Bennett Says President's "Czars" Undermine the Constitution

Senate Republicans Send Letter to President Obama Asking for Answers
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) today sent a letter to President Obama expressing serious concern over the creation of "czars" within the Executive Office of the President.

"The president's decision to expand the executive branch and bypass cabinet officers with a group of presidential assistants given the title of 'czars' undermines the Constitution," said Bennett. "I think Congress needs to start asking whether the president's action to create these 'czars,' many of which are not subject to senatorial confirmation, is an attempt to negate Congress's right of oversight."

Along with Bennett, the letter to the president is signed by republicans on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs including Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). In the letter, the senators write, "These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of czars, particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of 'advise and consent,' greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions."

The senators ask the president to explain the process by which the administration vetted the individuals, the specific responsibilities of each czar's position and how the authorities are limited to prevent the undermining of other cabinet offices, and whether or not each czar will agree to appear before Congress when called.

The complete text of the Bennett's letter is below.

Many of the same critics who are decrying these roles have applauded or even pushed for them in the past. Sen. Robert Bennett has criticized czars as "undermining the Constitution," but reportedly prodded President Clinton to appoint a Y2K Czar. In a 1999 CNN appearance, Sen. Bennett said "I think John Koskinen has been superb. I wrote the president six months before John was appointed, recommending that he appoint a Y2K czar." At a 1999 National Press Club luncheon, Bennett told reporters the Koskinen was "there to help, prod, give information, and make analyses and reports" and said he spoke with the czar to ensure "we maintain the kind of bipartisan and across-the-government sort of communication that this never becomes a political issue."

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, past White House staffers have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process.
"They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege,"
At times, he said, one outcome has been to "inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," Byrd said.

This week,(article was written in March) he named two women to lead his effort to overhaul the nation's healthcare system. One of them, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, was tapped to be Health and Human Services secretary. At her confirmation hearings, senators will be able to probe her views on health policy and demand detailed documentation of her credentials.

But the other, Nancy-Ann DeParle, who was named health czar, can begin work right away, without outside review of her abilities or opinions. And whereas lawmakers can ask Sebelius for testimony in the future and control her budget, DeParle may remain largely outside the gaze of Congress.

The confusion about competing roles played by czars and their Cabinet counterparts was on display Monday (article published in March) as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to explain how authority would be divided between DeParle and Sebelius as they steer health reform through Congress.

At first, he declared that DeParle "will be in charge." Then he acknowledged a role for Sebelius and others.

In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.

Czar Search

September 25, 2009

Updated: September 25, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Q: Does Obama have an unprecedented number of "czars"?

A: "Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush’s administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration.

FULL QUESTION

A friend of mine sent me a link claiming that Obama has more czars than any other president ever and he is trying to turn the USA into a dictatorship. Please give me confirmation so I can give it to her that she has no reason to fear. Does hiring czars allow a president to bypass Congress for approval? And does President Obama have more than any other president?

FULL ANSWER

It’s meaningless to ask a question about what "hiring czars" allows a president to do, because presidents don’t hire czars. "Czar" is a label bestowed by the media – and sometimes the administration – as a shorthand for the often-cumbersome titles of various presidential advisers, assistants, office directors, special envoys and deputy secretaries. (After all, what makes for a better headline – "weapons czar" or "undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics"?)

There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles."

The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.”

Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:

* Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
* Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
* Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
* In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.

These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar.

Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar."

Another thing: Beck counts among his 32 "czars" three who have not been called "czars" by reporters at all, except in stories claiming that the Obama administration has lots of "czars." We’ve compiled a FactCheck.org list that discounts these positions, which seem to be "czars" only in the context of media czar-hysteria. (Our list also adds three czars Beck’s research didn’t find – a "diversity czar," a "manufacturing czar" and an "Iran czar.")

As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.

I read that article, and used it for my comparison. Their definition of "eight unconfirmed brand new czars" leaves me scratching my head when I look at their list.

From it I see the following overlap:
AIDS Czar (Both administrations)
TARP Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval
Communications Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval
Counterterrorism Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval
Drug Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval
Intelligence Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval
Regulatory Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval
Science Czar (Both administrations) - Congressional approval


Of their list, I see the following czars that were not part of the Bush administration:
Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar
Auto Recovery Czar
Border Czar
California Water Czar (Congress approved)
Car Czar
Climate Czar
Diversity Czar
Domestic Violence Czar
Economics Czar
Energy Czar
Government Performance Czar (Congress approved)
Great Lakes Czar
Green Jobs Czar
Guantanamo Closure Czar
Health Czar
Iran Czar
Manufacturing Czar
Mideast Czar
Pay Czar
Stimulus Accountability Czar
Technology Czar (Congress approved)
Urban Affairs Czar
Weapons Czar (Congress approved)
Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar

That is more than eight.

I also find it interesting that you ignore that I am siding with renown stalwarts of Conservatism Sen Robert Byrd and Sen. Russ Feingold who are questioning the presidents use of unapproved czars.

Many of these are more than just advisers, they are making policy and they have zero oversight.

Can you provide documentation to support this statement. I keep hearing this but yet I've seen nothing to support that any of these positions have actual authority or responsibility to do anything but advise those who do.

This week,(article was written in March) he named two women to lead his effort to overhaul the nation's healthcare system. One of them, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, was tapped to be Health and Human Services secretary. At her confirmation hearings, senators will be able to probe her views on health policy and demand detailed documentation of her credentials.

But the other, Nancy-Ann DeParle, who was named health czar, can begin work right away, without outside review of her abilities or opinions. And whereas lawmakers can ask Sebelius for testimony in the future and control her budget, DeParle may remain largely outside the gaze of Congress.

The confusion about competing roles played by czars and their Cabinet counterparts was on display Monday (article published in March) as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to explain how authority would be divided between DeParle and Sebelius as they steer health reform through Congress.

At first, he declared that DeParle "will be in charge." Then he acknowledged a role for Sebelius and others.