U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–544 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–38

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION

OF WILLIAM G. MYERS III, OF IDAHO, TO

BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 1, 2005

Serial No. J–109–21

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 148

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 160

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 188

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 9

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 217

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 4

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

PRESENTER 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho presenting 

William Myers, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals ............................................................................................................. 2

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE 

Myers, William G., III, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ...... 12

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 13

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of William G. Myers III to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, 

Feinstein, and Feingold ....................................................................................... 58

Responses of William G. Myers III to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy ....................................................................................................................... 74

Response of William G. Myers III to a follow-up question submitted by Senator Leahy ............................................................................................................. 83

Responses of William G. Myers III to follow-up questions submitted by Senator Kennedy ........................................................................................................ 85

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Portland, Oregon, letter ........................ 89

Ak-Chin Indian Community, Terry O. Enos, Chairman, Maricopa, Arizona, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 92

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–

CIO), William Samuel, Director, Department of Legislation, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 93

Andrus, Cecil D., Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 94

Anoatubby, Bill, Governor, The Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma, letter ...... 95

Page

IV

Attorneys General—Gregg Enkes, Attorney General of Alaska; M. Jane 

Brady, Attorney General of Delaware; Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General 

of Hawaii; Ken Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado; Douglas Moylan, 

Attorney General of Guam, Lawrence Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho; 

Brian Sandoval, Attorney General of Nevada; Larry Long, Attorney General 

of South Dakota; Patrick Crank, Attorney General of Wyoming; Wayne 

Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota; W.A. Drew Edmondson, 

Attorney General of Oklahoma; Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah; 

Gerald J. Pappert, Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Jim Petro, Attorney 

General of Ohio; and Jerry Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, joint 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 96

Barr, William P., McLean, Virginia, letter ............................................................ 100

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, Janice McGinnis, Tribal ViceChairperson, Loleta, California, letter ............................................................... 101

Berrey, John L., Chairman, Quapaw Tribe, Quapaw, Oklahoma, letter ............ 103

Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley, Jessica L. Bacoch, Tribal Chairperson, Big Pine, California, letter ..................................................................... 104

Big Sandy Rancheria, Connie Lewis, Auberry, California, letter ........................ 106

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, John A. James, Tribal Chairman, Indio, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 108

Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians, Wayner R. Mitchum, Colusa, California, letter .......................................................................................................... 110

California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Susan Jensen, Director of 

Communications, Sacramento, California, letter and attachment ................... 112

California Rural Indian Health Board, Inc., James Crouch, Executive Director, Sacramento, California, letter ...................................................................... 117

Circle Tribal Council, Circle, Alaska, letter .......................................................... 120

Civil rights, disability rights, senior citizens, women’s rights, human rights, 

Native American, planning and environmental organizations, joint letter ..... 122

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Lucy Meyring, President, Arvada, Colorado, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 132

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Delores Pigsley, Tribal Council Chairman, Siletz, Oregon, letter .................................................................................. 133

Congress of the United States, concerned Members of Congress, Washington, 

D.C., joint letter ................................................................................................... 135

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho, statement .............. 140

Cuddy, Hon. Charles D., Idaho State Representative, Clearwater, Idaho, letter .......................................................................................................................... 142

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Joe Brooks, Chief, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, letter .. 144

Dennis, Michael, Director, Conservation Real Estate and Private Lands, Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, letters .................................................. 146

Elko Band Council, Hugh Stevens, Vice-Chairman, Elko, Nevada, letter .......... 151

Environmental, Native American, labor, civil rights, disability, women’s and 

other organizations, list ....................................................................................... 153

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Len George, Vice-Chairman, Fallon, Nevada, 

letter and attachment .......................................................................................... 156

Friends of the Earth, January 2004, article .......................................................... 165

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Carmella Icay-Johnson, Chairperson, 

Upper Lake, California, letter ............................................................................. 168

Ho-Chunk Nation Legislature, Wade Blackdeer, Vice President, Black River 

Falls, Wisconsin ................................................................................................... 170

Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, Sandra C. Sigala, Tribal Chairperson, 

Hopland, California, letter .................................................................................. 171

Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 173

Inaja Cosmit Band of Mission Indians, Rebecca Maxcy Osuna, Tribal Chairwoman, Escondido, California, letter .................................................................. 174

