To validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 645 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself.

I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote to consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.

I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so that we can consider the rule and get down to doing the business of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 645.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 645 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Obey as well as Mr. Pastor and Mr. Visclosky for their work on this bill. They have been tireless advocates for vital funding in this legislation which truly meets the needs of a number of important areas from our water infrastructure to our national energy policies. Specifically, the bill provides $5.5 billion for the Corps of Engineers, which is $139 million over 2009 levels. For my constituents, this funding is more than just numbers. It is a matter of survival. My district sits at the confluence of two great rivers, the Sacramento and the American. The Sacramento is considered to have the highest flood risk of any major metropolitan city in the United States. Almost a half million people, 110,000 structures, the capital of the State of California and up to $58 billion are at risk of flooding in my district alone. The Federal investments in this legislation for the Corps of Engineers directly benefits not only my constituents but the capital of the eighth largest economy in the world. Vital funding will strengthen levees along the American and Sacramento Rivers, levees which keep my constituents safe every single day.

The bill also makes it possible for the Corps of Engineers to complete a GRR to protect the Natomas community in my district. Additional funds will go toward levee construction in south Sacramento, which will give that community 100-year protection. These are projects I have worked on throughout my career in Congress, and I am eager to see it move forward. Finally, this important appropriations bill will also invest in modifications to the joint Federal project to provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage in the Folsom Reservoir.

From the joint Federal project in Sacramento to the levee work in the Mississippi Delta to the coastal restoration in the southeast, this bill works to protect our communities and commits to a strong investment in our aging infrastructure. The legislation before us today builds on the job-creating work of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has already started to stem the tide of bad economic news. In April, $10 million was invested in flood protection infrastructure in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This project alone will create up to 200 quality American jobs in manufacturing and construction. In my district alone, the Recovery Act has invested $21 million already in keeping my constituents' homes safe from floods and in keeping people in their jobs. The legislation before us today builds upon this positive record of infrastructure investment as a job- creating strategy. It will employ scientists to perform hydraulic studies, engineers to design levees and construction workers to move the dirt. When we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. The same is true for energy. When we invest in energy independence, we invest in our economic health. I strongly support the significant energy policies that this bill supports. Thanks to the congressional leadership in this House, our country is finally on the right track toward a clean energy future that will create jobs here at home and enhance our competitiveness abroad. Between the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the American Clean Energy and Security Act, this Congress has created a new day for our national energy policy.

The legislation contains $1 billion to reduce our dependence on foreign oil

and keep energy prices low. This funding will go toward research, development, demonstration and deployment of energy technologies which will help our country become more energy independent. When I look to the future of the world economy, other countries are already investing in the clean energy technologies that will power the future. China, for example, doubled its wind power investment in 2008 and has made its intentions clear to become the world's leader in wind energy development. The legislation before us today represents a strong step that this House can take to compete with the Chinese.

This bill also looks toward the future and provides robust funding for both the Department of Energy and the Office of Science. It makes a commitment to support the advancement of innovative technologies by providing $2.25 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It also recognizes the importance of an efficient, reliable, secure and flexible transmission and distribution grid by increasing funding for electricity delivery and energy reliability to $208 million, 52 percent above last year's level. Every increase for clean energy in this bill is a bet on the ingenuity of the American people to compete in a global marketplace where clean energy will drive investment for decades into the future. Just as every dollar invested in levees and other infrastructure in this bill is a down payment on the safety and security of communities, like my hometown of Sacramento, safety and security is what the legislation before us today is all about.

I strongly support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Obey and the committee for their work on this robust bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Arcuri.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point.

This bill makes an investment in nuclear power and makes it clear that nuclear energy is a component of the overall energy mix. The bill provides $812 million for nuclear, $20 million above the fiscal year 2009 level, and $51 million above the President's request. Support is provided for existing activities funded in fiscal year 2009 and ensures this area is included in our funding priorities.

And with that, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point.

Infrastructure spending on public safety projects in this bill will save jobs across America.

