Reining in the czars

OPINION:

Transparency and accountability form the cornerstone of our great democracy. When the Founding Fathers finished their work in Philadelphia in 1787, they had created a Constitution - built on the premise, indeed the promise, that this new American government would be open and accountable to the public for its actions. It is no accident that the first three words of this new Constitution read, “We the people. …”

To put teeth into that concept and to prevent the abuses of power that the Framers had seen in Europe, this new government had three distinct and separate branches - the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Purposefully, the Framers built a system of checks and balances, with each branch having a check on the others so that no one branch could assume too much power or hide its actions behind curtains of authority.

For Congress, these critical oversight authorities are firmly grounded in the Constitution. Whether through Senate confirmation of executive branch officials or through public hearings on policy matters, congressional oversight helps ensure the accountability and transparency our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Based on their words and intentions, I believe the Framers would be mightily alarmed to witness the proliferation of “czars” in the executive branch. The 18 new czar positions created by the Obama administration wield considerable power, receive no congressional vetting and are largely insulated from the requirement to testify before Congress. In some cases, the czars are developing and implementing policy in areas where Senate-confirmed Cabinet officials already lead entire departments and agencies with responsibilities over these matters.

When it comes to accountability and transparency, who is actually in charge and making the policy decisions? Is it the secretary, whom the Senate confirmed, or is it the czar, whom the president unilaterally appointed? These czars operate outside the established structure of checks and balances.

As ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I also am concerned about the management dysfunction that so many czars create. They duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities Congress has conferred on Cabinet officers and other senior officials.

Unfortunately, because czars can circumvent the constitutionally mandated process of “advice and consent” and because the president’s advisers have informed me that no White House czars will be allowed to testify before Congress, we cannot ask them for the answers.

Czars bypass the constitutional oversight authority of Congress, tipping the balance of power in favor of the executive branch. Let me cite a specific, blatant example of how the president appointed a czar and avoided filling a statutory position with the same mission.

In 2007, our committee wrote legislation creating a top-level position to focus on weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Congress passed our bill, and it was signed by the president. It is the law. Under that law, the coordinator for the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism was established within the Executive Office of the President and was required to be confirmed by the Senate. This official was to be the principal adviser to the president on all matters relating to the prevention and proliferation of WMD in the war against terrorism.

What happened? The Senate-confirmed post has never been filled. Under the administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it has sat vacant. Instead, both presidents appointed White House policy czars to carry out the very same WMD duties assigned to our statutorily created position.

In other words, both presidents opted to circumvent Congress and install czars, officials who are not subject to Senate confirmation and are immune from legislative oversight and public scrutiny.

This example, to me, is clear evidence of how czars are being used as shields against congressional and public oversight.

Let me emphasize: I understand that presidents are entitled to confidential, personal advisers to serve in traditional positions such as chief of staff and legal counsel. However, it also is clear to me that a kind of shell game is occurring here. In the case of the WMD coordinator, the intent of Congress was unmistakable. And yet two presidents thwarted that goal.

Under Mr. Obama, some czars have been charged with the power to “develop and implement” strategic initiatives. Develop and implement? By statutory authority, those functions fall to Senate-confirmed secretaries, not to White House-appointed czars.

So where do we go from here? There is a reasonable compromise.

In September, I offered an amendment that would require the president to make certain czars available to testify before Congress, upon reasonable request, and to report to Congress twice a year, summarizing their activities. My amendment did not cover the president’s personal staff. It did not cover positions already subject to Senate confirmation or otherwise recognized by our laws, such as the director of national intelligence, the national security adviser or the chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.

Rather, the target of my amendment was those czars appointed by the president who have responsibility for interagency development or coordination of rules, regulations or policies but are not recognized by statute. Because of a procedural tactic, which had nothing to do with the amendment’s merits, Senate Democrats blocked a vote.

This proposal, which I intend to reintroduce, would enable Congress to exercise its oversight role. It would provide for a public reporting mechanism so the American people would have ongoing knowledge and understanding of what the czars are doing and how they are interacting with other top-level government officials.

It would embody the very protections and safeguards our Founding Fathers contemplated and that our Constitution guarantees.

This is not a partisan issue. It is not a political issue. It is an issue of institutional imperative and constitutional prerogative.

Sen. Susan Collins is ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.