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Nora McDowell, President, Chairwoman, 

Fort Mojave Tribe, Phoenix, Arizona, letter ...................................................... 176

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman, Executive Director, Sequim, Washington, letter .......................................................................... 178

Justice For All Project, Susan Lerner, Chair, Committee for Judicial Independence, Los Angeles, California, letter ........................................................... 180

Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Glen Nenema, Chairman, Usk, Washington, letter .. 185

Kaw Nation, Guy Munroe, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Kaw City, 

Oklahoma, letter .................................................................................................. 187

Kite, Marilyn S., Justice, Supreme Court of Wyoming, letter ............................. 199

Page

V

Lawyers and professors of law, joint letter ........................................................... 200

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, Executive Director, 

and Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director, Washington, D.C: 

letter, February 3, 2004 ................................................................................... 213

letter, July 19, 2004 ......................................................................................... 215

Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho, editorial ....................................................... 225

Members of the California State Senate—John Burton, President Pro Tempore; Shiela Kuehl, Chair, Senate Natural Resources Committee; and Byron 

Sher, Chair, Senate Environmental Quality Committee; Sacramento, California, letter .......................................................................................................... 226

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians, Charlene G. Siford, Chairman, Santa 

Ysabel, California, letter ...................................................................................... 231

Mooretown Rancheria, Melvin Jackson, Vice Chairman, Oroville, California, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 233

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Hilary O. 

Shelton, Director, Washington, D.C., letter ....................................................... 235

National Congress of American Indians, Tex G. Hall, President, Washington, 

D.C., letter and attachment ................................................................................ 238

National Senior Citizens Law Center, Edward C. King, Executive Director, 

Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... 243

National Wildlife Federation, Larry Schweiger, President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Reston, Virginia, letter and attachments ............................................. 245

The Nature Conservancy, Steven J. McCormick, Arlington, Virginia, letter ..... 253

Nightmute Traditional Council, John George, Tribal Administrator, 

Nightmute, Alaska, letter .................................................................................... 254

Offices of the Governors, joint letter ...................................................................... 255

Oglala Sioux Tribe, John Yellow Bird Steele, President, Pine Ridge, South 

Dakota, letter ....................................................................................................... 257

Organizations representing Americans in the Ninth Circuit and across the 

country, joint letter .............................................................................................. 259

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians, Everett Freemen, Tribal Chairperson, 

Orland, California, letter ..................................................................................... 264

Passamaquoddy Tribe, Melvin Francis, Chief/Sakom, Perry, Maine, letter ....... 266

People for the American Way, Ralph G. Neas, President, Washington, D.C., 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 268

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Jeffrey Ruch, Executive 

Director, Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................... 269

Published opposition to the nomination of William Myers to the 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals, list ........................................................................................... 271

Pueblo of Laguna, Roland E. Johnson, Governor, Laguna, New Mexico, letter . 273

Quechan Indian Tribe, Mike Jackson, Sr., President, Yuma, Arizona, letter 

and attachment .................................................................................................... 275

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Manuel Hamilton, Tribal Chairperson, Anza, California, letter ........................................................................... 279

Redding Rancheria Tribe, Tracy Edwards, Tribal Chair, Redding, California, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 281

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, Allen B. Lawson, Tribal Chairman, 

San Diego County, California, letter .................................................................. 283

Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians, Johnny Hernandez, Chairperson, 

Santa Ysabel, California, letter .......................................................................... 285

Sax, Joseph L., House & Hurd Professor of Law, University of California, 

San Fancisco, California, letter ........................................................................... 287

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Ken Chambers, Principal Chief, Wewoka, 

Oklahoma, letter .................................................................................................. 288

Sierra Club, Patrick Gallagher, Director of Environmental Law, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 290

Simpson, Hon. Alan K., former U.S. Senator the State of Wyoming, letter ....... 293

Simpson, Hon. Mike, and Hon. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Representatives in Congress from the State of Idaho, joint letter .......................................................... 294

Sullivan, Michael J., Governor, Attorney at Law, Rothgerber Johnson & 

Lyons, LLP, Casper, Wyoming, letters ............................................................... 295

Thornburgh, Dick, Washington, D.C., letter ......................................................... 297

