Mr. President, I would like to close on my czar amendment and encourage strong bipartisan support. Mr. President, we have a bill before us about the Senate advice and consent process--the Senate confirmation process--and I think it would be a tragedy to consider any bill on that subject and not, in fact, address the biggest issue, the biggest problem with that process that exists now--certainly also in the eyes of the American people--and that is the abuse by the Executive, over several administrations but culminating in this administration, of appointing so-called czars as an end run around the U.S. Constitution, as an end run around the powers of the Senate and the balance of power of advice and consent and confirmation. My amendment would fix that. It would defund czars and their offices. It is carefully crafted, it is carefully defined, and it would say we are not going to allow these czars to operate when they are essentially taking the place and the function of what should be a Senate-confirmed position. Again, the language is careful. It is carefully thought out, it is carefully crafted, and there are exceptions in the language which are important, so I commend all my colleagues to look at that. But the main point is simple and clear and important: We shouldn't allow any Executive, any administration, to end-run the U.S. Constitution, to end-run the Senate's important and appropriate role of confirmation, or advice and consent.…
Share & report
More from David Vitter
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on…
Mr. President, I wish to recognize the week of May 15 through 21, 2016, as National Hurricane Preparedness Week. As each Louisianian knows, the beginning of June marks the beginning of hurricane season, and we are acutely aware of how…
I would disagree with any suggestion that they are listening to small business. It is two very different things.
Protecting innovation and not materially altering the new chemicals process was a critical part of the final compromise. Every effort was made to ensure EPA has the right tools to review new chemical substances but the amendments to this…





