[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7574-S7575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SUNSTEIN NOMINATION

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to speak on the nomination of 
Cass R. Sunstein to be the Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget.
  I placed a hold on the consideration of Professor Sunstein's 
confirmation after his hearing in the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs. I chose to do this because Professor 
Sunstein has written, lectured, and made recommendations on animal 
rights issues that are very troubling to me and to folks who make their 
living in agriculture and those who enjoy our Nation's great hunting 
and fishing heritage.
  Let me just say, Mr. President, it is extremely unusual for this 
Member of the Senate to place a hold on anybody. It is not something I 
normally do.
  Professor Sunstein has theorized that animals--he has theorized in 
writing as well as in speeches--that animals should be permitted to 
bring suit against their owners and others with human beings being 
their representatives. Let me say that again. Professor Sunstein has 
theorized in writing and in speeches that animals should be permitted 
to bring lawsuits against their owners and others with human beings as 
their representatives.
  That is a very radical and strange position, and it not only got my 
attention but it got the attention of any number of other folks around 
the country, both within and without the agricultural sector of our 
country. The devastating effect this would have on animal agriculture 
is incalculable. Mistreated livestock do not perform well. American 
farmers and ranchers work every day to make sure their stock is cared 
for in a humane manner, and yet they would still face a tremendous 
threat from frivolous lawsuits under this misguided theory. Even though 
claims would be baseless, they would still bear the financial costs of 
reckless litigation. That is a cost that would put most family farming 
and ranching operations out of business.
  Professor Sunstein also made offhand remarks during lectures that 
``perhaps hunting ought to be banned.'' While he offered assurances 
during his nomination hearing that his personal view supported hunting, 
I am not a member of that committee and thus was not able to question 
Professor Sunstein personally during his confirmation hearing.
  I greatly enjoy the time I spend hunting with my friends and family, 
and I was also very disturbed by this statement.
  The Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs must have a firm foundation in common sense, and we owe it to 
the American public to ensure that regulators are properly vetted by 
the Senate. That is why I held up Professor Sunstein's nomination in 
order to provide him an opportunity to explain his views on animal 
rights as well as the second amendment.
  Since his original hearing, Professor Sunstein has met with people 
involved in agriculture, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, 
the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, the National Pork Producers Council, 
and the United Egg Producers. He has heard their point of view and 
exactly how devastating some of his theories would be to the reality of 
earning a living in rural America. He has satisfied some of them, and 
some are still decidedly wary of his ideas.
  I have also had the opportunity to meet personally with Professor 
Sunstein to let him explain, and me explain to him how detrimental his 
theories would be to the folks working so hard to feed this country and 
to hopefully obtain from Professor Sunstein assurances that he does not 
oppose hunting or the right to bear arms. I tried to figure out what he 
meant by saying that animals ought to have the right to sue 
individuals.
  Let me say, Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number 
of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this 
country. His ability to look at regulatory measures and to provide 
cost-benefit analysis is very intriguing. He is obviously a very 
competent person when it comes to that side of the business community. 
I have a great appreciation for that.
  I had a very good meeting with Professor Sunstein yesterday, and 
after our meeting I received a letter from Professor Sunstein wherein 
he explained some of his statements and inflammatory ideas. In that 
letter, he stated that he ``would not take any steps to promote 
litigation on behalf of animals'' and that Federal ``law does not 
create an individual right to bring lawsuits on behalf of animals 
against agriculture.'' He also stated that he believes ``the second 
amendment creates

[[Page S7575]]

an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and 
self-defense.''
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to me from 
Professor Sunstein dated July 14, 2009, printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 14, 2009.
     Senator Saxby Chambliss,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chambliss: Thanks so much for the meeting 
     today, which I greatly enjoyed.
       You requested my views on three subjects. Before commenting 
     on the details, let me emphasize that if confirmed as 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs, my primary concern would be to ensure that 
     regulations are consistent with the Constitution, the law as 
     enacted by Congress, and the principles reflected in 
     governing Executive Orders.
       Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I 
     strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an 
     individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both 
     hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court's 
     decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the 
     individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. 
     If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the 
     individual right that it recognizes.
       You also asked about litigation, by individuals, on behalf 
     of animals. Let me be very clear: If confirmed, I would not 
     take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals. In 
     particular, federal law does not create an individual right 
     to bring lawsuits, on behalf of animals, against agriculture. 
     I do not favor and would not promote such a right.
       Finally, you inquired about private enforcement of the law. 
     Such private enforcement can in some cases be a useful way of 
     ensuring compliance with legislative requirements, but it can 
     also create serious harm, by imposing significant costs and 
     burdens on those who are already obeying the law. Sometimes 
     Congress concludes that the balance favors private actions; 
     sometimes it decides against such actions. If confirmed, I 
     would consult, and follow, congressional instructions on the 
     question of whether private rights of action are available.
       I hope that these answers are helpful, and I would be happy 
     to address these or other issues at any time. All best 
     wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Cass R. Sunstein.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Administration nominees deserve a fair hearing by the 
Senate, and Professor Sunstein is no different. While I cannot agree 
with his ideas, his legal theories, or his views, now that he has been 
educated about the toll they would take on hard-working farmers and 
ranchers in America, I am not going to keep him from any further 
consideration. I intend to lift my hold on Professor Sunstein.
  I understand from Professor Sunstein now that he has a much better 
understanding of animal agriculture and our country's sporting 
tradition. I am optimistic that this open dialog with animal 
agriculture will continue. I obviously look forward to working with him 
to ensure he continues to carry out exactly what he stated to me in his 
letter of July 14.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________