[Senate Hearing 107-972] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 107-972 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BALANCE ON THE NATION'S SECOND HIGHEST COURT ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 __________ Serial No. J-107-104 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 88-076 PDF For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania Benjamin Lawsky, Majority Chief Counsel Ed Haden, Minority Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared statement............................................. 87 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 4 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts.................................................. 27 McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky, prepared statement............................................. 100 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York........................................................... 1 prepared statement and attachments........................... 133 Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 8 prepared statement and attachments........................... 141 WITNESSES Clark, Bradford R., Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C......................... 22 Fielding, Fred F., Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, Washington, D.C.... 16 Gottesman, Michael H., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.................................... 25 Mikva, Abner J., Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois...................................... 13 Schroeder, Christopher H., Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies, Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina. 19 QUESTION AND ANSWER Response of Mr. Fielding to a question submitted by Senator Sessions....................................................... 41 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Buckley, James L., former U.S. Senator from the State of New York and judge emeritus, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, statement...................................................... 42 Cass, Ronald A., Dean, Boston University School of Law, and the Melville Madison Bigelow Professor of Law at Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, statement............................... 45 Chicago Tribune, Jonathan Turley, February 10, 2002, commentary.. 55 Clark, Bradford R., Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.... 57 Fein, Bruce, Attorney at Law, Washington, D.C.................... 64 Fielding Fred F., Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, Washington, D.C., prepared statement............................................. 68 Gottesman, Michael H., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., prepared statement............... 74 Hispanic National Bar Association, Angel Gomez, President, Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 93 Mikva, Abner J., Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement.................. 103 National Environmental Organizations, Washington, D.C., joint statement and attachment....................................... 110 Schroeder, Christopher H., Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies, Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina, prepared statement............................................. 119 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York and Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, joint letter....................................... 139 Strauss, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the District of Columbia (shadow), Washington, D.C., statement.......................... 180 Wall Street Journal, James L. Buckley, June 13, 2002, commentary. 185 Washington Post, Abner J. Mikva, January 25, 2002, editorial..... 187 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BALANCE ON THE NATION'S SECOND HIGHEST COURT ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Sessions, Hatch, and Kyl. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Chairman Schumer. The hearing will come to order. We are going to start. Jeff Sessions is on his way, but we have our Ranking Member, who can ably defend the other side. I would rather Jeff be here. [Laughter.] Chairman Schumer. Which is a compliment to Orrin and to Jeff. I first want to thank everyone for joining us today in this important hearing on the unique role that the D.C. Circuit plays in our system of justice and the need for ideological balance on this vital court. The D.C. Circuit is often called the Nation's second highest court, and with good reason. More judges have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court from the D.C. Circuit than any other court in the land. The D.C. Circuit is where Presidents often look when they need someone to step in and fill an important hole in the lineup. It is sort of like the bullpen court, having given us Supreme Court Justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not to mention Robert Bork, Ken Starr, and my good friend who is here today with us, the notorious Abner Mikva. That was supposed to be funny, Orrin. [Laughter.] Chairman Schumer. He laughed. He was the only one. Senator Hatch. I did laugh. Chairman Schumer. I thought it was pretty good myself. All other Federal appellate courts handle just those cases arising from within its boundaries. So, for example, the Second Circuit where I am from takes cases coming out of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The Eleventh Circuit, where Senator Sessions is from, gets cases out of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. But the D.C. Circuit doesn't just take cases brought by the residents of Washington, D.C. Congress has decided there is value in vesting one court with the power to review certain decisions of administrative agencies. We have given plaintiffs the power to choose the D.C. Circuit, and in some cases we force them to go to the D.C. Circuit, because we have decided, for better or for worse, that when it comes to certain administrative decisions one court should decide what the law is for the whole country. It seems to me that makes sense. So when it comes to regulations adopted under the Clean Air Act by EPA, labor decisions made by the NLRB, rules propounded by OSHA, gas prices regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and many other administrative matters, the decisions are usually made by judges on the D.C. Circuit. To most, this seems like an alphabet soup court, since virtually every case involves an agency with an unintelligible acronym--EPA, NLRB, FCC, SEC, FTC, FERC, and so on and so on and so on. It leads to another set of letters to many, a long line of z's. Even my eyes glaze over and roll back in my head when you read down the list. But the letters that comprise this alphabet soup are what make our Government tick. This court is vital to the functioning and interpretation of how the Government works. These are the agencies that write and enforce the rules that determine how much ``reform'' there will be in campaign finance reform. They determine how clean the water has to be for it to be safe for our families to drink. They establish the rights workers have when they are negotiating with corporate powers. The D.C. Circuit is important because its decisions determine how these Federal agencies go about doing their jobs. And in doing so, it directly impacts the daily lives of all Americans more than any other court in the country, with the exception of the Supreme Court. But we probably wouldn't be talking about this court today if it weren't for the political maelstrom brewing over a few of the pending nominations to it. So before any of the reporters here get too excited, I want to be clear that the witnesses with us today are not going to discuss Miguel Estrada or John Roberts. Those discussions are for another day. That said, nominations to this special circuit merit special scrutiny. Anyone who thinks we should just blindly confirm any President's nominees to this all-important court needs to think again. The goal of this hearing is to underscore what is at stake when considering nominees to the D.C. Circuit, how their ideological predilections will impact the decisions coming out of the court and why it is vital for Senators to consider how nominees will impact the delicate balance on the court when deciding how to vote. Perhaps more than any other court, aside from the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit votes break down on ideological lines with amazing frequency. The divide happens in cases with massive national impact, and if anyone thinks the court's docket isn't chockful of cases with national ramifications, they ought to listen to this. Here are some examples. When it comes to civil rights, the court plays a huge role. In Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, the D.C. Circuit enforced the Civil Rights Act guarantee of equal treatment in the workplace by remedying blatant sex discrimination in a case where a woman was denied partnership at Price Waterhouse based on her gender alone. When it comes to communications, the court plays an enormous role. It has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from FCC decisions. That is a pretty big chunk of law with massive impact on American consumers. Just a few years ago, the Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, guaranteeing more competition in the local and long- distance marketplaces, which in turn guaranteed better and cheaper phone service for most of us. Even when it comes to defining our post-9/11 world, the D.C. Circuit plays a big role in interpreting and defining our anti-terrorism laws. For instance, in the ongoing case of Holy Land Foundation v. Ashcroft, the Circuit will be called upon to determine whether a charitable organization is really a charitable organization or a terrorist front whose assets can be frozen by the Federal Government. When it comes to privacy, the court plays a big role. Earlier this year, the court was called upon to assess the FTC's power to protect consumer privacy when it comes to the private, personal information credit reporting agencies make public. When it comes to consumers, the court plays a big role. Yesterday's blockbuster decision on the front pages of most of our national papers by the FERC that a major gas and oil company deliberately manipulated gas prices in California will undoubtedly end up before the D.C. Circuit. When it comes to the environment, the court plays a big role. When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, we gave the EPA the authority to set clean air standards--the power to determine how much smog and pollution is too much. In 1997, having reviewed thousands of studies, the EPA toughened the standards for smog and soot. The decision was to have two primary effects. First, it was going to improve air quality. But, second, it was going to force some businesses to spend more and to pollute less. Industry groups appealed the EPA's decision, and a majority-Republican panel on the D.C. Circuit reversed the EPA's ruling. In doing so, the court relied on an arcane and long-dead concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. I remember studying this in law school 25 years ago, and they said even then it was on the way out. But it was a striking moment of judicial activism that was pro-business, anti-environment, and highly ideological. While that decision ultimately was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, most other significant decisions of the D.C. Circuit have been allowed to stand without review. That is because the Supreme Court takes fewer and fewer cases each year, and, taking an increasingly ideological bent itself, many feel we can't rely on the Supreme Court to right the D.C. Circuit's wrongs. Throughout the 1990's, conservative judges had a stranglehold majority on this court. In case after case, during the recent Republican domination of the Circuit, the D.C. Circuit has second-guessed the judgment of Federal agencies, striking down fuel economy standards, wetlands protection, and pro-worker rulings by the NLRB. Now, for the first time in a long time, because of the resignation of two Republican judges, there is balance on the Circuit--four Republican judges and four Democratic judges. Some of us would like to keep balance on this all-important court, not giving either side an ideological edge. I am not going to talk about how President Clinton's nominees were held up, Orrin. Given the recent revelations of corporate irresponsibility, avarice, and greed, now more than ever we need to ensure that we will have balanced courts to ensure the law is enforced equally against all offenders. While politics isn't always the best predictor of how judges will vote, some recent studies of the D.C. Circuit pretty conclusively prove that ideology plays a big role in how the judges vote--huge differences when it is a Republican group and a Democratic group deciding the decision. Of course, that comes up by the way the wheel works. One final note before I turn this over to Orrin. As always, I am grateful to Jeff Sessions as Ranking Member on this subcommittee. It is pleasure serving with him and his staff, especially Ed Haden, who once again have worked with us in a collegial and professional way to set up this hearing. We occasionally have our disagreements. If Jeff were here, he would probably say more than occasionally, but it is always a pleasure to work with him. [The prepared statement of Senator Schumer appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Now, let me turn this over to somebody who is admired by every member of this Committee. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, but he is always both a good friend and a worthy adversary, our Ranking Member, Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel exactly the same way about you. I think you have brought a great dimension to this Committee, although you are wrong on some of these issues, and I am going to point that out in no uncertain terms. Chairman Schumer. I have little doubt. STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Hatch. We also welcome all of our witnesses here today. We appreciate you taking your valuable time and helping us here on this Committee. Since the Democrats took over the Senate and the Judiciary Committee last June, my colleague and good friend from New York has been arguing that we on the Committee should be up front about our role in the advice and consent process, that we should not engage in the slight-of-hand of talking about one issue while voting on another. I agree with him to the extent that we should speak and act forthrightly and we should not stoop down to the politics of personal destruction in order to justify a vote that is based on something else. Unfortunately, I think that is where our agreement ends. Several weeks ago on the floor, I had my friend from New York as a captive audience because he was serving as the presiding officer, and he was very uncomfortable as I was speaking. I explained my view that being honest and open neither requires nor excuses the overt injection of raw politics into the advice and consent process. I explained then my opinion, based on 26 years of experience, that the only way to make sense of this process is to begin with the assumption that the President's constitutional power to nominate should be given a fair amount of deference, and that we should defeat nominees only where problems are truly significant. I believe that to the extent ideology is a question in judicial confirmations, it is a question answered by the American people and the Constitution when the President is constitutionally elected. The Senate's task of advice and consent is to advise and to query on the judicious character of nominees, not to challenge by our naked power the people's will in electing who will nominate. The premise of this hearing reminds me of a nickname that some clever college freshman gave to one of his required first- year courses: Introduction to the Obvious. If the point of this hearing is to show that the D.C. Circuit currently includes four judges appointed by Republicans, then we