There is presently no award for the most evasive witness testifying before Congress, but if there were, the winner hands down thus far in 2011 would almost certainly be President Obama’s chief consumer affairs adviser, Elizabeth Warren. On multiple occasions this year, members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have asked Warren, a former Harvard University professor, simple, direct questions about her decisions and actions regarding the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In response, Warren has resolutely responded with a systematic evasion that cries out for a contempt of Congress citation. Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., hasn’t threatened Warren with contempt, at least not yet. For the moment, he prefers to provide her with one more opportunity to answer legitimate questions from Congress. In a letter to Warren following her May 24 offering of artful equivocation before one of his panel’s subcommittees, Issa said: “In light of the inability of all members of the subcommittee to have an opportunity to ask you questions, and your unwillingness to provide direct and responsive answers to a number of important questions, the committee would like to further discuss your plans for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the design and funding of the agency, and the limited checks and balances that apply to it.” Since she refused to be honest with the subcommittee, Issa summoned her to appear before the full committee, which will, he promised Warren, “fulfill its constitutional duty to provide this necessary oversight.”
A review of the transcript of that May 24 subcommittee hearing reveals multiple examples of Warren’s evasiveness on matters over which Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, has unquestioned authority. For example, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., asked Warren why the CFPB website lists salary ranges for 10 new employees as $72,000 to $149,000. The duties for the 10 jobs are comparable to those of a GS-9 in the federal Civil Service, which has a salary range of $41,000 to $54,000. The honest answer would have been that the CFPB must compete with salaries paid in the financial sector, which are considerably higher on average than those in the civil service. Instead, Warren attempted to use the question for a lengthy dissertation on the public administration and management theory behind the new agency’s enacting legislation. Buerkle interrupted after listening to several minutes of Warren’s filibuster and demanded a direct answer. Warren resumed the filibuster, but finally got the point about salary disparities between the government and private sector.
There is a maxim from the Watergate days that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. A corollary of that truth is that whenever a government official evades a simple question, the reason is likely either mendacity or a desire to prevent the public from learning something about which it undoubtedly has a right to know. Issa is to be commended for pushing Warren to get right with Congress. Congressional committee chairmen should do likewise regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