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Shirley Summers, Tribal Chairperson, Bishop, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 298

Tulalip Tribes, Herman A. Williams, Jr., Chairman, Board of Directors, 

Tulalip, Washington, letter ................................................................................. 300

Page

VI

U-tu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, Joseph C. Saulque, Tribal Chairman, Benton, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 301

Van Hyning, Dyrck, Van Hyning & Associates, Inc., Grant Falls, Montana, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 303

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Anthony R. Pico, Chairman, Alpine, California, letter .......................................................................................................... 304

Wasden, Lawrence G., Idaho Attorney General, Boise, Idaho, letter .................. 306

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, John Blackhawk, Chairman, Winnebago, Nebraska, letter ........................................................................................................ 308

Women’s, reproductive rights and human rights organizations, joint letter ...... 309

(1)

NOMINATION OF WILLIAM G. MYERS III, OF 

IDAHO, TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Specter, Hatch, Coburn, Leahy, Feinstein, 

Feingold, and Schumer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

hour of 9:30 having arrived, we will proceed with the Senator Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Mr. William Myers for the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Senator 

Craig and Mr. Myers, will you sit down, and after brief opening 

statements, we will come to you. 

The President resubmitted the name of Mr. Myers on Monday, 

February the 13th, along with other resubmissions, and the schedule was established the very next day, on February 14th, to have 

a hearing the first week we were back after recess. And we have 

decided to begin with Mr. Myers among those who have been renominated, quite candidly so we can count 58 votes for cloture, that 

is, to cut off debate and to move forward the confirmation process. 

And we have had a very contentious 108th session with the filibusters being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic, but the filibusters did not spring up without quite a considerable background, which I think is important to keep in mind. 

In the last 2 years of the Reagan administration when I was on 

the Judiciary Committee, as I have been for 24 years and 2 

months, the Democrats slowed down the confirmation process, as 

they did during the tenure of President Bush I. And then during 

the 6 years of President Clinton, after we Republicans took control 

in 1995, we slowed down the process again. So it was ratcheted up 

during Reagan, Bush, even more during Clinton, and then the 

Democrats took it to what I thought was an unparalleled height, 

or depth, in the filibuster. And then Republicans responded with 

the interim appointment. 

2

So we have a situation where it is very, very contentious, and I 

have talked to many of my colleagues about this issue, and I sense 

a lot of concern among both Republicans and Democrats to try to 

avoid the controversy if we can. But no one wants to back down, 

and no one wants to lose face. So that is the tough issue which we 

face at the present time. 

There was talk about a rule change, the constitutional option. 

There was talk about the so-called nuclear option where there 

would be a change in cutting off debate from 60 to 51 votes. And 

there are precedents for that approach, but it is one to be taken 

with great reluctance, if at all. I have not yet taken a position on 

the matter. With some tenure in the Senate and with a very high 

regard for the history and tradition of the Senate, which saved judicial independence in the impeachment trial of John Jay shortly 

into the 19th century and Presidential authority with the defeat of 

the impeachment of President Johnson in 1868, the Senate has 

been the guardian of minority rights, which is rockbed Americana. 

We have to consider this issue, which is very, very important to 

us today, in a historical perspective as to what the view might be 

a century from now as to the weighing of the minority rights and 

the tradition of the Senate, contrasted with the very important 

matter of getting judges confirmed and the President’s authority to 

appoint the judges and the Senate’s constitutional authority to confirm. 

So with that brief background, let me ask you to stand, Mr. 

Myers, for the oath. Do you, William Myers, solemnly swear that 

the evidence testimony you will present before this Committee will 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Mr. MYERS. I do. 

Chairman SPECTER. We are pleased to welcome back our distinguished colleague, Senator Larry Craig, who served on the Judiciary Committee, and elected, I believe, in 1990 after having served 

extensively in the House of Representatives, a senior member of 

the U.S. Senate, a very distinguished member and a good friend of 

mine. Senator Craig, you have the floor. 

PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM G. MYERS III, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BY HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, thank 

you very much for that kind introduction but, more importantly, I 

am extremely pleased to see you looking healthy today, and I say 

as a friend that I pray for you and your health situation. We need 

you to stay healthy for lots of reasons: first of all, because you are 

my friend; but, secondly, your importance to this Committee and to 

this Senate at this very important juncture is extremely valuable. 

