Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank Senators PAUL and HELLER and GRASSLEY for cosponsoring this amendment, which is about czars--this administration, any administration, usurping the appropriate role and authority of the Senate in the advice and consent process. This is, obviously, directly relevant to this legislation.

As we debate this legislation designed to reduce the number of positions in the government that require Senate confirmation, we should also ensure that the Senate's role is not eroded by unconfirmed Federal czars in very significant positions which should be subject to advice and consent. That is what my amendment is about. That is what my amendment would correct.

This amendment would ensure that any administration--not just this one, any administration, Republican, Democrat, other--is prevented from using so-called czars for similar positions to perform duties that are the responsibility of those positions subject to confirmation by prohibiting funding of those so-called czar positions. Specifically, the amendment would prohibit funding for these czar positions.

The amendment does not unduly restrict Presidential advisory staff. We all agree the President is entitled to direct advisers. Instead, it focuses on ``the head of any task force, council, policy office or similar office established by or at the direction of the President.'' It is aimed squarely at positions created in order to circumvent the advice and consent role of the Senate. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened at greatly increasing frequency over the last several years.

It also carves out of the prohibition and allows two things: No. 1, any individuals who are serving in the position of Assistant Secretary or the equivalent position that requires Senate confirmation, that situation is living by the normal, appropriate advice and consent requirement.

It also carves out the assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and we include this carve-out simply to ensure that national security concerns are not impacted.

As a result of these carefully crafted exemptions, my amendment would not remove the President's ability to have advisory staff and keeps the focus on the intended targets and the real abuses--czars created to circumvent the scrutiny of the Senate and the advice and consent and the confirmation process.

Under the current administration, we have seen dramatic increases in this practice--in the amount of power given to these so-called czars appointed directly by the President and not subject to advice and consent and confirmation by the Senate.

Politico has written that President Obama ``is taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history.''

President Obama has created many of these new czar positions. Some include a climate czar, a health care czar, a pay czar, and more.

The power of implementing policy and directing Federal agencies was never meant to be put in these czar positions, subject only to the control of the President. That was always meant to be put in high-level administration positions, subject to the advice and consent role of the Senate and subject to Senate confirmation.

So in this bill, which is all about advice and consent and which is all about the confirmation process, we should certainly address the single biggest problem with that process in the eyes of the American people, which is recent administrations--particularly the current administration--just doing a straight end run around the Constitution, trying to ignore the genius of the Constitution, trying to ignore one of the fundamental balances created by the Constitution through Senate confirmation.

With that in mind, I urge all my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support this Vitter amendment. This isn't an amendment against the Obama administration; this is an amendment for the advice and consent role of the Senate. This is an amendment in support of balance of powers. This is an amendment to preserve the significance of the confirmation process. Every Member of this Senate should be for that, no matter whose administration it is. Unfortunately, this czar practice has reached new heights recently, which is all the more reason we need to act. But we need to act to preserve and defend the Constitution, to preserve and defend the appropriate role of the Senate under the Constitution, advice and consent and confirmation.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source