U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–041 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–463 

NOMINATION OF CASS R. SUNSTEIN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF CASS R. SUNSTEIN TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

MAY 12, 2009 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Senior Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOHN K. GRANT, Minority Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 12 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .................... 3 

Cass R. Sunstein to be Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ........................................................ 6 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Sunstein, Cass R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 21 

Responses to pre-hearing questions for the Record ....................................... 31 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 68 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 69 

Letters of support ............................................................................................. 70 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF CASS R. SUNSTEIN 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, and Collins 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. This 

morning, the Committee meets to consider the nomination of Cass 

Sunstein to be the Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, known widely, or at least here in this room, as 

OIRA. 

OIRA is one of those government agencies that has a very low 

public profile but exerts great influence over the workings of our 

government and the daily lives of most Americans. In Congress, we 

pass laws that express our values and our aspirations. We draw 

lines between what is right and wrong, desirable and undesirable 

in those laws, but because we cannot foresee every circumstance in 

which the law will be applied or every detail that the law wisely 

might include, we leave many of the details to the Executive 

Branch of government and to its regulatory authority. 

For over a quarter of a century, Presidents have asked OIRA to 

help oversee and coordinate this regulatory process, and over those 

years, we have seen how OIRA has helped the regulatory agencies 

protect the American people, and we, in my opinion, have seen how 

OIRA has helped the regulatory agencies place hurdles in the way 

of helping the American people, sometimes blocking their efforts to 

fulfill their statutory responsibilities. 

Based on the record of the Obama Administration, at least for 

these first 100 days plus a little bit, I am optimistic that our new 

President and his Administration will develop a regulatory agenda 

forceful in its intent to protect the American people and to do so 

in a way that is transparent. 

In Professor Cass Sunstein, the President has found someone 

with exceptional qualifications and extraordinary talent, clearly capable of leading OIRA in a positive direction to strengthen the Administration’s efforts and intentions and to fulfill Congress’ intentions as stated in the law. 

2 

When Professor Sunstein began teaching at Harvard Law School 

in 2008 after a long and distinguished career at the University of 

Chicago Law, his new employers announced that they had hired, 

‘‘the preeminent legal scholar of our time—the most wide-ranging, 

the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential.’’ This 

must have come as unsettling news to the many other members of 

the Harvard Law faculty who felt that they were exactly that. But 

those were the words of Elena Kagan, then Dean of Harvard Law, 

now the Solicitor General of the United States. 

Over your career, both in the short time at Harvard and also at 

the University of Chicago, you have written extensively about regulation, the management of risk, and indeed about OIRA itself. I am 

sure that you would agree with me that the regulatory agencies of 

the Federal Government face a series of very significant challenges, 

some substantive, the unprecedented set of challenges to our economy and to our financial regulatory agencies, and also the unique 

challenges that the global environmental problems have placed on 

our environmental agencies. 

We are also emerging from a period in our Administration in 

which there was less aggressive regulation, and that may put pressure on the existing regulatory agencies to, if you will, try to catch 

up, and like the rest of government, all the regulatory agencies face 

stringent budget constraints that can interfere with their ability to 

perform their functions. So that is the moment at which you come 

to OIRA. 

In your prolific writings, you have expressed strong and, I would 

say, sometimes controversial views about the way regulations 

should be developed and reviewed, so I am particularly eager to 

hear your vision for OIRA and your thoughts on what role OIRA 

should play in this new Administration. 

It is a pleasure to welcome you here, and I really do look forward 

to your testimony and the question and answer period. Senator 

Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question that 

your statement raises is, is anyone left at Harvard Law School who 

has not been drafted to serve in this Administration? 

I join the Chairman in welcoming Professor Sunstein to our Committee today as we consider his nomination to be the Administrator 

for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. OIRA, as the 

Chairman has pointed out, is one of the alphabet soup of government offices that few people outside of Washington have ever heard 

of, and yet it can have enormous influence on regulations that affect the everyday lives of millions of Americans. 

Through the process of regulatory review, OIRA exerts significant influence over the rulemaking process. Professor Sunstein is 

a prolific author who has conducted an extensive study of government regulation and of the various methods that can be used to 

evaluate regulatory effectiveness. 

If confirmed, however, he would step from the world of theory 

into the realm of practice where not every idea discussed in the 

classroom can be easily turned into governmental policy, nor 

should it be. This can be a challenging transition for those leaving 

3 

the academic realm for the world of the Executive Branch where 

their views and decisions have real consequences. 

Some of the core principles that seem to guide Professor 

Sunstein’s work appear to be appropriate for the OIRA position. 

For example, he is an advocate of greater transparency. I am particularly interested in his recommendation that agencies should be 

required to explain a decision to regulate in those cases where the 

costs outweigh the benefits. 

The professor strongly supports the use of cost-benefit analysis 

as a tool for evaluating regulation while recognizing that such 

analysis cannot always be the sole criterion for evaluating the desirability of regulation. In one of his most recent and intriguing 

books, Nudge, Professor Sunstein makes a compelling case for regulation that does not dictate actions but instead encourages certain 

behavior without limiting personal freedoms. While certainly not 

universally applicable, this idea bears exploring as an alternative 

to more draconian and costly command-and-control regulations. 