And I do appreciate that necessary and appropriate introduction as 

to the circumstances we find ourselves before this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of introducing my friend and fellow Idahoan, the former Solicitor of the Interior, William Myers, 

who was nominated by the President to serve in the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. Bill is not a stranger to this Committee, but let 

3

me recap a few of those important factors for all of us and for the 

record. 

He has had a distinguished career as an attorney, particularly in 

the area of natural resources and public land law, where he is nationally recognized as an expert. These are issues of particular importance to the public land States of the West, which are represented on the Ninth Circuit. These issues are not just professional business issues to him. In his private life, he has also long 

been an outdoorsman, and he has spent significant time as a volunteer for the National Park Service. 

The majority of Bill’s career has been spent in public service, including working as legislative counsel for former Senator Alan 

Simpson, deputy general counsel to the Department of Energy, and 

assistant to the Attorney General of the United States. The Senate 

confirmed him by unanimous consent to the post of Solicitor of the 

Interior in 2001. 

The entire Idaho Congressional delegation supports him. Our colleague Mike Crapo would be seated beside us this morning, but you 

know Mike also has a health challenge and is currently taking 

treatment for that. Our colleagues in the House, both Congressman 

Mike Simpson and Congressman Otter, extend their full support. 

But Bill’s supporters are not limited to just Republicans. They 

also cross political and ideological lines, and this Committee has received letters from many of them. For instance, Mr. Chairman, the 

former Democrat Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, who was Secretary of Interior under President Carter, said that Bill has the 

necessary personal integrity, judicial temperament, and legal experience as well as the ability to act fairly on matters of law that will 

come before him on the court. 

Bill’s supporters also include the former democratic Governor of 

Wyoming, Mike Sullivan; the Attorneys General of 15 States, including three Democrats; and the Governors of five States in the 

Ninth Circuit—Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. 

I stress the breadth of Bill’s support because it demonstrates 

what some members of this Committee have said, and I know—I 

once served here as you mentioned—how important it is that the 

nominees are viewed as mainstream. We may not be able to agree 

on the objective standards of mainstream, but I think we can agree 

that when individuals with strongly differing political points of 

view recognize and support the same person, as is clearly demonstrated by the supporters of Bill Myers, this can be recognized 

as part of mainstream. 

What are some of the indicators that a nominee is mainstream? 

Let me suggest a few. Has the nominee been unanimously confirmed to some other position by the Senate? Did the ABA determine he is qualified for the judgeship? As a lawyer, did he zealously represent his clients, as required by the Rules of Professional 

Conduct for attorneys? Would his addition to the court to which he 

has been nominated help to bring the court into the mainstream? 

Do the people who know him best from all walks of life support 

him? Has he received the Federal Government’s highest security 

clearance after half a dozen background checks by the FBI and the 

Secret Service? Have his clients’ positions been vindicated by the 

U.S. Supreme Court in more than 75 percent of his cases? 

4

In Bill’s case, the answer to all of these questions is yes, Mr. 

Chairman. Last year, a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to 

cut off the filibuster of the Bill Myers nomination. While we fell 

short of the number needed to actually get an opportunity to vote 

up or down on this nominee, that kind of bipartisan support is not 

given to a nominee who is unqualified and far out of the mainstream. 

Even the Washington Post has backed off from its recent criticism of Mr. Myers. I am sure some members of the Committee saw 

the story last month entitled ‘‘Judicial Nominee Criticized; Actions 

at Interior Department questioned by Inspector General.’’ That 

story dealt with a statement reached—a settlement, excuse me, 

reached by the BLM with a rancher named Harvey Frank Robbins. 

Well, as they said, the rest of the story came out a week later, with 

an article entitled ‘‘Judicial Nominee Cleared in BLM Case, Interior IG’s Report Critical of Others.’’ And the next day, the Washington Post even printed a retraction, stating that its first article 

had incorrectly characterized a letter from Interior Department’s 

Inspector General as directly criticizing Bill Myers when in reality 

that IG letter did not say Mr. Myers was responsible. 