hardly need to convene a Senate subcommittee to figure that out. If the further point is made that adding one Republican appointee will result in five Republican appointees and four Democrat appointees, then I still can't imagine the hearing being disrupted by reporters running from the room yelling ``stop the presses.'' But I know that we are not here to explore the obvious with a sense of discovery. So I suppose the real question is, what should we do about this? How should the Senate act when faced with courts that have either a balance or an imbalance between the number of Republican and Democrat appointees? Should we refuse to confirm any new judges to those courts unless they belong to the right political party? Should we wait until one of the judges steps down and then wait even longer for there to be a President who happens to belong to the same political party as the President who appointed that judge? Well, these options seem to me to be perfectly ludicrous. The only possible answer is to accept the reality that Presidents have the power to appoint judges and that the balance in the judiciary will change over time as Presidents change, but much more slowly. The variables of Presidential elections, judicial retirements, circuit size, and many other factors will mean that perfect balance will be achieved rarely, if ever. That is simply how the system works, and has worked since the Judiciary Act of 1789. Our role of advice and consent is meaningful and we must take it seriously, but it was never intended as a power to second-guess the President or simply to substitute our judgment for his, and in so doing usurping the will of the American people. Mr. Chairman, you know better than anyone that I am sincere about this and that my track record proves it. Your report issued last Friday to the press shows that I voted against only one nominee in the last 10 years. As a matter of fact, you could go back a lot farther than that because that is the only one for at least the last 22 years. And to clarify, I did so not on the basis of politics or ideology, but rather out of respect for the traditional role of home State Senators in the selection of district court nominees. When both home State Senators of that nominee informed me that they were voting no, I felt I had no choice but to respect their judgment. And for what it is worth, I think that vote was quite an unfortunate episode, but I nevertheless acted in accordance with Senate practice. In keeping with the spirit of openness and honesty, I must say this: Although I know how this hearing is being billed, I am left to wonder why we are not having a hearing about the dismal Ninth Circuit, or about the procedural scandals that are plaguing the current Sixth Circuit. Why, I ask myself, are we having a hearing about the D.C. Circuit just 2 days before the nomination of Miguel Estrada? Coincidence? Surely not. When I was chairman, I ended the practice of having witnesses lined up to eviscerate good nominees. It was clear that the times had changed and that the base art native to the Potomac of destroying reputations had been too well perfected. I am glad that Chairman Leahy has concurred in this practice and I respect him for it. I am disappointed that we are having this hearing because, to be frank, it strikes me that we are regressing, that this subcommittee is just a thinly veiled attempt to lay the foundation to oppose one of the most intelligent, accomplished, and respected lawyers ever named to the D.C. Circuit Court. It seems to me that it would have been more forthright to name this hearing what it is, the Contra Estrada hearing. Now, let me express my very real concern for the buildup that I see happening to attempt to harm the nomination of this brilliant young man, who came to this country at age 17 from another country, knowing little English, and who has made his parents very proud and all of us who know him very proud. In one sense, I agree that there should be concern for balance on the D.C. Circuit. As chairman and founder 12 years ago of the non-partisan Republican Hispanic Task Force, which, despite the name, is made up of both Republican and Democratic members, I have long been concerned for the inclusion of Hispanics in the Federal Government. Without trumpeting the over-used word ``diversity,'' I have made it my business to support the nomination of talented Hispanics for my entire career in the Senate. I am sorry that not even the desire for diversity will trump the reckless pursuit of ideology in judicial confirmations. I have a special affinity for Hispanics and for the potential of the Latin culture in influencing the future of this country. Polls show that Latinos are the hardest-working Americans, that they have strong family values and a real attachment to their faith traditions. In short, they have reinvigorated the American dream and I expect that they will bring new understandings of our nationhood that some of us might not see with tired eyes. I also know that Hispanics come in many colors and that they have left behind countries filled with idealogues that would chain them to particular political parties. I know that they share a common-sense appreciation of each other's achievements in this country without any regard whatsoever to ideology, over which some Americans have the luxury of obsessing. I am concerned with balance on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but of a real sort, not the kind to be discussed here today. Like President Bush, I think it is high time that a talented lawyer of Hispanic descent is represented on the second most prestigious court in the land. The D.C. Circuit hears Federal cases no other court hears, as the distinguished chairman has told us, and has a special role in the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yes, I think it is time that a Hispanic sit on that court. I also think it is time that we unmask the way that Miguel Estrada's nomination is being treated and the lengths that his detractors are going to place hurdles in his path. And I do not include the distinguished Senator from New York in that category. I respect him. We are dear friends, but Miguel Estrada has not been treated very fairly. For months, I have been sounding the alarm of the influence of the special interest groups on this Committee. I have been increasingly ashamed of the axis of profits that demands that judicial nominees be voted down for a palimpsest of reasons. While the game plan is unvaried, the quarterbacks change, and now it is the liberal Hispanic groups that are on the field. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have sold out the aspirations of their people just to sit around schmoozing with the Washington, D.C., power elite. I have repeatedly warned against what is going on behind the scenes, but I have done it so often that perhaps it is time to try it with a new word. Here is the Spanish word: the word is ``confabular.'' Now, it means when one or more persons come together secretly to invent falsehoods about another. I am afraid that that is what we will see this week against Miguel Estrada. And I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that this hearing may be viewed as part of that effort. Again, the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee is very sincere in his belief that ideology is important. I don't quite agree with him on that, but at least I respect his sincerity. But what is even more important is that we have respect for the President's nominees, and unless we have very good reasons we should confirm those nominees. Miguel Estrada has now sat here for 16 months, almost a year-and-a-half. Fortunately, he is going to have his hearing this Thursday. Will we get him through before the end of this session, and the others who also have had hearings? I think common sense, decency, honor, and integrity mean we should do that. Now, I want to welcome today members of the Hispanic community who are wearing badges saying ``Confirm Miguel.'' I could not agree more. We are very happy to welcome all of you. We are very happy to have you here and we hope that this Committee will listen to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Now, let me call on Senator Sessions for an opening statement. As I mentioned, he has been a very, very strong and fair Ranking Member of this subcommittee. We don't agree on certain things, but we try to work with one another as best we can. I thank you, Jeff. Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hatch. Could I just interrupt for a second? I am on the Intelligence Committee, so I am going to have to leave, but I am going to leave it in your trusty two hands. Chairman Schumer. Well, thank you. I was going to mention one thing to my good friend, Orrin, if I might, if Jeff doesn't mind, and that is again it bolsters my view that ideology does matter when Judge Paez was nominated, also Hispanic, of a different ideological view than Judge Estrada, he waited 4 years before his confirmation. I don't accuse anybody of doing that because he was Hispanic. I accuse people of doing it--or not accuse, I just think it is because people thought the Ninth Circuit was out of balance and Judge Paez would have increased that lack of balance. In fact, we heard some members say that. Senator Hatch. If the Senator would yield on that, I was intimately familiar with all of that and that wasn't the reason he was held up. But I have to say that I think the Senator realizes that I am the reason that he sits on the Ninth Circuit today, because I overruled a whole raft of people to be able to put Judge Paez on that court, and I am hopeful that he will do a good job. Chairman Schumer. Let me say this to my good friend, the former chairman and now Ranking Member. I think if he were solely in charge of all of this, there would be less rancor, more fairness, and things would work out better for everybody concerned. I truly believe that. Senator Hatch. We are going to work on that, and hopefully we can fulfill your prophecy here. [Laughter.] Chairman Schumer. When I say in charge, I was not of majority members; I was talking of higher up than that. STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hatch. You have indeed given your best efforts for quite a number of years to improve our courts, and your leadership as chairman of the Committee was extraordinary. I appreciate your remarks. I think I will say something about Judge Paez, whom I felt was not a good nominee, and Senator Hatch disagreed. It was an interesting debate and he was confirmed. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I appreciate you. You know, we don't agree on this ideology question. You have said, and I think it is true, that ``gotcha'' politics, hearings, and trying to catch somebody with some misstep in a career of law practice, is not a healthy way to do it. We ought to put the matter out on the table and discuss it openly if we have got a problem with a judge. But, I think we need to have discipline in this approach and not suggest that a person's politics or their political beliefs qualify or disqualify them for the bench, whether it is pro-life or pro-choice, or whether it is for an expanded Government role or not an expanded Government role in the life of America. When a judge sits on that bench and makes a ruling, it shouldn't make a difference whether they are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, in my view. So this is an important matter. I think this hearing is important for three reasons. First, it is the fourth hearing that we have had which I would interpret as an attempt to justify the use of a person's politics rather than their view of the proper judicial role as a legitimate reason to vote against a nominee. Second, this hearing should shed some light on the historic slowdown in the circuit court confirmations that have occurred during the first 2 years of President Bush's term, as Senator Hatch mentioned. Third, this hearing serves as an introduction to the nomination hearing for Miguel Estrada, who, if confirmed this year, would be the first Hispanic judge to sit on the D.C. Circuit. As an additional matter, I would like to state again for the record that I agree with Democrats Lloyd Cutler and former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Harry Edwards, and with Republicans Boyden Gray and retired Judge James Buckley of the D.C. Circuit, that a nominee's political ideology should not play a role in a judicial confirmation and should not play a role in judging by that judge. Instead, I believe that nominees of Democratic Presidents, who will generally be Democrats, and nominees of Republican Presidents, who will generally be Republicans, should be treated the same in the hearing process. They should be confirmed if they have integrity, if they are qualified, and if they have a judicial temperament and appreciate that the role of a judge is to make fair findings of fact--I have seen judges who like to doctor the facts--and reasonable interpretations of valid sources of law, and not step outside these sources to advance a personal political agenda. That is when we have crossed the boundary. If a nominee's record indicates a problem in an area like this, I may oppose them, Republican or Democrat, or else I will support them. Thus, on this score I disagree with my friend from New York's statement over the past one and-one-half years on the question of ideology, as we have discussed. At our first hearing in June of last year of this subcommittee, we heard that the Senate had to reject nominees based on their politics because the Supreme Court was, they alleged, a right-wing court, an activist court. When we examined the current Court's decisions, however, we found that it had protected burning the American flag; had banned voluntary school prayer at football games; had stopped the police from using heat sensors to search for marijuana-growing equipment, which, as a prosecutor, I think was a bit of an alteration of current law in favor of civil liberties; had reaffirmed and expanded abortion rights; and had struck down a ban on virtual child pornography. These decisions don't indicate to me that the Supreme Court is in the grip of some sort of right-wing group. At the September 4th hearing, we were told that because a nominee's politics mattered, the Senate now, for the first time, should shift the burden to these Republican nominees to prove their worthiness of confirmation beyond the paper record. When we examined recent history, though, we found that, as Senator Hatch has consistently said, for Democratic nominees the burden was on the Senate to reject them. And when we examined more distant history, we found that during the first 130 years of our country's history, the Senate did not ask nominees any questions at hearings, probing or otherwise. Nominees did not appear regularly before the Judiciary Committee until John Marshall Harlan, II, in 1955. It would be difficult indeed for a nominee to bear some historical burden if they were not even coming to the hearing to submit to examination. In the May 9th hearing, we heard about how bad the Republicans were for confirming circuit court nominees. Upon close examination, it was discovered that two of the four proffered examples of unfairly treated nominees lacked support from their home State Senators. One was nominated approximately 4 months before the Presidential election, and the final judicial nominee had never tried a case in a courtroom, which isn't absolutely disqualifying, but in my view it takes some compensating factors of significance to overcome that lack. Indeed, my colleagues across the aisle deemed the home State Senator support rule so important that now they have sought to guarantee the rule as part of our original negotiations to set how we were going to handle nominations. So I shouldn't expect my Democratic colleagues to complain that when a home State Senator objected to a few nominees and they did not go forward, because they are, in fact, if anything, asking that the rule be strengthened now when they deal with President Bush's nominees. Within the last few days, we have been treated to a press release with an accompanying chart purporting to offer new proof that the political