Professor Sunstein has, however, written some provocative and 

controversial statements that warrant our scrutiny. His suggestion 

that perhaps hunting ought to be banned is particularly troubling 

to those of us who represent States where hunting and fishing are 

part of the heritage of their families. 

Finally, I want to note that, in the past, OIRA has played a significant role in setting government-wide privacy policy. Since 2001, 

however, it has not been clear who in the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) is in charge of privacy. As this Administration 

seeks to use information technology in innovative new ways, OMB 

should make the protection of personal information a top priority. 

An important first step will be to designate an individual, whether 

within OIRA or elsewhere in OMB, who will be directly responsible 

for developing policy to safeguard privacy and who will be accountable to Congress and the American people. 

I look forward to discussing these issues with our witness. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins, and we are 

honored to welcome Senator Amy Klobuchar, our colleague from 

Minnesota, to introduce Mr. Sunstein. 

In asking Senator Klobuchar to introduce you, you have, without 

knowing, achieved a first in Senate history because I gather that 

Senator Klobuchar was a student of yours when she was at the 

University of Chicago Law School. You may not know that she was 

a student of mine at Yale College. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It is an amazing coincidence. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is an amazing coincidence, which will 

be noted in some book of trivia someday. Senator Klobuchar, it is 

a pleasure to have you here, and we welcome your introduction at 

this time. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you so much, Chairman Lieberman 

and Senator Collins. I am honored to join you here today. I am especially honored because this is an opportunity to introduce Cass 

Sunstein and speak about his qualifications as the Administrator 

4 

for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

I first want to congratulate Cass. He is here with his wife, 

Samantha, and his teenage daughter, Ellen, and also his in-laws. 

It is always nice to have your in-laws supporting you. 

As you know, Cass and his wife, Samantha, are the proud parents of a baby boy, just born 2 weeks ago. I guess they did not 

bring him for this. 

Back in the 1980s, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I was privileged to have Cass Sunstein as my law professor at the University 

of Chicago. I took his administrative law class, and also he was my 

advisor for the law review. His career as a legal scholar was just 

beginning to take off, but he was already making a very strong impression as a teacher. 

I think for many students, he was their favorite teacher, but of 

course, I will not say that given as you already stated you were 

also my teacher, Mr. Chairman. 

When we first saw Cass Sunstein in class, he really looked like 

a boy in a man’s suit. He was so thin, but he had such enthusiasm. 

These were the days before whiteboards, and so he would always 

get a lot of white chalk on his black suit, and he was completely 

oblivious to it. 

But he was far from being an absent-minded professor. He would 

race along at a mile a minute in his lectures, a fountain with a 

never-ending stream of ideas. He was never boring, which is a 

tough standard for law students. In the 1980s, the University of 

Chicago Law School was well-known for its use of the Socratic 

Method, which meant for students trying to sit next to someone 

with an easier last name than theirs. So I would always, Mr. 

Chairman, look for Johnsons or Joneses or those kinds of people. 

But when he did call on you, he would say things like, Ms. Klobuchar, I have a question for you, and then he would say A and 

then B and then C and then D, and once he was done talking, you 

would stare at him and think, I am not sure where he started. But 

his mind could handle it. 

In his 27 years at the University of Chicago, he became legendary for both his teaching and his scholarship. Cass Sunstein is 

one of the Nation’s most thoughtful and respected legal scholars 

with a distinguished record of accomplishments. A graduate of Harvard Law School, a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood 

Marshall, a professor at the University of Chicago, as you noted, 

for 27 years, the author or co-author of more than 15 books and 

hundreds of scholarly articles, and as Senator Collins has noted, I 

am sure we will all find things in those articles we do not quite 

agree with. 

But he is by large margin the most cited scholar on any law faculty in the United States of America. One envious observer said, 

if you look at what he has written and done, he should be 900 

years old. Cass is not only a prolific writer, but also a wide-ranging 

one, everything from constitutional law and behavioral economics 

to Wikipedia and Bob Dylan’s music. 

In one recent book, he made good use of Mr. Spock of Star Trek 

and Homer Simpson to discuss the potential of human decisionmaking. But Cass has not been nominated for this position because 

5 

of his detailed knowledge of T.V. characters. It is because no one 

has thought harder or more deeply or more creatively about how 

to ensure fair cost-effective regulations in modern America. 

His overriding concern is that we have smart, science-based, costeffective, results-oriented policies to protect public health and safety, to promote energy security, and to strengthen our economy and 

financial system. Cass is intellectually honest and rigorous, which 

means he goes where the evidence takes him. 

The Wall Street Journal recently commended him as someone 

who will bring an important and much needed voice to the Administration. He has been supported by 13 Nobel Prize winners from 

across the political spectrum. They have endorsed him because 

they trust in his ability to think and get things done. 

While he can debate abstract legal theories with the best of 

them, he is a scholar whose feet are firmly planted on the ground. 

He is a pragmatist. He cares about ideals, but ultimately he cares 

more about the right results. 