It is a new day in Washington when the Post sets the record 

straight by dismissing criticism of a Bush nominee. I hope the new 

day means the Judiciary Committee will conclude that the few 

issues dredged up to throw at Mr. Myers are nothing more than 

red herrings. 

Bill Myers is a fine man, a talented public servant, a skilled lawyer, and he will be an outstanding judge of the Ninth Circuit. And 

I ask you and this Committee to support his nomination. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. 

Regrettably, Senator Mike Crapo, the junior Senator from Idaho, 

could not be with us today, but without objection, his full statement will be made a part of the record. 

Now I turn to the distinguished Chairman of the Courts Subcommittee—the Ranking Member, Senator Schumer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Chairman would be nice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to say it is good to have 

you back feisty and thinking, as you always are, and we are glad 

you are here and doing the good job that you have always done. 

And, Mr. Myers, I want to say to you I know you are a hardworking, decent man, and I know this process has been difficult to 

you and your family. Unfortunately—and I know you understand 

this, having allowed yourself to be renominated—you are one of the 

handful of nominees who are part of a real constitutional struggle 

between the branches of Government. So while I know many of the 

comments regarding your nomination and the nominations process 

as a whole will be tough, I want you to know they are not personal 

but arise from concern about the process and from a sincere difference in viewpoints about judicial philosophy. 

Now, it did not have to be this way. The President has left us 

with no choice. His actions show Democrats that he is taking a ‘‘my 

5

way or the highway’’ approach to judicial nominees. The President 

set the tone in this debate, and many others, after he won re-election. He said, ‘‘I’ve earned political capital, and I’m going to spend 

it.’’ His nomination of seven judges that were blocked in the last 

Congress is a thumb in the eye of bipartisanship. It should not be. 

That should not be the way. 

The President has put nothing new on the table. He has effectively said let’s have another fight. That does not accomplish anything. There is simply nothing to be gained from the President’s 

unfortunate decision to play a game of judicial chicken. 

The renominations are a particular and deliberate affront. The 

handful of men and women who were rejected were not rejected 

casually. They were rejected because, after full and fair consideration of their records, they were found to be extreme. They are only 

among ten of 214 who have been rejected. Repeated accusations of 

obstruction are ludicrous, and they are counterproductive. We confirmed fully 95 percent of the President’s nominees. Democrats 

merely blocked by constitutional means only a handful of perhaps 

the most intemperate and immoderate judicial nominees ever sent 

our way. 

Mr. Chairman, the President and the Senate both have a vital 

constitutional role to play in this process. Just as the President 

does not shrink from his, we will not shrink from ours. When the 

President sends us a radical and regressive nominee, one so far out 

of the mainstream he cannot even see the shoreline, we as Senators have no choice but to return to sender—once, twice, or ten 

times, if need be. 

At the same time, we too regret the breakdown in relations within the Senate. We also long for a return to bipartisanship. As much 

as anyone, I would like to see an end to rancor. Recently, Mr. 

Chairman, you have spoken in a voice of comity and conciliation. 

I agree with you that, ‘‘The advice clause in the Constitution has 

been largely ignored.’’ After you became Chairman, about 2 months 

ago, you invited me to your office and you asked how could we 

work together. Well, the first thing I said is something that should 

not be done. The President should not renominate the seven nominees or the ten nominees who were rejected. The next day he did 

the same thing, and I was heartened to hear that you suggested 

that these renominations were not the best idea. 

You have a long history of fairness when it comes to approaching 

the judicial nominations process. And like you, I do not want to see 

the Senate or the Nation torn apart over the next Supreme Court 

nomination. 

Fortunately, there is a simple solution, and it does not require 

Democrats to take the highway. The solution lies in consultation. 

We are right now so far apart it seems hard to bridge the gap. But 

both sides should start talking so that we can step back from the 

brink. 

As I wrote to you in a letter last week, Mr. Chairman, I urge you 

to put together a small bipartisan group of Senators to ensure that 

the Constitution’s advice role is truly meaningful during the leadup to the next Supreme Court nomination. The group should meet 

with the President in the next few weeks and could eventually 

make joint recommendations to the President of highly qualified, 

6

mainstream judicial nominees who would receive broad support in 

the Senate. 

