Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Validating Nevada Lands Transfer

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC


VALIDATING NEVADA LANDS TRANSFER -- (House of Representatives - July 14, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today alarmed at the spending that is going on in Washington, D.C. More specifically, I want to talk about the President's ignoring article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that says, when you appoint somebody in a significant role who is part of your administration, you need to have the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Irrespective of this, President Obama has named 33 czars outside of the traditional infrastructure of Washington.

Now, in its day, czarist Russia had 18 czars over a 300-year period of time, but here, in a 7-month period of time, President Obama now has 33 czars. I guess his vision is a czarist America. I'm not sure. We have a Great Lakes czar, a regulatory czar, an automobile czar, a Guantanamo closure czar, a TARP czar, a new TARP czar, all kinds of different czars, none of whom have gone in front of the U.S. Senate.

Now, why is going in front of the U.S. Senate important aside from the constitutional requirement?

Well, for one thing, you get an automobile czar who has got some shady business dealings--a 31-year-old who doesn't know a spark plug from a lug nut. Why do you think this person could turn around Detroit? Well, we found out now he's on his way out the door ignominiously. Maybe that embarrassment to the administration could have been prevented had this 31-year-old boy genius auto czar had to sit in front of the Senate as do judicial appointees and cabinet appointees.

I think a lot of people think, well, yeah, the Senate approves Cabinet members, but they also approve deputy under secretaries. Hundreds and even thousands of people have to come before the U.S. Senate for the constitutional requirement. The Constitution can be inconvenient to this administration--I realize that--but again, article II, section 2 says you must seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

How about the energy czar? The energy czar is a member of some wacko socialist group who believes the way to deal with global warming is for large industrial countries--i.e., the United States of America, and this would be non-czarist America--to shrink their economies in order to offset their emissions. That's the belief of the group that the energy czar belongs to. Wouldn't it be interesting to talk to the energy czar and ask her why she thinks this is a good group to be a member of? What would the socialist group have to offer to the United States of America at this point?

Perhaps the Senate would like to talk to the stimulus accountability czar.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.

The word ``accountability'' attracts my attention because the stimulus accountability czar spent $18 million designing a Web page. A show of hands of how many of you want some of that action. Eighteen million dollars to design a Web page? Talk about stimulating the economy. Boy, that was one way to spend our money. Again, the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, article II, section 2, may have avoided that type of expenditure.

What do these people get paid, Mr. Speaker? $172,000 a year. Thirty-three people times $172,000--not to mention the myriad of staffs and entourages that we important people in Washington, D.C., have to go everywhere with. You never see somebody just walking in by him or herself. You always see the entourage that tells the whole world ``I am important.'' Therefore, I get back to the constitutional question:

If you are important, and if you have to have this big staff that costs the taxpayers millions of dollars, why not comply with the U.S. Constitution's article II, section 2: advice and consent of the U.S. Senate?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top