In a famous essay, the historian and philosopher Isaiah Berlin 

made a distinction between thinkers who are hedgehogs and those 

who are foxes. He borrowed this from a saying by an ancient Greek 

poet, the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big 

thing. 

At first glance, Mr. Sunstein would appear to be a fox given the 

volume and variety of his writings. But looking more closely, you 

can see that he is also a hedgehog. Do you like these animal analogies, Senator Collins, to get at what you were talking about? 

It is no coincidence; we are also a State that likes hunting. There 

is one big idea, the hedgehog, that animates virtually all of his diverse work. It is the idea that we will be better off when we take 

into account different viewpoints and let evidence guide our decisions. 

His open-mindedness and his willingness to look at all sides of 

an issue are virtues that will serve him well in this important position. In turn, the American people will be well served by these 

same virtues, as well as his dedication, hard work, and commitment to the highest standards of excellence. 

So I am very pleased to present Mr. Sunstein to the Members of 

this Committee. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

That was a wonderful introduction. I appreciate it very much. If I 

may do something that I presume Professor Sunstein never did, 

you are excused for the rest of the class because I know you have 

a busy schedule today. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much for that introduction. It was excellent. 

Let’s proceed to the hearing, and now I would say for the record 

that Mr. Sunstein has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by 

the Committee and had his financial statements reviewed by the 

Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information 

will be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the 

financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection 

in the Committee offices. 

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Sunstein appears in the Appendix on page 19. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so Professor Sunstein, I 

would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Please be seated. We would 

now welcome your statement and introduction of members of your 

family and even friends who are here. 

TESTIMONY OF CASS R. SUNSTEIN 1 TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to 

be here. I am grateful to you in particular for your kindness over 

the last weeks; Senator Collins, to you for being here and for the 

kindness and generosity of your staff; to Members of the Committee and their staffs, for your guidance and suggestions and policy proposals and generosity. 

I am grateful to Senator Klobuchar for her extremely kind statement and also for her wonderful performance as a student, which 

vaulted her into public prominence. I am grateful to the President, 

of course, and honored by him for his trust. 

With your indulgence, I would like to introduce members of my 

family who are here. Eddie Bourke, my father-in-law; my amazing 

mother-in-law, Vera Delany, who played tennis at Wimbledon; my 

amazing daughter, Ellen Ruddick-Sunstein; and my remarkable 

wife, brave Samantha Power, who is a recent mother. 

And noting that fact, I would like to mention two family members who are not here, my son, Declan, born 2 weeks ago, and my 

father, Cass Richard Sunstein, who, like Senator Akaka, fought in 

World War II. He was in the Navy in the Philippines, and I miss 

him a lot, particularly today. Thanks Dad. 

Let me say a few words about my own background and my conception of the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As noted, for over two decades, I have taught law—constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, labor law, and 

associated fields—mostly at the University of Chicago Law School, 

and my writing is predominately in those domains. 

Recently I moved to Harvard Law School where I founded the 

Program on Risk Regulation, whose work overlaps greatly with 

that of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. We explore homeland security, the economic crisis, energy security, environmental protection, occupational safety and health, and related 

topics. 

In recent years, my own writing has emphasized three topics. 

Transparency and information disclosure, as mentioned by Senator 

Collins, particularly as a regulatory tool, is often gentler than command and control regulation. 

I have explored aggregation of information through the Internet 

with the thought that bureaucrats in particular often know much 

7 

less than the American people do, and with the uses of the Internet, we can often obtain valuable information about the best way 

to protect people and about ways to improve existing regulatory regimes. 

Finally, with this book, Nudge, I have explored behavioral economics and approaches to regulation that are based on a realistic 

picture of how human beings behave in situations of risk, danger, 

and information, and the goal is to try to provide protection to people without coercing them. 

With respect to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

its three fundamental tasks involve information policy, statistical 

policy, and, as emphasized, regulation. Information policy is absolutely fundamental, now more than ever. It bears on national security as well as on sound governance, and there are many challenges 

to be met in order to ensure that information is secure, that privacy is respected, that paperwork reduction actually occurs, and 

that the burdens on small business and on others do not become 

overwhelming. 

Sound statistics are the foundation for much of what the Executive Branch does and the statistical work done at OIRA is the basis 

for much policymaking at the Federal and State levels. It is important that it be done objectively and that it be kept up-to-date. 

Regulation, as you, Mr. Chairman, have noticed, has been controversial in the domain of the work of OIRA, and I would just like 

to emphasize three foundations for the work of OIRA in the regulatory arena. The first is everything done by OIRA, as everything 

done by the Executive Branch, must be consistent with the law. 

The foundation of regulatory review, the first question to be asked 

by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is ‘‘what are 

Congress’ instructions?’’ That is the starting point for any mechanism for regulatory review. 

The second task is to ensure that within the boundaries set by 

Congress, things done are consistent with the President’s own priorities and principles. The third task is to kind of institutionalize 

the notion of looking before you leap so that when the government 

is starting a regulation, whether it involves homeland security, 

education, energy, or anything else, there is some sense of what the 

consequences are likely to be. That promotes accountability. It 

helps ensure that citizens and government can know what the likely effects of government action are. 