In this way, we can choose discourse over demagoguery, harmony 

over acrimony, bipartisanship over one-upsmanship. To us, to 

many of us, receiving 51 percent in the election is not a mandate 

and not an imperative for one-party rule. We believe we have an 

important and active role to play, and we will play it. 

The Founding Fathers, whom many of us like to cite, foresaw 

just such a collaborative relationship between the President and 

the Senate in the appointment of judges, especially to the highest 

Court of the land, the Supreme Court. Significantly, the Founding 

Fathers expected that because of the advise and consent clause, the 

President would take great care and be judicious in his nominations. As Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers about the importance of the Senate’s role in approving nominees, ‘‘The possibility 

of rejection of nominees would be a strong motive to care in proposing.’’ 

Alexander Hamilton, who believed more in Presidential power 

than, say, Jefferson, was saying that the Senate ought to be able 

to reject nominees as a check on the President. He did not say do 

it by a majority vote or a two-thirds vote or anything else. He said 

the possibility of rejection will temper the President, and any reading of what the Founding Fathers did in Constitutional Hall in 

your State, Mr. Chairman, corroborates that view. It is food for 

thought. The President should take care in the proposing of nominees. 

But when a President repeatedly offers radical and regressive 

candidates, he is not taking care in the proposing and must shoulder much of the blame for the impasse. One need not look so far 

back in time for answers about how to mend relations and avoid 

this legislative and clash of branches Armageddon. Recent history 

provides a perfect model for getting back on track. As my colleagues know, scores of President Clinton’s nominees were blocked 

by many of the same Republican Senators who now cry, ‘‘Obstruction, obstruction.’’ They used a different means, the means at their 

disposal—not bringing them up. But the effect is the same. 

Even so, even when all that happened, President Clinton consulted with the Senate about potential nominees. As documented 

by then-Chairman Hatch himself, President Clinton proposed various names and, rather than select the most radical or extreme 

judges, chose mainstream or moderate liberals for the court. These 

people did not have the same views as Senator Hatch, but they 

were acceptable to him. We do not expect that the nominees the 

President makes will have the same views as Senators Feingold or 

Feinstein or Leahy or myself. But we expect some degree of moderation. 

This country is a divided country right now. There is no question 

about it. But we can come together, and there is no better forum 

than this. 

President Clinton worked with the Senate, not against it. It is 

not too late for President Bush to do the same. We are ready. We 

hope he is. 

Now let me turn to the nominee before us, William Myers, who 

has been nominated to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Myers, 

7

your nomination was defeated in the Senate last year because of 

deep-seated concerns about your documented hostility towards environmental laws and because of doubts about your ability to be a 

neutral arbiter on environmental issues and other matters. And as 

far as I can tell, little has changed. 

To the extent anything is different, it is that new questions have 

been raised in an Inspector General’s report about activities undertaken by your Department under your watch, which allowed a 

sweetheart deal for a rancher with political connections. I will not 

belabor that here, as I expect you will get some questions about it, 

about your role in the negotiations of the deal, what measures were 

taken to ensure—even if you weren’t involved, did you take measures to ensure that political dealmaking would not be repeated. 

But, if anything, your nomination should be in more trouble now 

than it was last time, at least on the record. 

And in reviewing the record in preparation for this hearing, I am 

struck once again, as I was last year, by your extremism on environmental and land issues. This is of particular concern, of course, 

because of the importance of the Ninth Circuit on these issues. The 

circuit encompasses nine States. These States contain hundreds of 

millions of acres of public land, Indian reservations, and many of 

the most spectacular lands in America in our great West. Given 

that judges in the Ninth Circuit have extraordinary power to shape 

the laws on critical environmental land use issues, we should be 

careful. That is why your record concerns me so. 

It seems as if before, during, and after your time as Interior Department Solicitor, you bent over backwards to be solicitous of 

every ranching and grazing interest you came across, never mind 

the effect on the environment. As I said, your record screams passionate activist. It does not so much as whisper impartial judge. 