Infrastructure spending is also smart investment, exactly the kind of smart investment the American people want this Congress to be making at this difficult point in our history.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates levee construction provides a 6-to-1 return on flood damages prevented when compared to initial investment cost. At the same time, our country's levees are crumbling and putting public health at risk.

Now is exactly the time to invest in this critical public good.

With that, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight a significant appropriations bill. After seven hearings, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water crafted an important bill that brings our spending priorities in line with America's vision for a brighter tomorrow.

The bill before us invests in new technologies, scientific research and conservation efforts. It increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation allowing them to continue their mission to improve our water infrastructure.

The bill continues to invest in the development of a new smart grid to ensure electricity delivery and energy reliability, and it makes a commitment to renewable energy and scientific research. The bill also continues ongoing nuclear nonproliferation efforts and rejects funding for the development of a new nuclear weapon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 645 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert

the following:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and

water development and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of

order against consideration of the bill are waived except

those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against

provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of

rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may

accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in

the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed

shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that

the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The underlying legislation, the Energy-Water Appropriations Act, provides over $33.2 billion in funding for critical water projects. It helps to develop a cleaner, more dependable energy sector that is less dependent on unreliable sources of foreign energy. It also supports our national defense system by funding critical weapons and nonproliferation programs. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, known as WRDA, authorized the deepening of the Miami Harbor to a depth of 50 feet. The underlying legislation follows up on that authorization with $600,000 for the planning of the dredging project. Reaching a depth of 50 feet by the time that the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014 is of both local and national importance. Once the Panama Canal expansion is complete, a new class of supercargo carriers will be able to traverse the canal and will be looking for new deepwater ports to unload their cargo. However, there are very few ports in the United States ready to handle those carriers. Once Miami reaches the 50-foot depth mark, it will be the closest U.S. port to the Panama Canal that can handle the carriers and will serve as a vital entry point for international trade in and out of the United States. The ability of the Port of Miami to accommodate those carriers will double the amount of cargo the port is able to handle and will serve to cement Miami's position as the trade capital of the Americas. It will also create numerous high-paying jobs; and it will have an extraordinary impact, obviously, on the local economy.

The Florida Everglades is a great national treasure. The Everglades' combination of abundant moisture, rich soils and subtropical temperatures traditionally supported a vast array of species. Flood control and reclamation efforts in the 1940s and the 1950s manipulated the Everglades' hydrology, redirecting fresh water destined for the Everglades out to sea. Its ecosystem was also harmed by degraded water quality. Pollutants from urban areas and agricultural run-off, including pesticides and excess nutrients, have harmed plant and animal populations. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which I strongly support, will capture fresh water destined for the sea, the lifeblood of the Everglades, and direct it back to the ecosystem to revitalize it. At the same time the project will also improve water supplies, provide flood control for South Florida and protect wildlife. My colleagues in the South Florida delegation and I have worked closely with appropriators to secure funding for this important project. I'm thankful to my colleagues, and I am pleased the Appropriations Committee agreed on the importance of this project by appropriating $210 million. I would like to thank Chairman Pastor and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for their bipartisan work on the important underlying legislation that we're bringing to the floor today.

While I support the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Last month the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills, debate that, historically, was almost always considered under an open rule, an open process of debate. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are set to consider the eighth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that severely limits the ability of Members from both sides of the aisle to bring amendments to the floor for debate and for a vote and is not in the usual open procedure which allows every Member to offer their amendments.

During last week's Rules Committee hearing on the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, testified that there was still time to undo the majority's new precedent, restricting the ability of Members to offer amendments to appropriation bills. Mr. Lewis asked the majority to reconsider the use of structured rules on appropriations bills, to return to regular order, to historical order, to the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. He even offered his services to persuade Members to not offer dilatory amendments, which would hamper the ability of Congress to complete its appropriations work on time, something that both the majority and the minority wish to accomplish. Ranking Member Dreier of the Rules Committee and I also offered to help Ranking Member Lewis rein in any Members who wished to unnecessarily prolong the debate process. I really hoped that the majority on the Rules Committee would heed Mr. Lewis' thoughtful suggestion and accept his offer to help move the process along if an open debate process was returned to. However, the majority, once again, blocked the overwhelming majority of Members from both sides of the aisle from having a full opportunity to debate the bill and represent the interests of their constituents.