The most important words in the executive orders governing regulatory review are these: ‘‘To the extent permitted by law.’’ Anything done within the framework of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has to keep those six words in mind. 

Mr. Chairman, we face a number of challenges right now involving national security, financial stability, energy security, environmental protection, healthcare reform, and educational reform. I 

know that Members of this Committee have exercised leadership in 

those domains, and when legislation is passed in the future, and 

with respect to legislation that has been enacted thus far, regulations will try to meet those challenges. 

I look forward to working very closely with you and Members of 

the Committee and your staffs, if confirmed, to make sure that 

8 

those challenges are well met in the coming years. But for the moment, I look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. We will begin with 

the standard questions we ask of all witnesses, three in number. 

First, is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you know of anything personal or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. No, I do not. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And finally, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Absolutely. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. So far you are doing very 

well. We will each have 7-minute rounds of questions. 

I was interested in your opening statement in the extent to 

which I would say it was non-ideological. There is a sense that— 

and I want to ask you to comment on this—the Bush Administration, which just ended after two terms, because it was more skeptical of the role of government, was more halting in its regulation, 

whereas the Obama Administration, presumably more supportive 

of governmental action, will be more supportive of regulation, 

which is to say that this is, to use simplistic terms, a liberal Administration that follows a conservative Administration. 

I want you to just talk about that common view that Members 

of Congress and people outside have of the regulatory process and 

how you relate that to what you just told us in your introductory 

statement, particularly about the primacy of the law? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Well, my own approach to regulatory problems I 

describe as pragmatic and empirical. As an academic, that is a particular role. The role of the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, the Administrator, should also be pragmatic and empirical, 

but those would not be the first two words. The first description of 

OIRA is that its charge is to implement enacted legislation to ensure the terms of regulations conform to the terms of statutes, and 

that is the starting point. 

The second point is to ensure that whatever pragmatic and empirical approach is brought conforms to the President’s own commitments and priorities. And the third step, consistent with Executive Order 12866, which remains the controlling executive order, is 

that the analysis that accompanies the regulations is sound, that 

there is investigation of alternatives, and that there is some effort 

to assess consequences. 

So in that third part, compliance with Executive Order 12866, 

subordinate to statutes, there is a big place for pragmatism and 

empiricism. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. There is no particular room there for ideology separate from the three factors that you have mentioned. 

9 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. That is correct. The only place where what could 

be described as ideology would play a role is if there is a statute 

that has a particular orientation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Or if the President, as the President suggested, 

in the energy domain he has some ideas. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right, understood. Let me talk about the 

relationship between OIRA and the agencies themselves. I want to 

ask you who you think should be in the lead in setting regulatory 

priorities determining what type of regulation is needed and then 

setting the final content for the rules, the agencies that are given 

authority under the laws or OIRA? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. As you say, the statutes that give rulemaking authority give such authority to the agencies so they have the authority to issue rules. There is also a structure in place for regulatory 

review, but that must respect the policymaking authority and rulemaking power of the agencies. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me ask you to comment, and this in 

some ways takes me back to the first question, on the role of costbenefit analysis. In your writings, you have been a strong advocate 

for the use of cost-benefit analysis in rulemaking. 

I cannot resist asking you, early in the Bush Administration, we 

had a nominee before us for OIRA, John Graham, who was also an 

advocate, a very informed advocate, for cost-benefit analysis. But 

some of us voted against him because we worried that he was going 

to use cost-benefit analysis to frustrate the intention of Congress 

and the statutes. His work is actually comparable to yours, at least 

in the direction of it, and I wanted to ask you—and I presume you 

know his work—perhaps to state this as provocatively as I might, 

why shouldn’t a senator who voted against John Graham’s confirmation also vote against yours? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you for that. My own approach to cost-benefit analysis is inclusive and humanized, I would say. I would not 

want to characterize his in a pejorative sense, but what I have emphasized in my academic writing is that cost-benefit analysis 

should not put regulation in an arithmetic strait jacket; that there 

are values and morals, distributional, aesthetic, and otherwise, 

that have to play a part in the overall judgment about what is to 

be done. I would emphasize that there are limits to purely economic approaches to valuation of cost and benefits. 

Think, for example, of the domain of protecting disabled people, 

where, as a scholar, I have written that consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, cost-benefit analysis is an inadequate 

approach. We are not trying to maximize money with provisions 

that are protecting against discrimination. 

But even more than emphasizing the humanized inclusive form 

of cost-benefit analysis, what I would emphasize is that all of this 

is subordinate to the law. So if the Clean Air Act has provisions 

that forbid cost-benefit analysis from being the basis of decision, 

that is authoritative. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You have answered the following question 

that I was going to ask, which is to refer to several statutes, particularly those that control environmental pollution or unsafe workplace conditions, which you referred to, or other risks to the public, 

10 

where Congress has actually prohibited a consideration of cost in 

comparison to benefits and has mandated that regulations be based 

on other considerations, such as the availability of technology or 

the protection of health. I think you have answered that. 

Just a final question, which you have touched on in this regard. 