ideology of nominees is routinely taken into account by the Senate. The chart, however, contains several errors. First, the chart purports to count only the ``no'' votes of current members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, who served on the Committee for at least 2 years of the Clinton administration. This is the chart, I believe, we have been presented with. Chairman Schumer. You changed the color. Senator Sessions. It is a pretty color there. The chart excludes, however, the ``no'' votes of current Committee members Edwards and Cantwell, who did not serve on the Committee during the Clinton years. The chart includes, however, the ``no'' votes of current Committee members Brownback and McConnell, but Senators Brownback and McConnell did not serve on the Judiciary Committee while President Clinton was in office during the 105th and 106th Congresses. Thus, by its terms, the chart erroneously includes 25 ``no'' votes that should have been excluded. Second, the chart displays an artificial disparity in the Republican ``no'' votes and Democratic ``no'' votes by showing four full years of Republican votes involving President Clinton's nominees, but only one-and-one-half years of Democratic votes against President Bush's nominees; thus, the visual misperception that Republicans vote against Democratic nominees more often than vice versa. I think, Mr. Chairman, you need to get your math right on this chart. By looking at the percentages of ``no'' votes over the number of total votes of Committee members for nominees on the floor, a rough approximation on a percentage basis removes the mismatch of time periods. I won't go into more of the mathematical argument on that, but I really think that chart is a bit off. This is where we think the numbers are, and it does appear that the Democrats have concerted their ``no'' votes on single nominees to defeat them on party-line votes, which was not done during the 8 years of President Clinton's presidency. Not one single nominee, to my knowledge, was killed in Committee, unless they perhaps had background problems or---- Chairman Schumer. That is because the ones you didn't like never got votes. Senator Sessions. Well, Mr. Chairman, most of those that did not have votes either had a serious ethical problem, virtually all of them, or they had objections from home State Senators, a position you don't intend to give up on, I understand, but want to strengthen the power of a home State Senator to keep the Committee from voting. I would ask you, you don't propose, do you, that if Senator Feinstein objects to a nominee that that nominee have a hearing? Chairman Schumer. Let me just say no, of course not. But of the first ten who were ``well qualified'' by the bar association who were not given hearings, five of those, there were no objections from their home State Senators. And of relevance here, two of those were from the D.C. Circuit. There was a particular effort not to bring forward members of the D.C. Circuit who were nominated, including, I believe it was, Snyder and Kagen. And then the third who was confirmed had to wait a long time, Garland. Senator Sessions. Well, I will tell you why we had a problem with those two judges for the circuit, and it accounts for the ``no'' votes. It is because the circuit had as a caseload about one-fourth the average caseload per judge. And the chief judge of the circuit said 10 judges is enough, instead of the 12. And actually I thought that was too many. I thought ten was too many. The D.C. Circuit has the lowest caseload by far in the country per judge, and as a result of that I think it does not need as many judges. Now, we are below ten, so I think it is appropriate to move the court to ten. But I will oppose going above ten unless the caseload is up. In fact, it continues to drop. It dropped 15 percent the year before last. So that is why we had a problem with those nominees, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Schumer. Would it be logical to make it even lower right now, if it is even a lower caseload than it was when you said it shouldn't get more than ten? Senator Sessions. Well, when President Clinton was in office and I studied the issue, as this Committee did, because we studied caseloads throughout the country, I agreed that ten would be an appropriate number, Mr. Chairman, and I think we ought to be consistent with that. I don't think we should go above 10, although the court is authorized 12. Well, it is an interesting debate we are having. Chairman Schumer. We have a good time debating it. Senator Sessions. You are such a skilled advocate and a knowledgeable and fine lawyer and a fine, fine Senator. It is a pleasure to be with you. The court process is something I have been involved with for a number of years since I have been in the Senate, almost 6 years, and had a prior involvement of unpleasantness with that process a number of years ago. Chairman Schumer. Let the record show I was not on the Committee at that point in time. I maybe would have voted differently. Senator Sessions. Well, I would hope so. At any rate, we have a great country. Mr. Chairman, maybe it is good that we bring all this out and continue these kinds of hearings and debate. I just want to say to you it is nothing personal, but I really, as you know, am troubled by the thought of a political litmus test on judges, and so it is a very important issue to me. So let's have a great debate about it. Chairman Schumer. Well, I want to sincerely thank my colleague, Jeff Sessions. We are from different parts of the country, and not only different parties, but clearly different ideologies, but he is always a gentleman. And we have come to agreement, I think, that these kinds of debates are very healthy, a lot better, as he mentioned earlier, as did Orrin, than the ``gotcha'' politics which just demeaned everything-- the nominees, the Committee, the courts, the country. I hope we can continue these debates in the spirit in which we have had them, which is sincere disagreements on these roles. Maybe this is overstating it, but if the Founding Fathers and those who thought about the judiciary--and we will probably even debate what they thought; we have before--looked down on this room, they would say this is what they wanted the Congress to do. So I appreciate that. We have 6 minutes for the vote. We have great witnesses here, but I think rather than just starting and rushing our first witness, we will go vote and come right back, if that is OK with our witnesses here. I hope you have enjoyed a little bit of our interchange, as well, because we are going to enjoy yours. Thank you. The hearing is recessed for--just one vote, so we are only going to recess for 10 minutes. Thanks. [The subcommittee stood in recess from 10:51 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.] Chairman Schumer. The hearing will resume and we will go right to our witnesses. Let me introduce our first witness, and I think I will introduce the witness, let each witness speak, and then introduce the next. We don't have to do it seriatim. Abner Mikva has had one of the most interesting careers in public service that anyone has had in modern American history. He has had a stellar career in all three branches of Government, having served as a United States Representatives in 1970's, Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980's, and White House Counsel in the 1990's. He is currently a visiting professor at his alma mater, the University of Chicago Law School. There are few more knowledgeable, erudite, and articulate witnesses who appear before this Committee. He obviously has more than a passing familiarity with our subject today. Judge Congressman, Counsel Mikva, thank you for being here today. Your entire statement will be read into the record and you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF ABNER MIKVA, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Mr. Mikva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the invitation to appear before this subcommittee to talk about the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the special need for ideological balance on that court. I spent 15 years as a judge on that court, including almost 4 years as its Chief Judge. When I was practicing law, I did administrative law and I had considerable dealings with that court. When I was a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I helped to fashion some of the laws that account for some of the uniqueness of the D.C. Circuit. As White House Counsel, I helped in the nominating process of judges to that court, and teaching the legislative process and the law of the executive branch to law students, I spend a lot of time talking about the D.C. Circuit and its jurisdiction and its precedents. So I have looked at that court from just about every angle and it is very special, and the need for an ideological balance on that court is very special. I guess every judge on every court would argue that his court is special, and they are, but the D.C. Circuit has some very special characteristics. The chairman has already referenced some of them and I will try not to repeat it, but it is rightly known as the ``government court,'' not just because of that 10-square-mile geographical area that is its physical jurisdiction, but almost every Congress passes laws that produces cases for this circuit, sometimes, as you mentioned, in the case of the FCC, exclusive jurisdiction in this circuit. Perhaps one of the most important areas where this circuit has a special role is where the two branches end up fighting with each other. The Nixon tape cases and other challenges to executive privilege come to mind. The D.C. Circuit is an important battle ground for those kinds of cases. With all deference, I think one of the problems with measuring caseload for that circuit is that sometimes those cases are so huge--Federal Energy Regulatory cases or executive privilege cases--that they occupy an enormous amount of time and energy and resources. And to compare a caseload for the D.C. Circuit to a caseload for a circuit like my home circuit, the Seventh Circuit, which has a lot of diversity cases, fender-benders and others, is comparing apples and oranges. I have no particular views as to how many judges there ought to be on the court, but I am simply saying that caseload is not a very good measuring stick. Now, obviously, the D.C. Circuit doesn't have any more finality than any of the other intermediate courts, the inferior courts that the Constitution describes should be established by the Congress. But frequently that circuit ends up teeing up the important questions for the Supreme Court that it finally determines. Not surprisingly, because so many of these questions are on the cutting edge of the law, the Supreme Court sometimes decides the question differently than the D.C. Circuit. I don't think our record matches that of the Ninth Circuit, but we have been reversed on numerous occasions. Our clerks used to sport t-shirts which said on the front ``D.C. Court of Appeals,'' with the year of their service, and then on the back it would say ``Reversed, U.S. Supreme Court'' the following year. Anyway, those are some of the reasons, and the chairman has referred to others, why the court is a unique one, and why it is especially important that the judges on that court avoid carrying a political agenda to the court. I claim a special qualification to speak to that subject, and I am sorry that Senator Hatch had to leave. He was the one member of the subcommittee that was here when I had my difficulties with confirmation when I went on that court. There were some who said that because I had been a political activist as a Congressman, I would carry my unfinished causes to the court. The National Rifle Association was particularly active in the opposition, insisting that would try to effect gun control from the bench, even though I had failed in the Congress. In fact, they acknowledged that they spent over $1 million, which was a lot of money in those days, to defeat my nomination. When my wife heard about that, she said, you know, if they were going to talk that kind of money, they could have talked settlement. Well, it turned out that during the 15 years I was on the court, I had one case involving the National Rifle Association and gun control, and I ruled in favor of the NRA, to their surprise. But I had my share of critics who insisted that I was an activist judge. And all I can tell you is that I was conscious of that concern and tried to remember that I was neither elected nor anointed, or even final, and that my role was to apply the laws that Congress passed and Supreme Court precedents without regard to my personal views, whether it was on the death penalty or interpretations of the Fourth Amendment or criminal law. Now, I don't suggest that the Senate only confirm judges that have never had any views on any important subjects of the day. Such a requirement for a tabula rasa, as Chief Justice Rehnquist once referred to it, would probably make for good little league umpires, but they hardly would bring the experience that is necessary to be a good judge. But there is a difference between people who have views on a subject and those who have become zealots. I remember a political analyst once described one of the nominees who failed Senate confirmation some years ago as someone who felt he had a mission to educate the Senate to his point of view. Well, I think that nominees who have missions to educate the political branches or the public or their colleagues should stay on the lecture circuit or should run for public office, because such missionaries don't represent the balance the discipline necessary to be a good judge on any court, and especially the D.C. Court of Appeals. Balance and discipline will reflect how well the court shapes up and tees up those sharp questions for the Supreme Court to decide. If the D.C. Circuit is anticipating the role of the Supremes, as it has on occasion, or rejecting the answers that it gets to those hard questions, as it does on occasion, then there is an overload. That is particularly true when the court is being asked to resolve some of the conflicts that arise between the two political branches in executive privilege cases. That is particularly true when one of the divisive questions confronting the courts and the Congress is the extent of congressional power under the Commerce Clause or under the Tenth and 11th Amendments to the Constitution. It is not for the intermediate courts, and especially not for the government court, to either ignore or extend the balance that the Supreme Court is striking on those hot issues. That is a drama that has to be played out between the main actors, the Congress and the Supreme Court, and it does not call for any understudies to take center stage. Some academics recently wrote a letter to this Committee extolling the virtues of a nominee who is a law professor, and I would like to quote just briefly from that letter. They said that that particular nominee, quote, ``exhibits respect, gentleness, concern, rigor, integrity, a willingness to listen and to consider, and an abiding commitment to fairness and the rule of law,'' end of quote. Now, obviously those are good attributes for any judge, but they are especially needed for the D.C. Circuit. The barn- burners, the crusaders, the zealots are counterproductive to the task of maintaining that delicate balance that the chairman referred to. Some believe that the best way to achieve that balance is to advocate bipartisan appointments. I confess when I was White House Counsel I did unsuccessfully urge the appointment of several Republican nominees, including one to the D.C. Court of Appeals. I didn't get past first base; it didn't pass the Presidential test. It is not an easy advocacy at any time. Presidents as recently as Truman and Eisenhower did appoint persons of the opposite political party to the Supreme Court, but it is not a common occurrence to an appellate court, and it is not even common to the Supreme Court anymore. And as you elected officials know better than anybody, the words ``liberal'' and ``conservative'' vary from issue to issue and are in the eye of the beholder. I think that the better way to find a balance on any court is to seek moderation within each judge. The words used to be-- and I think Senator Sessions used them--``judicial temperament.'' They mean that the judge could hear with both ears, had not decided the case before hearing the evidence, could remain reasonable even when the juices were flowing all around. I hope those are the kinds of judges that the President nominates and the Senate confirms for the D.C. Circuit. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Mikva appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Thank you. We very much appreciate your testimony. Now, we will go to another distinguished member who has served in Government with great distinction, and that is Fred Fielding. Fred Fielding is a senior partner and the head of governmental affairs, business, finance, litigation and crisis management, and white collar crime practice--that is a lot to do--at the law firm Wiley, Rein, and Fielding. Mr. Fielding was counsel to President Reagan from 1981 to 1986, after first serving as an associate and deputy counsel for 4 years. He was also clearance counsel in the Bush-Cheney Presidential transition. Mr. Fielding served for 6 years on the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, so he knows a little bit about nominating judicial nominees. He also serves on C. Boyden Gray's Committee for Justice, a group that is working to get all of the administration's judicial nominees confirmed. Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Fielding. As with the other witnesses, your entire statement will be read into the record and you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF FRED F. FIELDING, WILEY, REIN, AND FIELDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Fielding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I sought the opportunity because the announced subject of this hearing, which is the D.C. Circuit and the importance of balance on the Nation's second highest court, implies a conclusion that I find inconsistent with my own experience and the strong feelings in regard to the nomination and confirmation process for the Federal judiciary in this circuit, in particular, and the Federal judiciary in general. Mr. Chairman, I have been a practicing attorney for over 38 years now, and I have been admitted to practice and I am a member of this circuit for some 30 years and a member of the Judicial Conference of this circuit for over 25 years. In addition to that, as you have mentioned, I have some familiarity with the Federal judicial selection process, for the first five-and-a-half years of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Also, in that regard, I chaired that Administration's judicial selection panel within the Administration. Second, as you mentioned, I did get a different perspective on the process, serving as the D.C. Circuit's representative on the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary for 6 years. My service covered four-and-a-half years of the Clinton administration and a year-and-a-half of the present Bush administration. Last, I served on the Miller Commission, of which I am sure the Committee is aware. That commission was co-chaired by former Attorney General Katzenbach, former Deputy Attorney General Howard Tyler, and its members included Howard Baker, Birch Bayh, Lovida Coleman, Lloyd Cutler, Judge Higginbotham, Judge Lacey, Judge Kimba Wood, and Professor Dan Meador. The study, reported in 1996, dealt with the issue this subcommittee is dealing with today and I will make reference to that later, if I may. I give you this foregoing litany of experience, in addition to being a member of the bar of the circuit, only to emphasize the single point which I wish to make to the Committee today, and that is from each perspective which I was able to view the process, I strongly feel that probing a candidate's political ideology has no constructive place in the process. In my experience, it has not been a part of an administration selection process or the review process of the ABA. For the Senate to now seek to use a test of political ideology in evaluating the merits of a nominee to the D.C. Circuit in order to effect this elusive standard of balance would be a step beyond any role played by any other party in the process. It would be a step that, in fact, is avoided by every other participant in the selection process because of the very serious implications and consequences that ideological screening would have on the independence of the Federal judiciary. I would argue that the independence of our judiciary is what sets it apart from the political branches in the eyes of our citizens. Citizens need to know that the laws that are passed and enforced by the political branches will be adjudicated by an independent body of jurists. Now, that is not to say for one moment that no inquiries should be made of the views of any nominee either by the President, the White House, the Judiciary Committee, or individual Senators. But such an inquiry should be directed to an evaluation of the nominee's integrity, abilities, and temperament, which are also the standards for the ABA analysis, and also his or her judicial philosophy. Nor should anyone assume that a judicial candidate comes to the bench without some personal philosophical beliefs about certain issues. Former Chief Judge Irving Kaufman of the Second Circuit addressed this point in a letter in 1981 which we all had to study and read very carefully, which was entitled ``An Open Letter to President Reagan on Judge-Picking.'' If I can quote from him, he said, ``I am not cautioning you against recommending candidates with a demonstrated commitment to issues of public importance or individuals who have taken sides in national debates on pressing issues. Participation in those debates does not augur bias, but rather a dedication to the commonweal that should be encouraged in all public officials, judges included.'' That is the end of the quote. In addition to satisfying oneself that a nominee possesses the legal skills, temperament and integrity to face each case with an open mind, it is certainly legitimate to also inquire as to the individual's views of the role of the Federal judiciary, his or her conception of the judiciary's role in the separation of powers, if you will. But that inquiry is far different from seeking to determine if such a candidate brings a certain political ideology to the bench on a particular issue or issues, for the purpose of effecting a balance on that court, or for that matter an over-balance on any court. I earlier mentioned the Miller Center report, and I would adopt as my own testimony the comments that are contained in that report on the role of ideology in the judicial selection process. If I may share them with you, ``The Commission believes that it would be a tragic development if ideology became an increasingly important consideration in the future. To make ideology an issue in the confirmation process is to suggest that the legal process is and should be a political one. That is not only wrong as a matter of political science; it also serves to weaken public confidence in the courts. Just as candidates should put aside their partisan political views when appointed to the bench, so too should they put aside ideology. To retain either is to betray dedication to the process of impartial judging. Men and women qualified by training and experience to be judges generally do not wish to and do not indulge in partisan or ideological approaches to their work. The rare exception should not be taken as the norm.'' Inquiring about an evaluation of a nominee's political ideology has no historic place in the evaluation process either. To the extent that it may have taken place in the past in isolated cases doesn't make it acceptable. In fact, as I have mentioned before, I don't believe it was practiced by past or present administrations, Republican or Democratic, and it certainly has no proper role in executive branch screening. Likewise, this Committee's own questionnaire to judicial nominees asks, and I quote, ``Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could be reasonably interpreted as asking or seeking a commitment as to how you would rule on such case, issue or questions,'' end of quote. Thus, I must conclude that this Committee historically found such questioning to be unacceptable as well, and if this Committee now seeks this sort of probing of one's ideology in order to effect such a balance on the D.C. Circuit, it is destroying that precedent and, I fear, will be planting seeds that will bear bitter fruit in years to come. It is my belief that if such a question is asked, shame on the questioner. And if it is answered, I must also seriously question the potential independence, and therefore the suitability, of the candidate who would be answering that question. Such screening and selection of judges signifies that it is acceptable for judges as a pre-condition of their confirmation that they reveal how they would in the future decide a particular case or cases. That should be fear by all across the entire breadth of the political spectrum. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to make two other observations. First, to the argument that ideological differences are a divisive element and a deterrent to the decisionmaking on the D.C. Circuit, and hence the need for the balance, may I respectfully direct the Committee's attention to an essay published in October 1998 in the Virginia Law Review by then-Chief Judge Harry Edwards. Chief Judge Edwards, who was a Democratic appointee, debunks-- and that is his term--that myth, and also notes that over 90 percent of the cases in that court were decided unanimously. My second observation is that when I was on the ABA Standing Committee, in addition to evaluating hundreds of candidates from all around the country over those 6 years--and they were the nominations of both Democratic and Republican Presidents--I also personally conducted the interviews of nine nominees to the courts of this circuit. In each investigation, I interviewed 35 to 55 individuals, judges, members of the bar, practicing attorneys within the circuit. I can advise you that in all those interviews, there was never a complaint expressed to me by members of the bench or the bar of this court and this circuit as to the ideological balance or imbalance of the court. To the contrary, members of the bench and bar of the D.C. Circuit are quite proud of the special reputation this court has for excellence and for its reputation as a principled body of jurists who rule on the law and the facts of a case and not on a personal set of political or ideological preferences. I respectfully urge that in your deliberation you take care to avoid the unintended consequence of interjecting ideology into this court, and thereby destroying that pride and that reputation of this fine court. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Fielding appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Thank you very much, Mr. Fielding, for your very thoughtful testimony. We are now going to go to our third witness. We are running a little late here in time. I would ask each of the next witnesses to limit themselves not to the usual five, but to 7 minutes, if they could. I let the first two go as long as they wished. But if you could, it would be helpful to the subcommittee. The next witness is Christopher Schroeder. He is Professor of Law and Public Policy and Director of the Program in Public Law and Co-Chair of the Center for the Study of Congress. Professor Schroeder has previously served as Acting Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice and as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Senator Biden's leadership. He coauthored a leading environmental law casebook entitled Envirommental Regulation: Law, Science and Policy, and he is editor of a forthcoming resources for the future book evaluating the performance of the environmental Protection Agency. Your entire statement, Professor Schroeder, will be read into the record and you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER H. SCHROEDER, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES, DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Schroeder. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions, Senator Kennedy, and thank you for the invitation to testify today. I am going to be speaking about the impact of judges on the D.C. Circuit who come to this court with strong partisan and ideological commitments as it affects just a particular part of that court's docket, that is the administrative law part of the docket, and in particular the part of the docket that reviews decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency. The bottom line of my testimony is simply that it appears that we have good evidence to believe that one of the consequences of staffing the D.C. Circuit with judges who have strong partisan or ideological commitments is a relative shift in the making of envirommental policy away from the elected branches of Government, away from the Congress and the executive branch, and to the courts, because there is a tendency by judges, whether they be strongly partisan and ideological on the left or strongly bipartisan and ideological on the right, to supplant the decisions of the democratically elected branches of Government with greater frequency than I think would otherwise be the case. Mr. Fielding referred to Judge Edwards' article in the 1998 Virginia Law Review. That was a response to a piece of work by now Dean Ricky Revesz at the NYU School of Law who analyzed environmental judicial decisionmaking on the D.C. Circuit and found some of the marked disparities that you mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, between the outcomes of cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency when the panel was majority Republican versus when the panel was majority Democrat. That study actually finds the most marked differences in cases that are somewhat different than the ones that we have been, I think, implicitly referring to so far, not the cases in which the D.C. Circuit reaches out to make some bold holding of law, but the cases in which the D.C. Circuit, as it must under our rules of administrative law and procedure, is trying to resolve disputes that raise questions of law that are much more vague, indeterminate, and lack sharp edges and clear, objective criteria for decisionmaking, such as the requirement that the Supreme Court announced in the State Farm decision of nearly 20 years ago that an agency has to have demonstrated a rational connection between the findings in the record and the conclusions it reaches in its regulation, or the requirement that if an agency is interpreting a statute that it develop a permissible or a reasonable construction of that statute, or whether there is adequate record evidence to support a conclusion that the agency has reached. In these kinds of areas where the objective criteria for a legal determination are open-ended and require judgment and discretion, there is room for a judge, in all good faith, to come to those questions and resolve them or have a tendency to resolve them in the direction of their partisan and ideological commitments with respect to the outcome. And I mean in no way to attack the integrity of any judge on the D.C. Circuit or any other circuit when I make that claim. I think the legal realists who were an important part of our American legal intellectual heritage 50 or 60 years ago had a theory of law that postulated that judges first figured out what outcome they would like and then they looked around for legal doctrine to justify that outcome. That system of lawmaking, if you will, that model of lawmaking is always ridiculed whenever you talk to any sitting Federal judge or anybody who has clerked for any Federal judge, and frankly I think it doesn't reflect the way the judges make the vast majority of their decisions. There is, however, a way in which ideology and commitment as to outcome can influence a judge's decision while that judge is exercising complete good faith, and I sketched a little bit of the approach in