So, Mr. Speaker, the majority has not understood the damage it is causing this House by closing debate unnecessarily on appropriations bills by breaking, in effect, two centuries of precedents. It is sad.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Nathan Deal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mrs. Matsui, once again for her courtesy, and I want to thank all of my distinguished colleagues who have participated in this debate on the rule bringing forward to the floor the appropriations bill, the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

I was particularly impressed by the arguments brought forth by Lee Terry who explained--and I wasn't aware of it--how, in the authorizing committee, and, quite frankly, then the Appropriations Committee, there have been systematic attempts to limit, close down debate, really, on developing, encouraging in a serious, comprehensive way nuclear power for the Nation.

It reminded me of what I consider an unfortunate aspect of the dogma of the left of the United States. Curious is their opposition to nuclear power. Not necessarily is that the case with the left everywhere. In France, for example, where about 80 percent of electricity is generated from nuclear power, governments of the left and the right. President Mitterand was a strong supporter of nuclear power, as obviously was President Giscard, and then President Chirac, and now President Sarkozy. Left and right in France have seen the critical importance of developing nuclear power and the importance of reprocessing, which was what Lee Terry was talking about, that ever since the Carter years here we have limited, we have excluded, in effect, that option.

So we're at a point now where we spend so much--we use so much imported oil in this country to generate electricity. That's insane when there is a clean option, nuclear power, which requires reprocessing in order to be really effective, as demonstrated in France. And yet the dogma of the American left on that issue curiously does not make that option possible.

Let me ask, how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

It is a pillar of thought of the American left's opposition to nuclear power. I think it's evident. And the American left controls the leadership of this Congress, and it's unfortunate, as Mr. Wamp pointed out, because, and as I tried to point out earlier, in other countries left and right agree on the importance of nuclear power. It's clean energy that is available, readily available, and safe to reduce dependence on oil immediately.

Alternative sources are being developed, and they're important. But in terms of the significant substitution of oil with new sources, clean and reliable sources of energy, there is nothing that's available that can be more impacted or more effective than nuclear power. So it's a curiosity.

As a student, I studied comparative politics, comparative law. As a student of the left and the right in many countries, I find it curious as to why it is, because it is evidently a pillar of thought of the American left--opposition to nuclear power--but it's a fact.

I will be asking for a ``no'' on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so we can amend this rule so we can allow an open process. There is no question that the rules the majority bring forth today will help to cement the dangerous precedent that it set last month. It will further damage bipartisanship and comity in this body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. If we do not do so, I believe the majority will come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, we are going through an appropriations process. We will do two bills this week. Traditionally, appropriations bills have been open rules. They come to the floor. Members are allowed to offer as many amendments as they wish--striking funding, moving funding around, making a policy point. That has been the tradition of this House.

It is sometimes pointed out that it hasn't always been this way, that the appropriations bills haven't always been open, and that there is no reason why they should be. Yet I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that, over the past 20 years, we've gotten into a practice of loading up and larding up these appropriations bills with all kinds of congressionally directed spending.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee likes to say that, when he chaired the Appropriations Committee in 1992, when the Labor-HHS bill came through, there was not one congressional earmark, not one. That's less than 20 years ago. There was not one congressional earmark. I think, in the past couple of years, there have been upwards of 2,500 earmarks in that bill. In the bill that we'll address today, the energy and water bill, there are literally hundreds of earmarks.

Now, one would like to think that the Appropriations Committee would vet these earmarks, would actually check them out to see if they're meeting Federal purpose, if money is being wasted, if it, maybe, looks bad and looks like it's tied to campaign contributions or whatever, but they don't. They don't have the time or the resources or, perhaps, the inclination to do so, so all we have is this forum here on the floor. When you bring an appropriations bill to the floor under a closed rule or a restricted rule--a structured rule--and deny Members the ability to offer amendments, then you've shut down this place in a way that is simply not right.