In your writings, you have described the risk in the use of quantitative cost-benefit analysis, that is, as you put it, ‘‘it is possible 

that in practice, quantitative cost-benefit analysis will have excessive influence on government decisions, drowning out soft variables,’’ which is your term. 

What would you do as OIRA Administrator to try to ensure that 

this does not happen? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. The first task would be to make sure that if the 

soft variables are part of what Congress wants to safeguard, those 

variables be safeguarded. I referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. The second task would be to ensure that if the 

President has a policy initiative in a domain, it reflects his commitment to those soft variables, that those be respected. The third idea 

would be in any implementation of cost-benefit analysis that is 

worthwhile in practice as opposed to law review articles, it is very 

important to be attentive to moral considerations, distributional 

considerations, and others that sometimes animate government action. And that is how I would respond to the soft variables. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very interesting. Thank you. My time is 

up. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sunstein, I 

want to get right to the controversial issue that I raised in my 

opening statement before exploring other issues with you. 

In a 2007 speech you said, ‘‘We ought to ban hunting.’’ Now that 

was just one speech, but then in doing a search through some of 

your documents and legal articles, we also found a statement saying, ‘‘We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose 

is human recreation.’’ 

First let me say that you certainly have the right to have any 

view on hunting that you wish. My concern, as someone who represents a State where hunting and fishing and the outdoors are 

very much a part of our heritage, is that you not take steps, if you 

are confirmed, to try to influence regulation in such a way that it 

would affect the decisions that individuals make in conformance 

with State and local laws on whether or not to hunt. 

Can you give me assurances that if you are confirmed you will 

not seek to implement your personal view that hunting should be 

banned? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Yes, Senator, I can pledge that to you in the 

strongest possible terms. The only thing I would add is that the 

law is authoritative, first. Second, I am a strong believer in the 

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I am on record as 

saying that the Second Amendment protects the right to hunt. 

That reflects my own personal view. 

The statement you quoted is a provocation, an offhand remark in 

a speech that was on another topic, and not only would I not want 

to ban hunting if that were my personal view, it actually is not my 

11 

personal view. Hunters are among the strongest environmentalists 

and conservationists in the United States, and it would be preposterous for anyone in a position like mine to take steps to affect 

their rights or their interests. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you for that strong statement. Similarly, I read a primer that you wrote on the rights of animals when 

you were at Chicago, and you seemed to be suggesting that animals 

should have greater legal rights in the court system. 

Now I will tell you, in reading this fascinating treatise, I cannot 

always tell when you are throwing out an idea for the purpose of 

exploring all of the ramifications and all the possibilities versus 

where you are actually advocating for a position. 

So perhaps I will ask you right now, why don’t you help me with 

the issue of legal rights for animals? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you for that. As OIRA Administrator, as 

opposed to an academic suggesting possible ideas for consideration, 

the question would be, what does, for example, the Endangered 

Species Act say or what does the Animal Welfare Act say, not what 

does a law review article say? So I would follow the law. 

In terms of my own academic writings, the suggestion, which 

was meant as a suggestion for contemplation, was that under State 

law that prevents cruelty to animals, it might be that the enforcement by criminal prosecutors could be supplemented by suits by 

private people protecting animals from violations of existing State 

law, very much like under the Endangered Species Act, where people rather than elephants initiate lawsuits. 

So the idea was actually very conventional and a little boring, 

though maybe my rhetoric made it seem less so. It was just about 

ensuring enforcement of existing State anti-cruelty law, and I know 

you have been a pioneer actually in the domain of animal welfare. 

So the idea here was a suggestion about State anti-cruelty law, 

and it would not be legitimate for the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to be playing any role in a Federal system in rethinking State anti-cruelty law. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Let me turn to another issue that 

concerns me. You have recommended that the process of regulatory 

review that OIRA undertakes should be broadened to include independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. That recommendation concerns me 

greatly because the whole reason that Congress creates independent regulatory agencies is to insulate them from Administration policies, whether it is a Democratic or a Republican Administration. 

Congress has deemed that this particular area needs to be protected from the changing agendas of different Administrations. If 

you bring these independent agencies within the regulatory purview of OIRA, you defeat the whole purpose of having them be 

independent agencies. You are treating them as if they are members of the President’s cabinet. So why do you advocate expanding 

OIRA’s reach to independent agencies? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Well in my academic writing, the suggestion was 

that a process of ‘‘look before you leap,’’ which included reflections 

within the Executive Office of the President on the views of, say, 

12 

the Federal Trade Commission, might be a reasonable way of ensuring dialogue and participation. 

This is the academic argument, fully consistent with everything 

you have pointed to, which is clearly correct, and I am sure the Department of Justice would put an exclamation point next to what 

you have said. 

In my capacity as nominee for this office, the judgment of what 

relationship the FCC, FTC, or the U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) has with the President is a judgment for the 

President within the confines of the law. And the only thing I 

would add—this is really not something for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to select—is whatever is done, and 

nothing of the sort has ever been done, as you suggest, must respect the legal independence of these very different entities. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. 

Senator Akaka, good morning. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Collins. I am delighted to be here at this hearing and to 

see Dr. Sunstein again. 

