lot of us weren't shy in saying it. A lot of us voted against a lot of appropriations bills because they spent too much money.

But when you're headed toward a fiscal cliff, you don't step on the accelerator. And that's what this budget does. We all know or we should know, or we'll claim we knew it when it happens, that the next crisis will be when we try to auction off some Treasury bills that nobody buys. What do we do then? What do we do when nobody wants to lend us money? And we're going to get there, we know we are, because this budget puts us on the track to get there a lot sooner than we would have been otherwise.

That's why this budget needs to be rejected. It's simply too big. I think people know that. And as we go through the appropriations process, I think that will become even clearer.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I think we owe our constituents a little honesty here. We know that we can't grow an economy when we're dragging around debt that equals about 80 percent of GDP. Yet that's what is contemplated in the Democrats' budget.

We know that future generations will be taxed far in excess of their ability to sustain today's level of spending, yet that is what we are going to impose on future generations.

Now, part of the reason we're in such dire financial straits today is because we had a real estate bubble that burst. More money was invested in the real estate sector than the market could ultimately sustain.

But the budget being proposed today funds another bubble in another sector of the economy, the government sector. Under this budget, more money is being spent by government than the market can ultimately sustain. Now, you can call it government spending. You can call it critical investment. You can call it whatever you want. But it doesn't change the fact that the market simply can't sustain this level of spending.

Madam Chair, we can't suspend the laws of economics. We're trying awful hard here, but we can't. Yet that's what this budget pretends we can do.

We need to pass a budget that recognizes that our job here is to allow the private sector to pull us out of this recession. We should enact a budget that doesn't serve political ends, but rather, imposes a tax and regulatory environment that allows the private sector to allocate capital in a way that rewards hard work and ingenuity. That's what the RSC budget does. It recognizes who will eventually pull us out of this recession, the private sector, not the government sector.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

When you look at the Democrats' budget, the numbers are just staggering. 2010 spending, $3 trillion, 25 percent of gross domestic product, $1.2 trillion tax increase over 10 years, $1 trillion spending increase over 5 years, nondefense discretionary spending increases 12 percent, the national debt increases $5.1 trillion, doubling over 5 years. The 2010 deficit will be $1.2 trillion.

How can you look at these numbers and conclude anything other than we simply can't sustain this level of debt? We can't grow an economy when we are dragging this level of debt. It simply defies the laws of economics. We can't do that.

Now some in defense of the Democratic budget will say, ``we inherited this fiscal mess that we are in.'' I will stipulate to that. We didn't do a very good job when we were in the majority controlling spending. But you don't put your foot on the accelerator when you are headed toward a fiscal cliff. And that is what this budget does. It simply gets us there a lot faster. And we simply can't do that.

Madam Chair, I would urge us to reject the overall budget, adopt something that we can actually afford and sustain and that will get us growing economically again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.