For this bill, there were 103 amendments submitted. Now, because you have to pre-file your amendments, a lot of Members will submit more amendments than they intend to offer on the floor just to protect their place. So the majority party knows that we would never have offered 103 amendments on the floor. We won't have time to do it. We have done it in years past, but only 21 of these remained in order--78 Republican amendments were submitted, and only 14 were made in order.

The gentleman from Georgia, to whom I will yield 3 minutes, has been offering a number of amendments, and has not been able to have them made in order.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is an unfunded mandates point of order that has been raised. This is not unfunded mandates we're talking about here. Unfortunately, this is about the only way we can get time to actually talk about this rule at sufficient length.

As to the way that these appropriations bills are being shut down for Members and when the gentlelady said that this bill should be voted on according to its merits, the problem is there were dozens and dozens of meritorious amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. The fact that they actually had to be submitted tells us we've got some problems here because, as I mentioned, appropriations bills have traditionally been open, but meritorious amendments have been submitted, and only a few have been allowed.

Now, I happen to have six, I believe, allowed in this bill, and I know full well the game here. I offer limitation amendments on earmarks. The majority party knows full well that earmarking is a bipartisan addiction and that the process of logrolling takes effect and that my amendments are defeated routinely. So they can throw me a bone here and there, and that's fine. I understand that. Still, we need to raise these issues. Let me tell you why.

This was in the Washington Post today, and you can look yesterday in Roll Call or in The Hill from the day before. Virtually every day there is a news story about earmarks having gone awry. This one in particular talks about defense earmarks, that there are some individuals in the lobbying community and in the defense community who have pled guilty to taking earmarks from this body and to spreading them around to several contractors who didn't do the work that they promised to do. Some actually took kickbacks for the earmark money they distributed. These were earmarks that were supposedly vetted by the Appropriations Committee, but we know that the Appropriations Committee doesn't have the time or resources to vet these earmarks.

We're going to be doing a defense appropriations bill in just a couple of weeks. We've allowed one day for that bill to be on the floor, and if history holds, only a couple of amendments will be allowed, particularly amendments to strike earmarks. If on this floor we are not going challenge these earmarks, where are we going to do it?

They're not doing it in the Appropriations Committee. From sad experience, we know that. Over the past several years, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has said they

don't have the time or the resources to adequately vet these earmarks, so we have two choices. We ought to have two choices. Either strike the earmarks and not bring the bill to the floor with congressional earmarks in there or have proper time to vet them on the floor. Or simply say that we're not going to allow them at all until we get this process fixed. Instead, what we've chosen to do is to cover up the process and to pretend that there is no problem here and to simply limit the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor and hope that nobody notices, that nobody sees.

What happens when nobody sees--last year, for example, we weren't allowed to offer any amendments on the floor. The defense appropriations bill was offered as part of a ``minibus'', and no amendments were offered at all. Then we get stories like this. Let me just quote one paragraph from this story:

It really puts a fine point on the murky unaccountable web that exists around earmarks, said Steve Ellis of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. These earmarks, because there is very little accountability, provide a petri dish for corruption.

Certainly, that is what we've seen over the past several years, but we are not allowing adequate time on the floor to vet what will be likely over 1,000 earmarks or close to it--if there are not 1,000, there will be several hundred--in the defense bill that's going to be coming up.

What is worse is that hundreds of these earmarks that will be in the defense bill will be given to companies whose executives will turn around and will write large campaign contributions to the sponsor of the earmark in the bill. So, essentially, we are earmarking for our campaign contributors.

I think we should all agree that, if there are earmarks in this body, they certainly shouldn't be going to those who can turn around and can then make a campaign contribution directly back to them. To give a Federal appropriation a no-bid contract--and that's what earmarks are, particularly in the defense bill, no-bid contracts--to somebody who can turn around and write a campaign contribution right back to you is wrong.