my written testimony and it is largely work that has been developed by people who study how we all reason and think. The guts of it is that when you are dealing with questions of reasoning that have a number of decision junctures in them where you could go one way or another and reasonable people could disagree about which way is the right one to go, where you want to come out ultimately has an influence on which choice you find more persuasive than the other. So, for instance, if you have a general tendency to be skeptical that the Federal Government has gone too far in environmental policy and that any new rule or regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency, without knowing anything more about it, raises a certain skeptical gleam in your eye, you will tend to be more persuaded by the decisions you have to make in reviewing a record that will seem legally compelling to you that lead to the result that vindicates that skepticism. Similarly, if you think the Federal Government hasn't gone too far in environmental policy, you will have a tendency to look more favorably at decisions that come to you where, say, EPA has lowered a standard and less favorably at decisions where, for instance, EPA has deregulated or raised a standard. That is not to say you are figuring out the result first and reasoning backward to the conclusion. It is to say that in all good faith, in looking through the record trying to figure out what the right answer is, that motivation or direction that the cognitive theorists talk about will have or tends to be one of the contributing factors in what kinds of reasons you find compelling and what kinds of reasons you don't. Now, I am not a cognitive theorist and I just wanted to warn you that I am sketching work that has been done by others. Unfortunately, they have never been able to work on judges, so all of this theory has been worked out in the context of other kinds of individuals doing other kinds of reasoning. But there is no obvious reason to suppose that they haven't reached a kind of general explanation of the way we think through problems. This simply means that our partisan commitments, our values, if you will, are inevitably going to influence how it is we come out some of the time. It doesn't mean they will dictate it, but it will be a contributing influence. Let me close simply by saying I think that asking what party a candidate belongs to is an awfully crude way at getting at the kinds of values and partisan commitments that may matter in trying to predict the general tendencies of a judge on the bench. It unfortunately is one of the more obvious ways, and so it is very often leaned on. But if what you are really worried about is trying to figure out what a person's general political, philosophical orientation is and what his or her general judicial philosophy is, those are two questions that I think are entirely within the competence and responsibility of the Committee to ask about. They have an influence on the way people decide cases and they have actually been inextricably linked in our country from the beginning. The first person to use political ideology as an aspect of their decisions as to whom to appoint on the Supreme Court was George Washington. There was a critical constitutional struggle just after the Constitution was ratified over how strongly or weakly the Constitution was going to be interpreted. Now, he knew the people he was appointing intimately, or his colleagues did, and so they didn't have to have questionnaires and they didn't have to have a lot of questions. But it is no accident that the Marshall Court was staffed with strong nationalists. In fact, political parties started as a result of the debate over constitutional interpretation. The famous debate between Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Hamilton over the first national bank was a debate over the scope of Federal power, and it was Thomas Jefferson's defeat in that debate that led to his desire to create the Federalist Party, the first, nascent political party in the United States. So these two ideas have been part and parcel of our jurisprudence, our politics, and I think the confirmation process from the very beginning. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schroeder appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Professor Schroeder, for your fine testimony. We are now going to turn to Professor Clark. Professor Bradford Clark is currently a Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. Before coming to George Washington in 1993, Professor Clark began his legal career clerking for Judge Bork and Justice Scalia. So he too knows something about the D.C. Circuit. Professor Clark then worked as an attorney-advisor in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel before joining the law firm of Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher. Professor Clark, your entire statement will be read in the record, as with the other witnesses. You may proceed as you wish and if you can stay to the 7-minutes, which no one has so far, I must say, we would appreciate it. STATEMENT OF BRADFORD R. CLARK, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Sessions, Senator Kennedy. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing today. I teach in the areas of Federal courts and constitutional law, and I think the question raised by today's hearing is important, particularly because this idea of balance on the courts, and the D.C. Circuit in particular, raises a very delicate question of constitutional law and separation of powers--namely, what is the role of the President and the Senate in the appointments process and to what extent should these actors consider ideology in nominating or confirming judges? With all due respect, I think this focus on ideology has the capacity to threaten the independence of Federal judges in the constitutional framework, and also to undercut public confidence in the judiciary. Now, I should say at the outset that it is certainly appropriate for the President and the Senate to inquire into the general judicial philosophy of nominees. I think that has been standard practice for a number of years. Particularly, you will want to know is a nominee capable of performing his or her duties as a judge. Can the nominee approach the law fairly and decide according to the law, the Constitution, and judicial precedents? As Lloyd Cutler testified before your subcommittee last year, this is the inquiry into judicial temperament. He defined that inquiry as asking whether a nominee ``is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.'' I think all of that is fine when the President and the Senate are looking at judicial nominees. On the other hand, for either the President or the Senate to go beyond these general inquiries threatens judicial independence. Let me explain. The Constitution goes to great lengths--and this is a great innovation of our Constitution over others in the rest of the world and throughout history--to separate the Congress, the President, and the judicial branch. The judges of the Federal judiciary are appointed for life, with salary protection. By design, they are to be independent of the political branches. In particular, there is another provision that we sometimes overlook, the Incompatibility Clause of Article I, Section 6, clause 2, and this is the provision that provides ``No person holding any office under the United States''--and that includes judges--``shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.'' There, we have a specific separation, prohibition if you will, on commingling the legislative branch with the Federal judiciary. So this was a very important idea at the time of the Founding that goes to our constitutional structure. Now, given that, I think it is important to conclude that potential judges should not be asked about their political ideology and they should not be asked to give specific representations as to how they would rule in particular cases. That would go too far into the area of judicial independence. A nominee cannot answer these types of questions without effectively giving the political branches a pre-commitment inconsistent with judicial independence. And these political commitments would prevent judges from deciding important questions in their proper setting. Judges are supposed to decide these important questions in the context of deciding a case--that is, with adversary parties, full briefing and argument, considering the views of their colleagues on the court, and reconsidering initial views in light of experience, new arguments, and changed circumstances. Making judges pre- commit to the Senate or to the President would undermine their ability to perform their judicial role. Now, in addition to undermining judicial independence, the Senate's attempt to question judicial nominees about political ideology could erode public confidence in the Federal judiciary. The public generally accepts decisions by unelected Federal judges precisely because Federal judges were designed to be independent and are perceived to be independent of the political branches. If the Senate makes ideology a central focus of its confirmation hearings, the public might well conclude that judges no longer are above partisan politics. They may think that they are, as Judge Mikva once wrote, simply a Congress in black robes, and this shift could threaten our constitutional framework. What, then, is the proper role of the Senate in considering judicial nominees? Well, Alexander Hamilton suggested an answer in Federalist 76. According to Hamilton, the requirement of Senate confirmation was meant to be a ``check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters,'' he said, through State preference or other improper favoritism. That should be the standard that the Senate uses to evaluate nominees. Is the nominee fit to sit on the bench? Do they have the experience, the background, the temperament to be an objective and fair Federal judge? Now, the D.C. Circuit, in particular, presents a special question, I suppose. We have heard today how important the court is and I certainly wouldn't quarrel with that, having been a law clerk there. It is a very important court and it does hear a disproportionate number of administrative law cases, which I am sure are important to everyone here today. But these types of cases are governed by a complex mix of constitutional, statutory, and judicial precedents developed over many, many years. We have heard reference to the essay by Judge Harry T. Edwards, of the D.C. Circuit, refuting the charge of political or ideological bias on the D.C. Circuit. This is particularly important, I think, because Judge Edwards is there. He has been there for many years; he has been there for probably 25 years and he has great experience on the court. He says that in over 97 percent of the cases the court disposes of, ideology does not play a role. This accords with my experience as a clerk on the D.C. Circuit, and I think Judge Mikva is a very good example of this because as he testified, he was perceived to be potentially an ideological nominee, but he worked very hard and I think succeeded in being a very excellent circuit judge. One last point, since I don't want to go over my time. Pursuing ideological balance on the D.C. Circuit would necessarily misrepresent the work of the court and cast its decisions in ideological terms. As Judge Edwards warned, ``giving the public a distorted view of judges' work is bad for the judiciary and the rule of law.'' The Senate should not risk undermining the legitimacy of the judicial branch by encouraging such false perceptions. I think the Senate should stick with the traditional view of evaluating nominees based on judicial temperament and general judicial philosophy. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Clark appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Professor Clark. You came the closest of anybody. You win the prize. Congratulations. Our final witness is Professor Michael Gottesman. He served as an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School from 1978 to 1988 and then joined the faculty as a full-time professor in 1989. Previously, Professor Gottesman practiced law with the Washington, D.C., firm Bredhoff and Kaiser from 1961 to 1988. He has written broadly on labor and civil rights law--some subjects of interest to us today--and has appeared as a practitioner on numerous occasions on the D.C. Circuit. Like the other witnesses, Professor, your entire statement will be read into the record and you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. GOTTESMAN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Gottesman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am bound to win that prize. I am going to finish in that 7 minutes, I promise. Congress works very hard to assure that the administrative agencies are themselves ideologically balanced. In many of the statutes that create these agencies, you have specifically directed that there be balance between the parties. And as you all know, I am sure, in your deliberations when you are confirming, you are very conscious of having slates of candidates who are going to fill these agencies who are balanced. Now, there is a reason why you want that. You want balanced, mainstream administrative decisions. But all of that effort comes to naught if those decisions are then reviewed by a court that does not have ideological balance and that is prepared to aggressively overturn those agency decisions. Sadly, that has been the case with the D.C. Circuit for roughly the two-decade period 1980 to 2000. It was an ideologically unbalanced court, and as I am going to suggest with a few statistics, it generated decisions overturning administrative agencies that were way out of the mainstream, as compared to the other circuit courts of appeals. It wasn't always that way. If you go back--and I am going to use the Labor Relations Act as my example, although my statement has some others as well. If you look at the performance of the various circuit courts in 1980, the D.C. Circuit's rate of approving Labor Board decisions was virtually identical to that of the overall percentage for all of the circuit courts. But if you then roll forward, as the appointments of what I would suggest were strongly ideological judges occurred, if you look at the period 1985 to 1989, less than a decade later, here is what the statistics show. The Labor Board's decisions were affirmed in full--if you look at all the circuits, they were affirmed in full 78 percent of the time. Now, look at just those cases that came to the D.C. Circuit. The Labor Board was affirmed in full only 53 percent of the time--78 percent; more than three-quarters versus 53. And even that doesn't state the full extent of the disparity because the 78 includes the D.C. Circuit. If you took them out, the rate in all the other circuits was well over 80 percent affirming the National Labor Relations Board. Well, that is just 1 circuit of 11, right? So we get skewed decisionmaking in 1 circuit out of 11. But the stark reality is that the D.C. Circuit controls the fate of administrative rules, and it does so because it is the one circuit that anybody unhappy with an administrative agency's ruling can come to, and this is true of virtually every administrative agency. So let's just take hypothetically a Labor Board rule that says employers are not allowed to do ``x.'' Eleven circuits may agree with the Labor Board and say that is well within your authority. But if the D.C. Circuit disagrees, the Labor Board is going to get reversed a hundred percent of the time on that issue. Why? Because the employers know they can come to the D.C. Circuit. And, indeed, that is what they have been doing. Here, to me, is the most interesting statistic. The employers have a choice between the D.C. Circuit and other circuits. Back in 1980, when the D.C. Circuit's approval rate was the same as all the other circuits, only 3 percent of the appeals from Labor Board decisions came to the D.C. Circuit. In the year 2000, 18 percent--six times as many--came to the D.C. Circuit. Why? Because employers knew this is where we can get the Labor Board reversed and we can't do that in the other circuits because they still approve the Labor Board decisions. Now, my statement describes similar phenomena in the areas of civil rights and environmental law, but to stick to my time, I won't mention those. The rate of Labor Board success in the D.C. Circuit has gotten somewhat better in recent years because as there have been retirements of some of those most ideological judges, the court has come into somewhat more balance. In 1998, when we weren't yet at the balance we have today, the difference, which had been 25 percent between the D.C. Circuit and all the other circuits in affirming the Labor Board, had been reduced to 13 percent, half as much imbalance. I would assume that if we had statistics for the last year or two, it would be even closer because the court is now more of a mainstream court. And it would be sad, now that it has become a mainstream court, and given its unique position as the universal recipient for anybody who is unhappy with an administrative agency--it would sad if it now fell out of balance, as well. Now, there are, of course, two ways to assure that if there are going to be more appointments that this current state of balance be achieved. One would be to appoint by looking at the parties of the various candidates, and indeed there is a recent article in the Washington Lawyer quoting a former general counsel of the Republican National Committee who has suggested that that is something to be considered. The other way is to allow Presidents to do what they normally do, appoint members of their own party, but insist that those people be mainstream judges who are not going to be skewed. And this involves, it seems to me, attention not only to what their ideology is--that is, how would they vote if they were on an administrative agency--but also to what extent do they respect the Supreme Court's command that courts are supposed to give broad deference to the rulings of administrative agencies. It is absolutely clear that the D.C. Circuit has not been giving deference over the past 20 years if it is only affirming the Board half the time. That is what anybody would expect to get. That doesn't show deference. