Last Updated: Thu, 10/22/2009 - 10:02pm

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Joe Lieberman, held a hearing on Thursday, October 22 to address the proliferation of policy ‘czars’ throughout the Obama Administration. Titled “Presidential Advice and Senate Consent: The Past, Present, and Future of Policy Czars” it is the second time the Senate has addressed the issue of czars this month.

Witnesses at the hearing included:

• Former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge
• George Mason University professor, Dr. James P. Pfiffner
• Former Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Lee A. Casey
• Former specialist in American National Government at the Congressional Research Service, Dr. Harold C. Relyea

As powerful Obama Administration “advisors” continue to make headlines, concerns are intensifying both in Congress and among the American public. Under the Obama Administration there are numerous powerful and unconfirmed czars who are enacting major policy decisions. In fact, one of Obama’s appointments - ‘Health Care Czar’ Nancy-Ann DeParle – has been granted under Executive Order the power to “develop and implement strategic initiatives.”

The Administration’s Czars are invested with massive amounts of power and lack any level of congressional oversight. Without oversight, many of the czars are shrouded in a veil of secrecy, threatening the government transparency required for an effective democracy. At the Congressional Hearing on Thursday, Ranking Committee Member Susan M. Collins addressed the inseparability of accountability and transparency in her opening statement, noting that “[O]versight ensures the accountability and transparency our Founding Fathers envisioned”

The Hearing touched upon the practical problem of ineffective government management due to a complex system of policy-advisors and czars. Unlike Cabinet-level leaders, who hold clearly defined and Senate confirmed positions, the various presidential czars hold positions of murky/undefined power. This leaves Congress and the public in the dark when it comes to who is really calling the shots, and as Senator Collins notes, undermines the “promises Obama made to the American people.” In his testimony, Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge argued against presidential dependence on policy czars, pointing instead to the advantages of clearly defined policy-makers. He notes “Greater transparency and communication about role delineation and reporting structure will promote greater collaboration and management effectiveness, which will promote good governance.”

Aside from the clear problems of how to achieve effective governance in the absence of any clear lines of accountability, policy-czars also violate the fundamental spirit of the Constitution. This is a problem because White House czars are able to circumvent Congressional authority by the President delegating authority that already is in the purview of other officials (which is arguably the case with Paul Volcker, Nancy Ann deParle and Carol Browner whose duties greatly overlap those of Secretaries). In a deliberate non-partisan effort, Senator Collins specifically pointed to both the Bush and Obama Administrations’ appointments of ‘WMD Czars’ (Gary Samore currently) as a complete circumvention of a statutory position that was created by Congress in 2007. The congressionally created WMD Officer is “To provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. “ However, this Officer requires the same oversight required of all statutory officers. To avoid this pesky check on the presidency, the Obama Administration simply neglected to fill the congressionally created office, and created its own -- “Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism.” For Obama to leave a statutory office vacant and instead announce his own Czar -- who is to carry out the exact same duties --is a clear circumvention of Congressional oversight.

During this line of discussion, Lee A. Casey was the lone dissenter raising the question of whether Congress even has the authority to create a position to act as an adviser to the President.  He argued that such a creation raises an issue of the separation of powers.  After murmuring amongst colleagues, Senator Collins refuted Casey’s concern by noting that if such a question were valid it could be raised about any congressionally created position and had the President taken exception to the position, he had the authority to veto the law. 

Beyond the problem of policy-czars, witness James Pfiffner brought up a number of other threats to congressional constitutional authority. These include the use of signing statements “to imply that the president may not faithfully execute the law,” secret programs “that effectively nullify or circumvent the laws”, as well as a President’s use of the state secrets privilege “to avoid the disclosure of or accountability for their actions." To this extent, the czar issue is one among a number of threats to the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution. Nonetheless, the unprecedented proliferation of czars makes it crucial that the issue be dealt with sooner rather than later. Defending the proper system of checks and balances is a necessity if the United States is to preserve the accountability and transparency required for a successful democracy. 

www.judicialwatch.org/foiablog/2009/oct/senate-holds-second-hearing-obama-s-czars