First I want to welcome you, Dr. Sunstein, and your family and 

congratulate you on your newborn son, Declan. Secretly, I was hoping he would be here. But thank you very much for bringing your 

family and also your friends to this hearing today. 

As you may know, I am a strong advocate for greater protection 

of personal privacy by the government, and too many government 

agencies and private companies have failed to adequately protect 

personal privacy. As Administrator of OIRA, you would oversee numerous regulations that protect the privacy rights of millions of 

Americans. 

I believe that more can be done to protect personal information 

and I hope that privacy protection will be a priority at OIRA under 

your leadership. You did respond to the Chairman’s question about 

what you would do in protecting privacy and did mention some 

steps you would take as Administrator. 

My further question to expand on that point is to ask whether 

you have other possible ways in mind that you would like to do 

this? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you for that, Senator. With respect to privacy, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs works with 

the Privacy Act of 1974, and the first task would be to consult with 

the head of the Office of E-Government, who works with the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs on privacy issues, and to talk 

through the existing guidance, which has been provided by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to assess its adequacy. 

I would want, if confirmed, to speak first with Vivek Kundra, 

who is terrific, second with OIRA staff, who have expertise in privacy issues, and third, to engage in a process of outreach with interested stakeholders of various sorts to see what problems have 

emerged, in what circumstances are people’s privacy being compromised, and in particular for the next 5 or 10 years what sorts 

of threats to privacy are there going to be. Often the government 

13 

is reacting to problems of last year and not foreseeing the problems 

of the next 5 years. 

And then my goal would be, if confirmed—I would want to hit 

the ground running on this one in particular—to look to what reforms ought to be made within the framework you have provided 

under the Privacy Act to ensure that when people do not want 

third parties to learn what they have on Amazon or anything about 

their medical records, all of this is kept private. 

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Sunstein, the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act are the primary mechanisms for protecting Americans’ 

privacy. This is an especially important issue with the growing use 

of electronic information and technology by the government and increased information collection in response to the threat of terrorism. 

Do you believe that the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act 

currently provide adequate privacy protections? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I think the Privacy Act of 1974 was amazingly 

prescient. It is a law that was enacted a generation ago, and the 

basic foundations of the Act have really stood the test of time. 

What is not clear, and I gather this is the heart of your question, 

is whether the communications revolution that we have seen in the 

last 15 years unsettles some of the practices that have emerged 

under the Privacy Act. On that one, it is clear that a very careful 

look on the regulatory side makes sense, and I understand that 

this Committee is investigating whether legislative change is desirable, and I would look forward to working with you very closely on 

that. 

That is one that, as I said, in the next 5 or 10 years is going to 

be even more urgent than it has been in the last 5 or 10 years. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Sunstein, recently the Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs Committee reported my bill, the 

Plain Writing Act, favorably. That bill would require Federal agencies to start issuing documents in plain, easy-to-read writing. OMB 

would develop plain-writing guidance and would help oversee implementation. 

As you know, OIRA’s mission includes overseeing dissemination 

of and access to government information, so I would expect that 

OIRA would take the lead with OMB on implementation. You have 

told me that you are an advocate for plain writing. 

As the head of OIRA, do you feel you would be well prepared to 

spearhead implementation if the plain writing bill was enacted? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I do, Senator. I would defer to the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget on allocation of resources and 

such issues. He would be my boss. But the answer is absolutely. 

Senator AKAKA. Well thank you very much, and thank you for 

your responses, and thank you for bringing your family and your 

wife here today. 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. We will do a 

second round insofar as Members have additional questions. I have 

a few. 

14 

Let me just focus in on the other side of your responsibilities 

from the privacy side that Senator Akaka focused on, which is the 

accessibility that the public has to governmental actions. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act is one of several pieces of legislation that this Committee adopted and the Congress adopted to 

make government more accessible to the citizenry. The statute now 

states that the OIRA administrator will assist the OMB director to 

‘‘develop and oversee the implementation of uniform information 

resource management policies, principles, standards, and guidelines’’ that will ‘‘promote public access to public information.’’ 

As Senator Akaka mentioned later, the E-Government Act was 

passed saying that the Administrator of E-Government would work 

with the OIRA Administrator to fill the statutory responsibilities. 

I want to ask you generally, you mentioned that you would be 

working with the Federal Chief Information Officer, Vivek Kundra, 

what are your goals to establish clear guidelines for Federal agencies when it comes to information management on the public accessibility side? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. First priority, Mr. Chairman, would be the Regulations.gov website, which should make very clear to affected citizens, and even interested citizens who are not affected but who are 

curious about what their government is doing, what the regulations 

say and what the burdens are and what the benefits are. 

Regulations.gov at present is a very impressive start, but it is 

not clear that it satisfies the plain English test. As an administrative law teacher, I have spent considerable time on the Regulations.gov website and learned a great deal, but it just is not as accessible as it ought to be to citizens, and that is where I would 

start. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I agree totally with you about that. We 

understand it is an enormous challenge to do what we have asked 

Regulations.gov to do, and they are off to a decent start, but I 

agree with you, if I hear you correctly, that it needs a lot of improvement. Because I think the congressional intention here was 

not just to provide some access to information, but really to give 

individuals the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations, 

which is to an extent that they have never had the ability before 

because of the Internet. So do you have any specific ideas about 

how you might make it better? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Yes. First of all, much more simplicity and much 

more plain English. And the architecture of the website should be 

altered so that you do not have to click so much before you start 

to read something that is itself quite complicated. So much greater 

simplicity of the sort that the private sector often has. 