You have spent the majority of your legal career promoting the 

interests of grazing and mining companies as a lobbyist and advocate. That alone does not bother me, and I experienced my own little epiphany. My family and I go hiking out West every summer, 

and about 10 years ago, we were driving in northeastern Arizona 

to Monument Valley. It was a flat road. It was early in the morning. I looked at my speedometer. We were going 95. It did not seem 

it. I said, ‘‘Ooh, we better go at 55.’’ That was then the law. And 

I said, ‘‘It is crazy to make people drive at 55 on this highway,’’ and 

I sort of got a glimpse of the anger of some people in the West that 

Washington would tell them what to do. But that does not mean 

that all our environmental laws should be thrown out the window. 

And that seems to be what you have advocated and said. 

You have, for example, advocated a radical expansion of the 

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In an amicus brief you 

filed with the Supreme Court of the United States you argued that 

habitat protection laws are unconstitutional in every instance, no 

matter how minor the impact on property rights. In so advocating, 

you wrote, ‘‘The constitutional right of a rancher to put his property to beneficial uses is as fundamental as high right of freedom 

of speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.’’ 

As you know, that is not mainstream. That is far away from our 

judicial interpretations and legislative interpretations for 50 years. 

8

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Schumer, how much longer do you 

intend to take? 

Senator SCHUMER. About 3 or 4 more minutes. 

That would be a radical expansion of the Takings Clause that no 

court has ever accepted. 

I appreciate that reasonable people may have differences of opinion on matters of law and public policy. You, however, have heaped 

such scorn on environmentalists of all stripes that I think it has 

to call into question your impartiality on such matters. 

I want to remind the Committee of some of your written statements. It was you who compared the Federal Government’s management of public lands to ‘‘the tyrannical actions of King George 

over American colonies.’’ You called the Desert Protection Act, authored by my colleague from California, an example of ‘‘legislative 

hubris.’’ You said that environmental legislation ‘‘harms the very 

environment it purports to protect.’’ You have called environmental 

laws ‘‘outright top-down coercion.’’ You have criticized ‘‘the fallacious belief that centralized government can promote 

environmentalism.’’ 

You have said that the biggest disaster now facing ranchers is 

a flood of regulations designed to turn the West into little more 

than a theme park. You have said derisively that environmentalists are mountain-biking to the courthouse as never before, bent on 

stopping human activity wherever it may promote health, safety, 

and welfare. You have accused members of certain groups of having an agenda that has ‘‘more to do with selling memberships and 

magazines than protecting the environment.’’ 

These are not isolated comments. They are not mainstream comments. They are not judicious comments. They are part of a disturbing pattern. Based on these comments, I have questions about 

whether you have the appropriate judicial temperament and impartiality to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit, which is so important to 

the adjudication of environmental matters. The bottom line is that 

there has been nothing to soothe our fears about the kind of judge 

you would make. 

Now, one other point before I close. We have talked and Senator 

Specter has talked a little bit about balance on the courts. I believe 

there should be balance on the courts, the Supreme Court and the 

circuits. I have said before that a Supreme Court with one Scalia 

and one Brennan would not be a bad Court, although we should 

not have five of each. It is suggested that because the Ninth Circuit 

is viewed by some as more liberal than the other circuit courts, we 

should support every conservative nominee to that circuit. Of 

course, recognizing the value of balance on the circuit does not 

mean we should support any extreme ideological nominee whose 

views are off the deep end. And in any event, we have already 

moved some measure towards balance in the Ninth Circuit. President Bush has nominated and we have confirmed four conservative 

judges to the circuit. Perhaps it is time for a moderate nominee in 

the interest of balance. 

And my colleagues across the aisle tend to talk about balance 

when it suits their purposes. Where is the more liberal or even 

moderate nominee to the highly conservative and unbalanced 

Fourth and Fifth Circuits? If we want to do balance, let’s do it 

9

hand in hand, not just more conservatives on the one more liberal 

court, but some liberals on the two or three very unbalanced, more 

conservative courts as well. So balance is a two-way street, not just 

used for one purpose. 

Mr. Myers, I look forward to your shedding new light on some 

of the concerns my colleagues and I have expressed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

Our custom, as is well known on the Committee, is to hear from 

just the Ranking Member. I had thought that Senator Leahy was 

going to defer to Senator Schumer to serve as ranking, and in a 

moment, I am going to call on Senator Leahy to speak as the Ranking Member of the Committee. And the practice has been followed 

not to time the statement of the Ranking. But if, as, and when Senator— 

Senator SCHUMER. Admirably so, I would say. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, I can understand why you say so, having gone on for about 20 minutes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Exactly. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. But if, as, and when Senator Schumer becomes Ranking Member of this Committee, there is going to be a 

rule change. There is going to be a rule change as to how long the 

Ranking Member can speak. 