What makes it doubly wrong is that now, in the House, we are going to tell Members you can't even challenge those earmarks on the floor because we're going to limit you to three or four amendments. Choose them. That's it. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. We can't continue to do that. People say that, outside of the Beltway, nobody cares about process. That may be true, but take it from somebody who was in the majority and who is now in the minority, who is squarely in the minority: Bad process yields bad results, and it will catch up to you sooner or later. What is worse is that what we're doing, particularly with earmarks in the defense bill, reflects poorly on this House.

The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike; and we ought to stand up to the institution and say, We think more of this institution than that to have this cloud out there. So I would plead with everyone, Mr. Speaker, to not proceed with bills like this which don't allow Members to offer amendments on the floor, the amendments that are meritorious, that are not trying to slow down the process. They are simply trying to improve the bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in opposition to this rule because 80 percent of the amendments that were brought forward on this bill were not allowed under this rule. And so clearly we are not operating under a transparent process. We are not operating under a process that is allowing the free debate that I think all Americans want us to have on appropriations bills that spend their money.

First, there were some amendments that were brought forward that would have actually directed the Corps of Engineers to base their flood protection decisions on the most safe options to protect our citizens and their property from future storms. That amendment was not allowed under this rule. There was actually an amendment to cut, and I know it is a word that some people don't like over in this building, to cut spending by $7 billion based on the amount of money that was added in the stimulus bill.

I think many of us, on this side for sure, and I would hope some of my colleagues on the other side, would even acknowledge that the President's stimulus bill was a failed spending bill, $800 billion of new government spending at a time when our economy is hurting. And now even the Vice President acknowledges they misread the economy.

Everybody I think that has looked at it objectively acknowledges the spending bill was a bad idea. Those of us who voted against it said it would be a bad idea and hurt the economy then. That is why we proposed an alternative. Yet this steamroller to just continue spending money out of control went on, and they passed the bill.

There was an amendment that was proposed that would have cut that $7 billion in this Department that went through the stimulus bill that clearly isn't working. Instead of controlling the spending and allowing a vote on that, that was ruled out of order under this rule.

All of us that have looked and said, where are the jobs from the spending bill, that stimulus bill, no one can point to the jobs, because we have lost jobs. Since President Obama took office, 2 million more Americans have lost their job. And what is their answer? You would think their answer would be, Maybe some of those Republicans that had some alternative ideas might have been right; we will actually work in a bipartisan way and go talk to them and see what their ideas were because they were good ideas that would have helped small businesses and helped American families get back on

their feet. Instead, these ideas were discarded. Maybe they would go back and look at those ideas again.

Instead, some people in the White House are actually suggesting a second stimulus bill, yet another massive spending bill at a time when the spending is what is hurting our economy. And so we bring an amendment to cut spending, and they rule it out of order in this rule.

Maybe Speaker Pelosi and some of her liberal lieutenants think that the American people aren't watching, and maybe they are high-fiving because they are hoodwinking people into not knowing what is going on here in this House.

But I hate to tell them, the American people are watching, and they don't like what they see. They see massive runaway spending. They see more jobs being lost. They see this energy bill, this cap-and-trade energy tax that would run millions of jobs to countries like China, causing more Americans to be unemployed and raising utility rates on every American family.

The American people are watching this. And they are demanding action from Congress. That is why we are bringing these amendments to cut the spending.

I want to thank my friend from Florida again. That is why we are bringing these amendments. We are bringing constructive ideas to solve the problems of our country and to propose different approaches, not massive spending, but actually ways to get Americans back employed, ways to help small businesses survive during these tough times, ways to help middle class families who are struggling to get back on their feet. And every time we bring these proposals, the liberal leadership on the other side says, no, we don't want to hear those alternative ideas; we want to just keep spending money like there is no end in sight.

Well, there is an end in sight. And if you look just earlier this week, we reached a hurdle that I don't think is a good hurdle, I don't think anyone should be proud of, but it is a historic hurdle. Earlier this week, our country exceeded $1 trillion in deficits during the course of a fiscal year. It was already exceeded this week, and we still have months to go in the fiscal year.

So this is going to have a devastating effect on our economy, this massive runaway spending. And yet they bring a rule that closes debate on 80 percent of amendments.

I would urge rejection of this rule.

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.

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?