W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify

Friday, October 23, 2009 8:10 AM

By: Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times

The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of
President
Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress ó a decision senators said
goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and
treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the
administration's actions.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig
told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of
the
czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate
confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of
the
White House would be allowed to come before Congress.

Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are
actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama..

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
Carol
Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
negotiations
she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a
hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.

The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about
separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to
have
advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to
fear
being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress,
though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be
able
to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the
president
advice.

At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created
since
he took office. Of those, she says 10 ó the White House says eight ó are
in
the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act
requests
or requests for testimony.

Czar is an informal term given to the positions.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the government
affairs committee, asked the White House to provide a witness for
Thursday's
hearing but it did not send one.

In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that
the
White House is not trying to circumvent Congress.

"We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could
create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional
oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current
administration," Mr. Craig wrote.

Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White
House "are solely advisory in nature" and have no independent authority.

Senators disagreed with that evaluation, pointing to Mrs. Browner and
healthcare czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is Mr. Obama's healthcare adviser.

"We do happen to have a Cabinet officer with Health and Human Services
with
whom I have never had a conversation on healthcare, not because I have any
opposition to her but because it's my perception Nancy-Ann DeParle is
calling the shots," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican.

Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck ó who
senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be
named" ó began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama
administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for
months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has
criticized.

Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins
critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.

Legal experts testifying before the Senate panel said Congress needs to be
careful not to overreach in reacting. They said options open to lawmakers
include writing new laws to restrict advisers' authority or writing the
positions into law as needing Senate confirmation. A White House aide,
speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are trying to work to
accommodate "all reasonable congressional requests for information" and
said
some White House advisers have given informal briefings to members of
Congress in lieu of testimony.

The aide also said some czars are outside the White House itself and they
can be called to testify. The aide said five of them have already done so.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, blasted Republicans for raising
the issue and said she took offense at their comparisons between Mr. Obama
and President Nixon.

She said Congress should instead be looking at the legality of
presidential
signing statements to shape how laws are implemented ó a tool whose use
expanded substantially under President George W. Bush.

Last month, Miss Collins offered an amendment to compel administration
officials to testify, but it was ruled not germane to the bill being
debated.

Democrats said it went too far because it would have covered all executive
branch employees, including the national security adviser and the chief of
staff, who have always been recognized as out of bounds.

Miss Collins said the issue shouldn't be so intractable and that Congress
and the White House should be able to agree on a list of people who should
be able to testify.

For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he's still looking for a good solution.

"We both share a desire to do something about this to help Congress uphold
our responsibility for oversight, but we understand the balance here as
reflected in the Constitution," he said.

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
Carol
Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
negotiations
she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"

Andrew wrote:
"Leonard" <leonard7... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote in message
news:C707D9D8.72B9%leonard78sp at (no spam) primus.ca...

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
Carol
Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
negotiations
she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"

This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.

Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.

Nor does it have the /authority/.

On Oct 24, 10:17 am, Peter Franks <n... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:





Andrew wrote:
"Leonard" <leonard7... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote in message
news:C707D9D8.72B9%leonard78sp at (no spam) primus.ca...

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
Carol
Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
negotiations
she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"

This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.

Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.

Nor does it have the /authority/.

"Promote the General Welfare.."-

W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
...
Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
...

"Leonard" <leonard78sp at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote in message
news:C707D9D8.72B9%leonard78sp at (no spam) primus.ca...

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar,
Carol
Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the
negotiations
she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant
policy changes with regard to emissions standards,"

This is th ewrong issue. Read the Constitution.

Federal government has no right to establish any emission standards.

Leonard wrote:
W.H. Tells Hill Policy 'Czars' Won't Testify
...
Czar is an informal term given to the positions.
...

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that government officials are using the
term 'Czar' to refer to these people? I sure do.

czar n. 1. A male monarch or emperor... 2. A person having great power; an
autocrat. 3. Informal. An appointed official having special powers to
regulate or supervise an activity. AHD 3rd ed.

"used to designate certain monarchs"

"designate ... supreme rulers"

"'Tsar' was the official title of the supreme ruler"

"Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority ... with
a connotation of dictatorial powers and style"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar

Our national leaders sound like prepubescent school children with the
terminology they 'informally' adopt... Funny thing is that the term Czar
may be more appropriate for these unelected officials than the
administration lets on.

There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to
the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not
there yet.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:58:52 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to
the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not
there yet.

Fortunately, we stopped the GOP onslaught of power
acquisition.

And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of
"casear"

Laff at (no spam) alot.com> wrote in message
news:1ea6e5d8jspbik8qsggqda9fi962rf0pmr at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:58:52 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

There are plenty of issues surrounding Obama's czars, but none of those
issues are about supreme rulers. Yet. The issues could grow, I suppose, to
the point where we are wondering how we got a supreme ruler but we're not
there yet.

Fortunately, we stopped the GOP onslaught of power
acquisition.

And the term "tsar", "Czar" are derivitives of
"casear"


Stopped the GOP onslaught, but utterly ignore the Dems onslaught?

-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:

-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":

ah, sigh

The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders)
and then arguing they are required to gauge legal
rulings and precedent against.

What Madison "thought", "wrote", or "said" has NO
bearing on the constitution after it was
ratified---other than to provide historical "reference"
IF desired

They contain NO legal requirement to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

"When Moses told the children of Israel that he
received the two tables of the commandments from the
hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him,
because they had no other authority for it that his
telling them so."

"The "commandments" carry no internal evidence of
divinity within them; they carry  some good moral
precepts, such as any man qualified to be a law-giver,
or a legislator, could produce himself, without having
to recourse to supernatural intervention"

                        Thomas Paine,--------- Founder

On Oct 24, 8:23 pm, L... at (no spam) alot.com wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:


-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":

ah, sigh

The old canard of dragging out "writings" (of founders)
and then arguing they are required to gauge legal
rulings and precedent against.


Many of their writings are based on the spirit and intent of the US
Constitution that is the basis for all US law. Court rulings are
supposed to follow the spirit and intent of said document.

Nor does it have the /authority/.

"Promote the General Welfare.."-

Oh my...it appears there are still those that are trying to trot out
that old carnard(sigh)

-James Madison, acknoweledged as the "father of the US Constitution":
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and
are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,

they may take the care of religion into their own hands;

they may appoint teachers
in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public
treasury;
They could they may take into their own hands the education of
children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;

they may assume the provision of the poor;

they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;

in short, every thing,
from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute
object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress....

Were
the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
http://www.liberty-tree.ca/qb/James.Madison.Quote.3254