PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 15, 2009
Sunset All Czars Act or the SAC Act - Prohibits appropriated funds from being used to pay salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President, if the head of such entity is a Czar. Defines a "Czar" as an entity head who: (1) is appointed (on other than an interim basis) without the Senate's advice and consent; (2) is excepted from the competitive service by reason of the confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character of the position; (3) performs or delegates functions that would otherwise be performed or delegated by an individual appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent; and (4) does not have an existing removal date established at the direction of the President or through an authorization of Congress.
Requires that by December 31, 2009, any Czar who is not appointed by a former President or the incumbent President, with the Senate's advise and consent, be removed from his or her position.
People & committees
Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3569 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3569 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3569 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3569 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.