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gottesman appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Well, not only have you given excellent testimony, Professor, but you have indeed won the prize. Congratulations. I want to thank all five witnesses. Actually, every one of you has won a prize in the sense that your testimony was excellent, obviously conflicting. That is what we would like on this subcommittee and we thank you. What I am going to do is delay my time in questioning. Senator Kennedy was nice enough to come to the hearing and has another engagement, and so I am going to give my time to Senator Kennedy. Then I will call on Senator Sessions and I will go last. Senator Kennedy? STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer, and thank you for having this hearing. I welcome all of our panelists. I particularly want to welcome Ab Mikva. I was listening to the references to Ab Mikva's confirmation and I remember very clearly all those--the NRA--who were gunning for Ab Mikva at that time. And now to find out from his own testimony that he decided for the NRA, after all this time, it is too late to have reconsideration. [Laughter.] Senator Kennedy. I want to thank him for his very distinguished career. Many of you have, but I know in particular of his past history and commitment and the good work he does with young people out in Chicago, too. We had an opportunity to meet with a number of these young people fairly recently, and it is a wonderful thing that you continue to do. I was having difficulty in listening to our discussion about appointing judges with political philosophy and idealogy because we have a President of the United States who said that he wants to appoint judges in the line of Scalia and Thomas. If you ask the average American, that is sending a pretty clear message of the type of individual they are trying to support on this. So the mark has been out there and the statements by the White House are clear. I agree myself that we obviously are not looking for narrow partisanship, but when the administration has indicated that that is going to be narrow in their criteria, it is a disappointment. I think we have a responsibility to make sure that people are going to have a core commitment to the fundamental values of the Constitution. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable test to take, because we have seen over the period of time where nominees have been coached and tested. We have had nominees who have been up before this Committee who gave the exact same answers to questions because they were told by the Justice Department, if you give that same answer, you are not going to get in trouble. So we have to use our own judgment. With all respect to our history, the appointment power, until the final weeks of the Constitution, was in the Senate of the United States. It was only decided later that it was going to be a shared power, so we are not a rubber stamp. We have a real responsibility to go ahead. Former Judge Mikva mentioned two excellent recommendations: moderation and judicial temperament. Just very quickly because I have limited time, judicial temperament, I imagine, is even more important in the circuit court because it is smaller, would you say, Judge Mikva? The collegiality and the ability to work together to try and work through various issues--of particular importance and relevancy? Mr. Mikva. It is very important. It is a small court and it is all in one place; it is all in Washington. Many other courts are diffused all over the map. This court sits only in Washington, D.C. The colleagues have a lot to do with each other and there can't be the intercourse that is necessary to find moderation if somebody comes in with a strong agenda and says it is going to be my way, I want to be in such-and-such an image. Senator Kennedy. It has been mentioned here about the NLRB and the cases that have been now brought to the circuit court. I saw a chart here about the NLRB cases that were brought and heard, and the small percentage number going back to 1980 and how that has escalated. As you correctly pointed out, in 1980 83 percent were affirmed, and now it is 50 percent affirmed and the numbers have really skyrocketed. I think you stated that one of the reasons you believe that to be so is because now the district court is giving less adherence to the time-honored concept of supporting administrative agencies and are now using different judgments in terms of reaching conclusions. Do you think this is true? This is the chart which sustains that position. What about OSHA, what about EPA? There is the notorious case obviously of American Trucking and EPA. But do you find that this has been true on OSHA? Has it been true in other regulatory agencies? Can you reach the same kinds of conclusions when it is in regard to workers' rights and protection of consumers? Mr. Gottesman. I haven't personally studied them all. One of the problems we have with the environmental statutes is that the D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction is exclusive. So we can't compare its performance to that of other circuits because people can only come to this circuit. With OSHA, that is not the case; that is, employers can go to other sectors or to the D.C. Circuit. The fact that the D.C. Circuit generates such a large percentage of the review cases of OSHA standards, and has, is a reflection, I think, that when people want to challenge an OSHA standard, they believe that the D.C. Circuit is going to be a more sympathetic forum for them. While I don't have statistics--there aren't as many of those cases as there are labor cases because there is a finite number of OSHA standards that have been challenged--but certainly my sense of it from having some experience in this field, having been a labor lawyer in a prior life, is that indeed the D.C. Circuit was one that we, the people who were supportive of the OSHA standards, feared. It was a court that we thought we were less likely to get affirmance of the agency than others, but I can't cite statistics on the comparative performance because there are, I think, just too few cases of OSHA standard review. Senator Kennedy. Well, there has been a constant effort to dismantle OSHA since its enactment and it continues. Let me ask a question. Maybe you would comment, Professor Schroeder, on EPA and American Trucking and its conclusions. As I understand it, in arriving at its holding the panel resurrected the non-delegation doctrine which was used in the 1930's. We are talking about being able to set health standards for air pollution. Everyone obviously is interested in making sure that their children are going to breathe clean air. Its health implications are profound. As one who is the father of a chronic asthmatic, I see it in spades. The fact is we are doubling the number of children actually that are dying from asthma today. It is one of the areas of children's diseases that is going right through the roof. It is up to 18,000 children a year that are dying. This is enormously important. The court reached the decision in its holding and resurrected the non-delegation doctrine which was used in the 1930's to limit the power of Federal agencies during the New Deal. Cass Sunstein called the court's ruling a remarkable departure from precedent which, if taken seriously, brings much of the activity of the Federal Government into question. Fortunately, the Supreme Court overruled the decision in a unanimous holding. Your views, Professor Schroeder? Was this a reach? How did this come to pass, and if that holding had stood, what would have been its implications in terms of health standards and other protections that are there in the agency? Mr. Schroeder. Well, Senator Kennedy, you are right. It was a resurrection of a theory that hasn't been used to strike down an Act of Congress since the 1930's. Not only that, but it was an application in a manner that no court had ever attempted in the United States. In other words, the D.C. Circuit did not hold the Clean Air Act unconstitutional, which is what you would expect if it actually was a violation of Congress actually delegating legislative authority to the agency without any standards. The remedy for that is to strike down the Act that you have passed, but that is not what the court did. The court said the problem is that the agency hasn't given us a clear understanding as to how it reached the decision it did in a way that we can replicate and test. In other words, what it wanted was a kind of objective formula where you could plug in health, uncertainty of the medical research, number of people affected, costs, and then just read out the answer at the end. EPA has never done its standards in that way. Eventually and ultimately, the Administrator has an awesome responsibility to make a judgment because this is a matter of public health protection, but it is also a matter that we all realize is terribly expensive to implement. This was the tenth or eleventh ambient air quality standard change that we have made since the 1970 Act was passed. None of them would have survived what the D.C. Circuit did. If the D.C. Circuit opinion were law, all of those ambient air quality standards and very many of all the other standards that EPA writes would be invalid until such time as an administrative agency makes a decision like what is the value of a human life, or what is the value of an asthma attack avoided, what is the value of emphysema and how is that to be evaluated in terms of when do you have enough medical evidence to make the judgment that that is the health effect that is going to be suffered. And tell me how you are going to decide that question in advance so that I know exactly what to look for when you ultimately do make the judgment. That is the kind of complex social public health judgment that we have always trusted the agency, with professional guidance, with testimony by all interested parties, with medical evidence, to make, trying to figure out what the wisest thing to do at the time is. Then Congress has the opportunity, if it disapproves of the action or thinks that the agency now has found a way to do its job that it disapproves, to interject its own evaluation of the agency's work. But to place that responsibility on the court and say that unless you can come up with a formula in which we can put all of these different and complicated considerations together and read out the answer at the end or you can't implement a standard at all would have worked a really radical change in the law. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court said to the D.C. Circuit you have got this all wrong, this is not the way our law works. It is about as pregnant an example of the D.C. Circuit reaching out for a novel theory of law as you can find, I think. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I thank you for having these hearings. As we have seen, the implications of this court and its impact in terms of real people and their lives are often missed. I think we have highlighted the importance of this court, and I am very grateful for the hearing and I thank the Chair for having it. Chairman Schumer. Thank you for coming, Senator Kennedy. Senator Sessions? Senator Sessions. Thank you. Judge Mikva, you have been someone I have admired. You have been a real advocate. I think if we applied Senator Schumer's standard of moderation, you may not have made it on the bench, but you proved that you could be a good judge. I remember one person that wanted me to consider them for a Federal judgeship said, you know, I don't even give contributions to candidates and I am not a Republican or a Democrat. And I said, well, I don't know that this is necessarily a high advantage on being a judge if you don't care enough about the political process to even be involved and take positions. I tend to respect people who do take positions, who love the law and respect the system, care about it, have views about it, advocate and debate. But when you put on the robe, we need to know that they can call it fairly. I know Lloyd Cutler, who also served for a time as President Clinton's White Counsel, as you did, stated before this subcommittee not too long ago, quote, ``It would be a tragic development if ideology became an increasingly important consideration in the future. To make ideology an issue in the confirmation process is to suggest that the legal process is and should be a political one.'' In 1985, you wrote, and appeared to be consistent with Mr. Cutler and Judge Edwards, who is also a Democratic appointee-- you wrote in 1985, ``What the Senate ought not to do is determine through questioning a nominee's views on emerging issues of constitutional doctrine or on issues likely to face the court in the future. Why? Because these questions are really a signal to the nominee that he will become a judge only if he promises to be obsequious, to be a 'yes' man to the powers that be.'' You have said some other things along that same line. I won't go into them, but I think you are warning us that we need not politicize this process, are you not? Mr. Mikva. That is what makes your job so hard, Senator Sessions, because it is wrong, as I think everyone up here would agree, for you to try to exact a commitment from a nominee about how he is going to vote on a future case. You can ask congressional candidates how they are going to vote on a bill, but it is wrong to ask a judge how he is going to vote on a case that he has not yet heard, where the facts have not been presented, where the legal arguments have not been presented. But what makes it hard is not those 97 percent of the cases on which there is unanimity on the court, but those 3 percent that are the cutting edge. How do you find out where a nominee's general philosophy is, what his judicial temperament is, how much of a cause is he carrying with him on some of these issues? Let me be specific: the issue of what the breadth and extent of the Commerce Clause power is in Congress. This is an emerging issue. Obviously, if you ask a nominee how are you going to vote on whether or not a statute that allows control of guns near schools is constitutional or not, that is asking for a commitment that you shouldn't do. But shouldn't you want to know, as one of the oversees of the judiciary--and you are that--what a nominee's general philosophy is about deference to Congress, about deference to the agencies? Two of the most collegial colleagues that I had on the court--I can say this because neither of them are there as active judges anymore--were Judge Buckley and Judge McKinnon. The reason I found them so collegial is that we had one thing in common. We had all served in the Congress and we had a deference for the way you reach decisions. We had a deference for the process by which Congress comes to decisions--and none of us voted to strike down laws because we didn't approve of the way you did your work. Those, it seems to me, are legitimate concerns that you as the oversees have to have when you confirm. How you reach that balance I don't know, Senator. Senator Sessions. I was going to ask Mr. Clark and he had to go, but I think it is quite appropriate, particularly if a nominee has demonstrated strong convictions in a given area, to inquire to determine whether or not those convictions might influence their objectivity on the bench. I mean, you would agree with that. Mr. Mikva. Absolutely. Senator Sessions. So I think that is perfectly appropriate. I remember I was criticized after I had voted for quite a number of ACLU members, some of which were officers and board members of the American Civil Liberties Union. I took to asking them did they agree with the ACLU board position for legalization of drugs, that child pornography could not be controlled under the Constitution, and several of those positions that I thought were extreme. They either said they personally did not or assured me it would not influence their decision, that they would enforce a different law in existence, and I think I voted for virtually all of them. When I am voting for an ACLU person as a prosecutor who disagrees with some of their views on drug and child pornography, in particular, I am asking and confident that they are going to enforce the law even if they disagree with it. Isn't that the real test? Mr. Mikva. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. Senator Sessions. With regard to this Revesz study, Professor Schroeder, let's talk about it a little bit. It dealt only with the judge's rulings on procedural environmental issues. Is that correct? Mr. Schroeder. Senator, that is right. With respect to the figures that we have been discussing today, those refer to cases in which--the cases excluded are statutory interpretation cases. Senator Sessions. So it was environmental cases. It didn't deal with agriculture or the IRS or the Trade Commission or criminal cases. Mr. Schroeder. Exactly. Senator Sessions. And they found no significant difference in Republican and Democratic voting patterns on statutory environmental cases. Mr. Schroeder. That is correct. Senator Sessions. And they found no favoritism by Republicans in procedural environmental cases in seven of the ten time periods investigated. Isn't that correct? Mr. Schroeder. Senator, you have me there. I don't have the studies sufficiently memorized to recall, but that sounds right to me. Senator Sessions. Also, my staff's review of the study finds that they found no group favoritism for the activist plaintiffs in these cases by Democrat judges in procedural environmental cases in four out of the ten time periods involved. So it seems to me that this is a pretty thin reed. I know liberals believe in civil liberties and First Amendment rights. Procedure is as utterly important as substance almost. Procedure is a big part of the law, and I think that agencies need to follow the procedures. So I don't know that that is very much proof of any kind of bias here. You talk about the legal realist school. We also have the critical legal studies school that seems to believe that law is just a way to oppress the poor by those in power. Mr. Schroeder. I don't agree with them either, Senator. Senator Sessions. I don't either, but that has some basis in this country, in the law schools of America, which I am not favorable to. Mr. Gottesman, I am not surprised. You indicated you were a labor lawyer, but the Labor Board can overreach, also. With regard to these cases, isn't it essential that an unelected agency be able to articulate what they are doing and that their actions be consistent with the regulations that Congress has passed? Could the fact that the Labor Board was having problems in court indicate that they had been overreaching? Isn't it just as logical that that is so as that the court had overreached? Mr. Gottesman. Well, Senator, sure. Any agency can overreach, but it seems that it is only the D.C. Circuit that finds that they have overreached so often because as I mentioned, the Board is affirmed only 53 percent of the time by the D.C. Circuit. Of all the other 11 circuits, the next one up after the District of Columbia was 72 percent during that same period. So why is it, if the Labor Board is overreaching so much, that only the D.C. Circuit is noticing it? Senator Sessions. Well, I don't know that that is a huge difference. It depends on how the cases come out. Mr. Gottesman. But this pattern reveals itself over a 20- year period. It is always the D.C. Circuit that is overturning the Labor Board most, whereas the other circuits are approving the Labor Board most often. No circuit is approving them a hundred percent of the time. Sure, agencies sometimes issue decisions that courts think are out of line, but the D.C. Circuit thinks the Labor Board is out of line 50 percent of the time. That is a fairly stunning reversal rate. Senator Sessions. I would just say that ultimately they are answerable to the Supreme Court. In the last 4 years, 1997 through 2001, the D.C. Circuit reversal rate is only 26 percent, whereas the Ninth Circuit has a 67-percent reversal rate. I don't think this circuit is out of step at all. Mr. Fielding, on March 16, 2001, the chairman of the full Committee and the chairman of this subcommittee sent a letter to President Bush in which they stated, quote, ``ABA evaluation has been the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged,'' close quote. In examining a nominee's qualifications, does the ABA look at their temperament? Is that one of the factors? Mr. Fielding. Yes, there are three areas that we look at. Temperament is one of them. Senator Sessions. And when the ABA examined Mr. Estrada-- and they interview numerous lawyers that know them, do they not, in that process, and they interview judges and people that have worked with them? They would have examined the nominee's temperament, would they not? Mr. Fielding. Yes. The purpose of the investigation is to review potential judicial temperament which, of course, is temperament, legal ability, and competence. And in each investigation and in the Estrada investigation, there were some 45 to 55 people interviewed. They were people that were judges, they were people that were coworkers with him in all aspects-- practitioners, people that had cases with him, people that worked in the trenches with him in Government. Senator Sessions. And, of course, it is no secret that Republicans and President Bush have felt that the ABA has tilted somewhat to the left in their evaluation of nominees. I have respected the ABA a lot and feel like they ought not to be given power to say yea or nay, but I believe the ABA does deserve respect. Is it a Committee of 15 that does the final vote? Is that what it is? Mr. Fielding. There is a representative for each circuit. There are two for the Ninth Circuit because of the diversity and the travel in Hawaii and all the other issues there. And they are the ones that vote. That includes the Federal Circuit as well. Senator Sessions. Well, when they voted, how did they vote on Mr. Estrada? Mr. Fielding. I think it has been announced publicly that it was a unanimous ``well qualified'' vote. Senator Sessions. Which is unanimously voted the highest possible rating, and that includes evaluation of temperament. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Jeff. Let me go to my questions, again thanking the panel. Over the course of the last year, I have spoken out about my belief that we should have more open, honest, and legitimate discussions about judicial nominees. My argument has boiled down to this: ideology. You can call it judicial philosophy, you can call it what you will. It is not what party you are a member of; it is your views on the big issues, not on specific cases--I couldn't agree more with the panel--but on the big views. You don't want to ask about schools and guns in a specific case, but you might want to ask how far the Second Amendment goes. Is it a right to bear arms? Is it militia-related? That is my obligation in terms of these, and I think as Professor Schroeder pointed out, the first judge--we talking about the Founding Fathers; I think Professor Clark did. But those very same Founding Fathers turned down Judge Rutledge, I believe it was, for the Supreme Court because of his views on the Jay Treaty, a pretty specific view. So this idea that ideology, philosophy, even specific views on specific issues was not intended by the Founding Fathers is simply belied by history. But I want to talk a little bit about the D.C. Circuit here, again this idea that both Mr. Fielding and Professor Clark seem to profess all of a sudden, and that is that, well, everyone will see the law once they look at it in exactly similar ways that ideology shouldn't matter. Well, if that is the case, then when there are three Democrats on the D.C. Circuit panel or three Republicans or two and one, you should get about the same spread of the rulings because you are just examining the law as a priest of the law. We all know that is hogwash. That has never happened, and it doesn't, and I think people cloak it. So let me just ask for this chart here. These are some environmental cases, and I don't know who put together these rulings, but these were rulings in favor of industry challenges. When you get all-Republican panels, 3 judges, 80 percent in favor of the industry. Professor Sunstein, of Chicago, who has testified here and is very well-respected--in fact, he was quoting by my Republican friends in his support of Mr. McConnell at the McConnell hearing--made up this chart. Majority-Republican panels, 48 percent; minority-Republican panels, 27 percent; all-Democratic panels, 20 percent in favor of industry. So who are we kidding? Ideology doesn't matter? Philosophy doesn't matter? Then you would get 50, 50, 50, 50, or at least the average of all those panels spread equally out. So, of course, it makes a difference. Let me show you another one, the same type of thing. This is on the Chevron cases, very important. They are charged with upholding agency interpretations of the law so long as they are reasonable. I think some of my friends here would like us to say, well, ``reasonable'' has nothing to do with ideology; ``reasonable'' should just be a legal standard. So that would mean that a Democrat and a Republican, or a liberal and a conservative if you don't want to look at party, should interpret ``reasonable'' exactly the same way, right? Again, a huge disparity. An all-Republican panel upholds the agency action in only a third of the cases. For a two-to-one Republican panel, it is 62 percent. Evidently, the Democratic nominee has some leavening there, whether you like the leavening or not. A three-zero Democratic panel, 71 percent. Actually, a two- to-one Democratic panel is 86 percent. How do you explain that little anomaly? I think one way to explain it, the way the professor who put this together, Sunstein, said that when you had three of the Democrats on, they tended to be more moderate and didn't do much differently than when one Republican was added on the panel. But that is small. Of course, ideology mattered in the D.C. Circuit cases. So I would like to ask the panel--I wish Professor Clark were here so you are not alone, Mr. Fielding--what do you have say about numbers like this? I don't have to ask Professor Schroeder or Professor Gottesman because their testimony was pretty much along those lines. If we are not supposed to look at any views on anything, why is it that there is such disparity of the views of the people once they get to the courts? If we are all priests of the law and it doesn't matter if we are on the far left or far right and we would interpret it the same way--we don't. Do you want to say anything to that? Mr. Fielding. Yes. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think that this panel at this Committee should be making judgments that are based upon somebody's personal ideology. I also am troubled, to repeat my testimony, that there is an objective of finding a finite balance which is elusive. We know historically a lot of times somebody goes on a bench and doesn't turn out to be the way everyone thought they would anyway. Chairman Schumer. That occasionally happens, but we know it to happen. Mr. Fielding. My concern is that once you talk about balance in the way that it has been discussed, in all candor, it politicizes this whole process. Chairman Schumer. Well, I would say that this chart argues that the process has politics in the warp and woof of it from start to finish, not politics, but ideology--I think the two words are different--from the start. That is what it is; it is there. Let me ask you another question. I would ask this to Mr. Fielding. Here is what we think we are faced with, those of us on this side. We think we are faced with a President, as Senator Kennedy said, who has injected ideology into his selections. He said it, judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Senator Sessions. That is not ideology. Chairman Schumer. OK, philosophy. We can quibble about words, but it is not about judicial temperament because it is not that Scalia and Thomas represent different judicial temperament in how they get along with their colleagues than the others. They are neither more popular nor less popular. They are the most conservative. I would say ideological, I would say way out there, but let's just say conservative, not to be confrontational of those two people. The President is looking for conservative nominees. I guess what I would ask Mr. Fielding is if the President isn't doing this, can you name me five liberals that Ronald Reagan nominated when you were--forget whether they were Democrat or Republican--that Reagan nominated when you were counsel? Mr. Fielding. I hope not. [Laughter.] Chairman Schumer. There you go. I agree with you and I appreciate your candor, and you are a fine man, but of course he didn't. I would argue, even though maybe philosophically he is not as conservative as President Reagan, that judges nominated by President Bush are the most far over of any we have had. I don't see many moderates. I would argue, and some might disagree with me--and Jeff is right; this depends on where you look at it. But I would argue that President Clinton did not nominate as many to the far left as President Bush is nominating to the far right. President Clinton tended to go not for ACLU lawyers. Those were small. Senator Sessions. There were quite a number of them. Chairman Schumer. Well, not too many. It was mostly partners in law firms, prosecutors, et cetera. But in any case, that is the point. The point is it is not Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy, or the ten Democrats on this Committee who started making ideology count here. It is not even President Bush, although he is more ideological than we are, I would argue in this. It has been part of the warp and woof of it, and we ought to just come clean about it, particularly on the D.C. Circuit. Fred Fielding was honest. If we were just looking at judicial temperament, as Professor Clark seemed to indicate-- how they get along with their colleagues, how they conduct themselves on the bench--then each President should nominate an equal number of Democrats and Republicans or an equal number of liberals and