In terms of public comment on regulations, I think we have just 

started to realize the promise of an era of public reaction and input 

with respect to regulations, and this is something I have worked 

on as an academic. It is something that Vivek Kundra is interested 

in and that the Director is also interested in, that is, enlisting private sector knowledge in terms of seeing what is working well and 

poorly for existing regulations, exploring gaps in regulatory protection, some that can be filled by agencies without any legislation, 

and also getting a clear sense by affected people who often do not 

15 

know what the regulations are, let alone have input until the regulations are imposed on them. 

So simplicity, clarity, and publicity would be watch words. And 

the beauty of this is it is not just realizing democracy in a way we 

have not been able to do before. That is great. But also great is we 

have regulations that will be much better. They will be much more 

suited to people’s actual situations. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Exactly, because they will reflect their circumstances. I learned long ago when I was in the State Legislature 

in Connecticut, and it relates to anybody in government, that we 

come to government with our own experiences, obviously, inherently limited, and then we are asked, in our case, to legislate, and 

you are now asked to regulate across the widest array of human 

experience. 

It struck me that it pays to listen to the people who happen to 

live in the area or field that you are regulating, and the Internet 

does give us an opportunity to do that better than we ever have 

before. Moving on, talking about my State Senate career, you wrote 

an article called, ‘‘Is OSHA Constitutional?’’ 

On a particularly strange day in my legislative career at a hearing on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 

I raised the question, is OSHA kosher? So I want to thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to remember that day. 

But I go on more seriously. You wrote a similarly titled article 

awhile back, about a decade ago, ‘‘Is the Clean Air Act Constitutional?’’ So I wanted to ask you to explain your view about the constitutionality of these landmark statutes to protect public health 

and the environment. 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Thank you for that. The conclusion of the Clean 

Air Act paper was the Clean Air Act is constitutional. The conclusion of the OSHA paper was OSHA is constitutional, and at first 

glance, this would be the most boring and obvious conclusion a law 

professor could ever reach. 

What inspired the two articles was a set of decisions within the 

D.C. Circuit, the Court of Appeals, that actually raised questions 

about both statutes. I tried to say the Clean Air Act was constitutional and the D.C. Circuit should not have suggested otherwise. 

The Supreme Court eventually agreed with that. 

The OSHA question is newly alive because of some D.C. Circuit 

decisions from the 1990s, which upheld the statute with a little bit 

of difficulty. There are some intervening Supreme Court cases that 

raise questions about those decisions, upholding the statute. 

The point of my article was to say here are some routes by which 

it could be held constitutional. So both are constitutional. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. This leads, of course, to the 

question of whether you would feel it was within your purview as 

Administrator of OIRA to apply a constitutional test of your own 

to regulations or whether this would be dependent, as it was in the 

articles you have cited, on court decisions? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I would feel it would be my obligation to refer the 

matter to the Department of Justice. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. If you had a constitutional question? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

16 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to follow-up on the privacy issues that my two colleagues have raised 

and that I raised in my opening statement. 

I certainly agree with you that the Privacy Act of 1974 has withstood the test of time amazingly well. I believe that parts of it still 

nevertheless need to be updated, but when you consider that it was 

written before the Information Age, the basic principles of the Act 

still very much apply. 

But no matter how good our laws are, if there are not individuals 

in government who are charged with implementing them, overseeing them, they tend to not be enforced as effectively as they 

should be. I mentioned in my opening statement that back in 2001, 

there was a chief counselor for privacy within OIRA. Nowadays, 

the privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security tends 

to be the premiere privacy expert in the Federal Government, in 

part because of the many challenges that the Department faces in 

weighing privacy concerns. 

But really there should be someone within OMB who has that 

specific privacy portfolio. As I have mentioned in the past, the chief 

counselor for privacy was part of OIRA. Do you intend to reestablish that position if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I intend to look very carefully at what institutional structure is best suited to the protection of privacy. I agree 

very much that accountability on any matter, emphatically including privacy, requires a person whose responsibility is to provide 

that protection. 

My understanding is that there is a notice out right now to hire 

someone whose sole job at OIRA would be to protect privacy. My 

understanding also is that there are several people at OIRA who 

are spending a great deal of time on this issue, but I very much 

take your point that there is a question whether these are adequate ways of providing what was provided in the past. 

Senator COLLINS. In my previous round of questions, I mentioned 

my concern about a proposal that you put forth to extend OIRA to 

independent regulatory agencies. Let me balance that now by telling you a proposal you put forth that I think is an excellent idea, 

and that is to require agencies to explain why they are moving 

ahead with the regulation in a case where the costs outweigh the 

benefits as shown by a cost-benefit analysis. 

Do you believe that currently agencies provide adequate justification for moving forward on a regulation that has failed the costbenefit analysis? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. It is a crucial question: Whether, when agencies 

are imposing big burdens on business and they are not providing 

big benefits to people, they are adequately explaining themselves. 

I do not have a general conclusion to that because I have not done 

a systematic study of the cases in which agencies proceed, even 

when the costs are higher than the benefits. 

What I would say is for the future, and this is very much consistent with the existing executive order, agencies would have to 

say something, such as the law requires us to proceed or there are 

soft variables that matter. So I am not sure what the right generalization is about past practice, but I can tell you for the future, to 

have a full explanation is part of ensuring accountability. 

17 

Senator COLLINS. Do you expect that the President is going to 

issue a new executive order? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I do not know the answer to that. I do know that 

he has asked for recommendations, but whether he is going to 

issue a new executive order, I do not know. 

Senator COLLINS. And have you given recommendations to the 

White House in this area? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. As a senior advisor to the Director, I have shared 

thoughts. 

Senator COLLINS. And are they along the lines of the recommendations that you have made in some of your academic 

writings? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I would say there is some but very incomplete 

overlap between my recommendations as a temporary advisor and 

my academic thinking. 

Senator COLLINS. Would you like to share those recommendations with us? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I think if the Director would like to tell you—— 

Senator COLLINS. Very good. I did not really expect you to say 

yes to that, I must say. I am also interested in proposals that you 

have to increase the transparency of decisionmaking in the regulation area. It is very frustrating to many of my constituents that the 

rulemaking process appears to be so opaque and so difficult and 

that ironically the prohibitions against third-party communications, 

or just discussions in some ways, although they are necessary to 

guard the integrity of the process, impede the process because it 

seems to many of my constituents that their concerns are not 

heard, that they go into this black hole. 

And it is not just everyday citizens. The governor and State officials feel that way in some cases as well. We are going through this 

now with an issue involving the listing of the Atlantic salmon. It 

is frustrating not to be able to communicate fully all that the State 

of Maine is doing to restore habitat for the salmon. 

Do you have any recommendations on how we can make rulemaking more transparent, more accessible? 

Mr. SUNSTEIN. I do. An open door may be, to some extent, an 

open virtual door, but also an open real door on the part of OIRA 

and its Administrator makes a great deal of sense for your reason 

and the Chairman’s that often affected stakeholders know things 

that the agency and OIRA do not. 

So participation as a foundation of rulemaking, as a way of ensuring transparency, that would be first. Second, no secret or backroom participation, open in public in the sense that if OIRA is 

meeting with people, then people get to know about that; that 

would be the starting point. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. Do you have 

any further questions? 

Senator COLLINS. I do not. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Neither do I, so Mr. Sunstein, thanks 

very much for your testimony today. Thanks for your willingness 

to come into Federal public service. We congratulate you and your 

wife for the birth of the baby and thank her for her service as well. 

18 

I cannot end without noting the presence of your friend and 

mine, Leon Wieseltier, long-term literary editor of The New Republic. Seeing him out there, and I apologize for even entering this in 

the record, reminded me of the scene from ‘‘The Godfather’’ movie 

where the witness is about to spill the beans on the organized 

crime family and they bring his brother from Italy who he has not 

seen in a long time, and he clams up. 

In this case, he is here looking directly over your shoulder just 

to make sure that I do the right thing. I certainly do intend to support your nomination. 

We are going to keep the record open until 12 noon tomorrow for 

the submission of any written questions or statements. I hope to 

be able to move your nomination as quickly as we can from the 

Committee out to the Senate floor for consideration. Obviously that 

depends on the inclinations of the other Members of the Committee. 

But again, it has been a very substantive and interesting morning, and I thank you for your willingness to serve. The hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(19) 

A P P E N D I X 


51041.001
20 


51041.002
21 


51041.003
22 


51041.004
23 


51041.005
24 


51041.006
25 


51041.007
26 


51041.008
27 


51041.009
28 


51041.010
29 


51041.011
30 


51041.012
31 


51041.013
32 


51041.014
33 


51041.015
34 


51041.016
35 


51041.017
36 


51041.018
37 


51041.019
38 


51041.020
39 


51041.021
40 


51041.022
41 


51041.023
42 


51041.024
43 


51041.025
44 


51041.026
45 


51041.027
46 


51041.028
47 


51041.029
48 


51041.030
49 


51041.031
50 


51041.032
51 


51041.033
52 


51041.034
53 


51041.035
54 


51041.036
55 


51041.037
56 


51041.038
57 


51041.039
58 


51041.040
59 


51041.041
60 


51041.042
61 


51041.043
62 


51041.044
63 


51041.045
64 


51041.046
65 


51041.047
66 


51041.048
67 


51041.049
68 


51041.050
69 


51041.051
70 


51041.052
71 


51041.053
72 


51041.054
73 


51041.055
74 


51041.056
75 


51041.057
76 


51041.058
77 


51041.059
78 


51041.060
79 


51041.061
80 


51041.062
81 


51041.063
82 


51041.064
83 


51041.065
84 


51041.066
85 


51041.067
86 


51041.068
87 


51041.069
88 


51041.070
89 


51041.071
90 


51041.072
91 


51041.073
92 

Æ 


51041.074