conservatives, unless you have the view, which I don't, that one side or the other tends to have better judicial temperament. It doesn't happen. All we are trying to do here is seek some balance, and so I am going to let any of you have the last word here. I have said my piece and I think the argument is virtually unassailable, and I think those arguing against it are not admitting the truth, which is the President is being every bit as ideological, if not more, than anyone on this panel when he makes nominations, and it is our job to bring the balance. Judge Mikva? Mr. Mikva. Senator, I think that is what makes your job so hard, is that we don't have the proper vocabulary to describe what is the Senate's role. I fought that Senate role because I was a semi-victim of it. I had a protracted confirmation battle and, sitting as a nominee, I thought the Senate was being very political at the time, and they were. They were voting on what they thought my ideology was. Chairman Schumer. Were they voting on your judicial temperament? Mr. Mikva. No. Chairman Schumer. Did the Republicans think you were a less nice guy or less distinguished? Mr. Mikva. No. There was a certain member, still of the Senate, who told me how much he liked me as he voted no, and what a great temperament I had. Chairman Schumer. He was voting about your ideology, whether they admit it or not? Mr. Mikva. Absolutely, and I think what makes it so hard is that, as you pointed out, historically that has always been the Senate's role. When they voted down Mr. Rutledge for the Supreme Court, they were voting politically. You are a political body, you are elected as a political body. The difficulty arises, as it does currently, where the Senate has a majority of one political party persuasion and the President is of the other, and it has been that way since the beginning of the Republic. Now, maybe it is important somehow to disguise what the Senate is doing, as they sometimes have done. But I have to say I admire the candor with which you have viewed this difficult task, Senator Schumer. Unfortunately, this President isn't going to nominate many Democrats. As Fred Fielding very candidly said, they didn't during the Reagan administration, and Bill Clinton didn't during his administration. Chairman Schumer. Bill Clinton didn't nominate many Republicans. Mr. Mikva. Right. As I said, I tried on two occasions to get him to consider Republicans. It was rejected. Chairman Schumer. You know, Judge, I would say something else. When Clinton did nominate people, we can argue where they were, but it is clear, especially during the times when the Republican Party controlled the Senate, they tried to be a moderating force, and I didn't see anything wrong with that. Mr. Mikva. I had many conversations with members of this Committee during that period. Chairman Schumer. Right. Our chart over there doesn't talk about total nominations, but it talks about when you vote no. Why is it, if ideology doesn't matter, Democrats are always voting no, whether it is 63 or 87? Democrats are always voting no on Republican judges, not on most--Jeff Sessions, to his credit; Democrats, maybe to our credit. We only vote against a small number, but when we vote no, when we use that significant and large power to block a President's nominee, ideology is a big factor on both sides. Senator Sessions. Well, Mr. Chairman, that chart there is so bogus, you really ought to take it down. Chairman Schumer. Why? Tell me why it is bogus. Senator Sessions. The one on the other side of it is more accurate than that one. Chairman Schumer. Let's take not this one, because this to me has no relevance. Both parties vote no on a small number. It is when they vote no. Let's just assume it is 63; it still makes our case. Senator Sessions. This is 4 years. This is just less than two. Chairman Schumer. Double ours. It is still the same. Make them four and two. Senator Sessions. Fifty-four to 63 was what that would say. Chairman Schumer. No, no, no. You have got to make four and two. That is what you double. Senator Sessions. That chart is bogus. Chairman Schumer. OK. I would respectfully beg to differ. Any other comments on what I said? Then I am going to let Jeff have the last word, since I was so vehement here. Mr. Fielding. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Schumer. Yes, Mr. Fielding. Mr. Fielding. I would again just say to you I think it has become very obvious in our discussion that a lot of the problems we have are definitional, because where you sit is where you stand a lot of times. Of course, President Reagan didn't appoint any liberals to the bench, nor did President Clinton appoint any conservatives to the bench. Chairman Schumer. Correct. Mr. Fielding. I don't think there is an evil in that. My concern, and I will repeat it again at the risk of becoming ad nauseam, is that for the Senate to announce and specifically try to balance by rejecting people that a President sends up on that basis--not an extreme person, not a zealot, but somebody who happens to be a Republican or happens to be a conservative--is wrong and it is dangerous and it is deleterious to this court. Chairman Schumer. I would agree with you on that. I would just say this: first, I don't think you have heard anyone here, when the nominees come up, inquire about their party or care about their party. We voted for--I don't know how many judges I voted for, 60-some-odd. My guess is the vast majority, if not all of them, are Republicans. So I wouldn't ask that. Second, we don't ask about specific cases. I think that is a very accurate and right thing to do, but we do ask about views to determine if they are out of the mainstream. You know, some might say Justice Scalia is bringing America back to the mainstream and others might say that he is taking America out of the mainstream. But that is why we have a Senate and that is why we elect a Senate, and I think those are relevant questions to ask. But I appreciate very much your saying ideology is different than party, and I think that is what we are looking at here. Did you want to say something, Professor Gottesman? Mr. Gottesman. Yes. Chairman Schumer. Then I am going to turn to Jeff Sessions and then we will have to conclude. Mr. Gottesman. When the Founding Fathers decided to give the confirmation power, they didn't give it to a body of psychiatrists to judge people's temperaments. They didn't give it to law professors to judge their credentials. They gave it to a political body, and it seems to me that the practice in those early years simply confirms what the plan was, which is, of course, this is a political process and that we don't want the President's views about ideology to go unchecked. We want the people's elected representatives in the Congress to have a voice, as well, in making sure that the people chosen have an acceptable ideology to all. Chairman Schumer. I would just say one thing. There have been times in our history where it has mattered less, when there have been moderate Presidents. In the Eisenhower era, they sort of got away from ideology because he really did nominate sort of moderates. He nominated people of both parties. Then what happened is some of those moderates became very liberal--Earl Warren--and the conservative movement said, wait a minute, they are taking it away from the people and away from us. I had sympathy with that. I mean, I remember arguing in college during the radical days of the 1960's that it should be the Congress that ought to make most of these decisions, not the courts. So I understood where they were coming from. It is just that since maybe 1970, we have not had that moderation and ideology has mattered both to Presidents on whom they nominate and to the Senate. The only thing--and Jeff and I agree on this--when we didn't do ideology, for a period we devolved into the ``gotcha'' politics which I talked about for a while, and that was awful and it has been done to Democrats and Republicans. When you go ask if somebody smoked marijuana 30 years ago, all the Democrats thought that was horrible and disqualifying and all the Republicans thought that was forgivable. And then you asked if somebody went and got the wrong kind of movie out of the movie shop, and all the Democrats thought that was terrible and the Republicans--or vice versa. It was all code. Code is bad. The public likes us to say what we think. With that, I am going to let Jeff Sessions have the last word, as excited and eager as I am to talk about this subject on and on and on. Senator Sessions. You know, Mr. Chairman, as we go along and we get right down to it, we are probably not as far apart as our words make us sound to be. I would note Senator Grassley has a statement for the record, and Senator Kyl did come by when we had a recess and he had the Intelligence Committee that he is on that is doing important work now, and so he apologized. Chairman Schumer. Does he have a statement, as well? Senator Sessions. I don't think he did, but he is prepared to offer one consistent with my views. Chairman Schumer. We will still allow the record to stay open for Senator Kyl's views. We ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley's statement be added to the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Schumer. Why don't we let the record stay open for a week so that others can submit their statements? Senator Sessions. Just in summation, I think Mr. Clark had it right that if we tell the people of the United States that a Federal judge is nothing more than a political product, that we don't respect the fact that they have to make legal decisions, and that we somehow believe that their decisions are consistently political, which some do--in fact, Laurence Tribe when he testified here said that we need to abandon the, quote, ``Olympian ideal'' of non-political justice. That is what I am concerned about. I believe, having practiced law in Federal courts for many, many years, that consistently, day after day, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, if they are good lawyers and men and women of integrity who are committed to the law, come out pretty close to the same thing. Now, you might find on procedural matters and environmental cases some class in which a person might be a little different than another one. But, fundamentally, we ought not to send a message, I would say, that would suggest that. Judge Mikva left the bench and went to be the White House Counsel to President Clinton, one of the most skilled politicians, I guess, of the century. You helped him, from just reading the newspapers and things that I saw, and gave him good advice. But you also did a good job on the bench. Because a person has strong political views does not mean they can't be a good person on the bench. I would repeat Mr. Cutler's comments. Mr. Fielding, the Miller Commission report that we had a hearing on--and I believe Lloyd Cutler talked about it then--was really a classical study of the proper relationship. I think your conclusion of a bipartisan commission and the conclusion they reached about how we ought to evaluate judges was sound. I do believe it would be a tragedy to make ideology an increasing part of our confirmation, and I would quote Mr. Cutler, President Clinton's counsel: ``To make ideology an issue in the confirmation process is to suggest that the legal process is, and should be, a political one.'' That would be a dangerous message for us to send. So as we talk about it, yes, I think we have a right to ask them about their views, particularly if they have written or talked or advocated certain views, just like it would be fair to ask Judge Mikva--you have spoken on gun control--will you follow existing law. That is appropriate. But if they answer and we believe them, and we believe they are men and women of integrity and they will follow existing law, they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and be confirmed. Chairman Schumer. With that, we will close the hearing, but only after thanking our witnesses for what I thought was an excellent discussion. Thank you. We will insert into the record a letter and a paper submitted by various environmental groups into the record. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [A question and answer and submissions for the record follow.] [Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.] [GRAPHIC][TIFF]T8076.001 [GRAPHIC][TIF1]T8076.002 [GRAPHIC][TIF2]T8076.003 [GRAPHIC][TIF3]T8076.004 [GRAPHIC][TIF4]T8076.005 [GRAPHIC][TIF5]T8076.006 [GRAPHIC][TIF6]T8076.007 [GRAPHIC][TIF7]T8076.008 [GRAPHIC][TIF8]T8076.009 [GRAPHIC][TIF9]T8076.010 [GRAPHIC][TIF10]T8076.011 [GRAPHIC][TIF11]T8076.012 [GRAPHIC][TIF12]T8076.013 [GRAPHIC][TIF13]T8076.014 [GRAPHIC][TIF14]T8076.015 [GRAPHIC][TIF15]T8076.016 [GRAPHIC][TIF16]T8076.017 [GRAPHIC][TIF17]T8076.018 [GRAPHIC][TIF18]T8076.019 [GRAPHIC][TIF19]T8076.020 [GRAPHIC][TIF20]T8076.021 [GRAPHIC][TIF21]T8076.022 [GRAPHIC][TIF22]T8076.023 [GRAPHIC][TIF23]T8076.024 [GRAPHIC][TIF24]T8076.025 [GRAPHIC][TIF25]T8076.026 [GRAPHIC][TIF26]T8076.027 [GRAPHIC][TIF27]T8076.028 [GRAPHIC][TIF28]T8076.029 [GRAPHIC][TIF29]T8076.030 [GRAPHIC][TIF30]T8076.031 [GRAPHIC][TIF31]T8076.032 [GRAPHIC][TIF32]T8076.033 [GRAPHIC][TIF33]T8076.034 [GRAPHIC][TIF34]T8076.035 [GRAPHIC][TIF35]T8076.036 [GRAPHIC][TIF36]T8076.037 [GRAPHIC][TIF37]T8076.038 [GRAPHIC][TIF38]T8076.039 [GRAPHIC][TIF39]T8076.040 [GRAPHIC][TIF40]T8076.041 [GRAPHIC][TIF41]T8076.042 [GRAPHIC][TIF42]T8076.043 [GRAPHIC][TIF43]T8076.044 [GRAPHIC][TIF44]T8076.045 [GRAPHIC][TIF45]T8076.046 [GRAPHIC][TIF46]T8076.047 [GRAPHIC][TIF47]T8076.048 [GRAPHIC][TIF48]T8076.049 [GRAPHIC][TIF49]T8076.050 [GRAPHIC][TIF50]T8076.051 [GRAPHIC][TIF51]T8076.052 [GRAPHIC][TIF52]T8076.053 [GRAPHIC][TIF53]T8076.054 [GRAPHIC][TIF54]T8076.055 [GRAPHIC][TIF55]T8076.056 [GRAPHIC][TIF56]T8076.057 [GRAPHIC][TIF57]T8076.058 [GRAPHIC][TIF58]T8076.059 [GRAPHIC][TIF59]T8076.060 [GRAPHIC][TIF60]T8076.061 [GRAPHIC][TIF61]T8076.062 [GRAPHIC][TIF62]T8076.063 [GRAPHIC][TIF63]T8076.064 [GRAPHIC][TIF64]T8076.065 [GRAPHIC][TIF65]T8076.066 [GRAPHIC][TIF66]T8076.067 [GRAPHIC][TIF67]T8076.068 [GRAPHIC][TIF68]T8076.069 [GRAPHIC][TIF69]T8076.070 [GRAPHIC][TIF70]T8076.071 [GRAPHIC][TIF71]T8076.072 [GRAPHIC][TIF72]T8076.073 [GRAPHIC][TIF73]T8076.074 [GRAPHIC][TIF74]T8076.075 [GRAPHIC][TIF75]T8076.076 [GRAPHIC][TIF76]T8076.077 [GRAPHIC][TIF77]T8076.078 [GRAPHIC][TIF78]T8076.079 [GRAPHIC][TIF79]T8076.080 [GRAPHIC][TIF80]T8076.081 [GRAPHIC][TIF81]T8076.082 [GRAPHIC][TIF82]T8076.083 [GRAPHIC][TIF83]T8076.084 [GRAPHIC][TIF84]T8076.085 [GRAPHIC][TIF85]T8076.086 [GRAPHIC][TIF86]T8076.087 [GRAPHIC][TIF87]T8076.088 [GRAPHIC][TIF88]T8076.089 [GRAPHIC][TIF89]T8076.090 [GRAPHIC][TIF90]T8076.091 [GRAPHIC][TIF91]T8076.092 [GRAPHIC][TIF92]T8076.093 [GRAPHIC][TIF93]T8076.094 [GRAPHIC][TIF94]T8076.095 [GRAPHIC][TIF95]T8076.096 [GRAPHIC][TIF96]T8076.097 [GRAPHIC][TIF97]T8076.098 [GRAPHIC][TIF98]T8076.099 [GRAPHIC][TIF99]T8076.100 [GRAPHIC][TIF100]T8076.101 [GRAPHIC][TIF101]T8076.102 [GRAPHIC][TIF102]T8076.103 [GRAPHIC][TIF103]T8076.104 [GRAPHIC][TIF104]T8076.105 [GRAPHIC][TIF105]T8076.106 [GRAPHIC][TIF106]T8076.107 [GRAPHIC][TIF107]T8076.108 [GRAPHIC][TIF108]T8076.109 [GRAPHIC][TIF109]T8076.110 [GRAPHIC][TIF110]T8076.111 [GRAPHIC][TIF111]T8076.112 [GRAPHIC][TIF112]T8076.113 [GRAPHIC][TIF113]T8076.114 [GRAPHIC][TIF114]T8076.115 [GRAPHIC][TIF115]T8076.116 [GRAPHIC][TIF116]T8076.117 [GRAPHIC][TIF117]T8076.118 [GRAPHIC][TIF118]T8076.119 [GRAPHIC][TIF119]T8076.120 [GRAPHIC][TIF120]T8076.121 [GRAPHIC][TIF121]T8076.122 [GRAPHIC][TIF122]T8076.123 [GRAPHIC][TIF123]T8076.124 [GRAPHIC][TIF124]T8076.125 [GRAPHIC][TIF125]T8076.126 [GRAPHIC][TIF126]T8076.127 [GRAPHIC][TIF127]T8076.128 [GRAPHIC][TIF128]T8076.129 [GRAPHIC][TIF129]T8076.130 [GRAPHIC][TIF130]T8076.131 [GRAPHIC][TIF131]T8076.132 [GRAPHIC][TIF132]T8076.133 [GRAPHIC][TIF133]T8076.134 [GRAPHIC][TIF134]T8076.135 [GRAPHIC][TIF135]T8076.136 [GRAPHIC][TIF136]T8076.137 [GRAPHIC][TIF137]T8076.138 [GRAPHIC][TIF138]T8076.139 [GRAPHIC][TIF139]T8076.140 [GRAPHIC][TIF140]T8076.141 [GRAPHIC][TIF141]T8076.142 [GRAPHIC][TIF142]T8076.143 [GRAPHIC][TIF143]T8076.144 [GRAPHIC][TIF144]T8076.145 [GRAPHIC][TIF145]T8076.146 [GRAPHIC][TIF146]T8076.147 [GRAPHIC][TIF147]T8076.148 [GRAPHIC][TIF148]T8076.149 -