Senator SCHUMER. As long as it goes for the Chairman as well, 

that is fine with me. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, I observe the 5-minute rule meticulously. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, since you have become Chairman, you 

have become far more judicious in your remarks. 

Chairman SPECTER. Before I became Chairman, I observed the 4-

minute rule. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. Over and over again. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SPECTER. I am sure this group and C-SPAN do not 

want to see any more jousting. 

On to the merits, Senator Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. I love listening to the guys from the big States. 

Chairman Specter has been very, very fair. I have been four or 

five times Chairman of committees, four or five times ranking on 

committees. I have noticed most Chairmen and ranking try to help 

each other out, try to make it short. 

I was going to note that last week Chairman Specter held a news 

conference, and he demonstrated his determination, his statesmanship, his ambitious agenda for the Committee in the months ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see you back in such good form and 

such good humor. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. And as I have told you privately, and I will say 

publicly, I want to do everything possible on this side of the aisle 

to help move things along to help you. We have a lot of things. We 

10

have privacy and identify theft issues, asbestos legislation where 

the Chairman has probably spent more time personally on that 

than I have seen any Senator spend on any single issue since I 

have been here. He has talked about the conflict between the 

White House and the Senate over controversial judicial nominees, 

as he has again this morning. I am hoping that in our meeting 

with the President this afternoon this may come up. 

I know when the President met with President Putin of Russia 

last week, President Bush emphasized our separation of powers, 

our checks and balances, our openness in Government. I agree with 

him on that. We have to preserve this. We have to preserve the 

independence of our courts. I totally agree with President Bush on 

that, as I said when I applauded at his Inaugural address. 

But I welcome the improved tone that the Chairman has brought 

to this last topic. I think it is a very good thing. I think we should 

try to work together as we try to figure out the best way to handle 

lifetime appointments of Federal judges. As one of the new Senators, Senator Isakson, explained just a few weeks ago in remarks 

on the Senate floor, preserving minority rights is extremely important. In fact, overseas he praised our filibuster as a way of maintaining minority rights. 

Now, we Democrats have tried to cooperate with the President 

since he began his first term. We have cooperated to a remarkable 

degree in confirming 204 of the President’s judicial nominees to the 

Federal circuit and district courts. That is far more than were confirmed in his father’s term, more than either of Ronald Reagan’s 

terms, more than President Clinton’s second term. There is no 

longer a vacancy crisis. We deserve some credit. 

When I became Chairman, albeit for 17 months—and in some 

ways it felt like the longest 17 months of my life because, among 

other things, we had the 9/11 attacks during that time, a deadly 

attack on my office and Senator Daschle’s through anthrax, deadly 

enough that an envelope addressed to me was touched by two or 

three people—touched by two or three people and they died. It does 

get your attention. 

But notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding that there had 

been a pocket filibuster of President Clinton’s judges, 61 of President Clinton’s judges had a pocket filibuster because of one or two 

Republicans opposed to them, they were just never allowed to have 

a vote. Sixty-one. I wanted to change that. In 17 months, I move 

through, with the help of the Democrats and Republicans on this 

Committee, 100 of President Bush’s nominees in 17 months. To put 

this in perspective, another 103 were put through under Republican control in 31 months. So it is kind of hard to say anybody is 

dragging their feet. Actually, as I pointed out to President Bush before, the Democrats moved his judges a lot faster than the Republicans did. 

But we have to work together on this. I do not think the President should continue to insist on a handful of extreme activist 

nominees to key positions in some circuit courts. When he sends 

these nominations back to the Senate, he is choosing partisan politics over good policy. 

I worry about the nominee before us today—William Myers. He 

has already been examined. The Senate withheld its consent to his 

11

lifetime appointment. He was rejected for his partisanship. Instead 

of trying to change the vote on this, we ought to be looking for a 

new consensus nominee. There are plenty of Republicans who 

would get votes of every single Republican and every single Democratic Senator. 

I believe Mr. Myers to be perhaps the most anti-environmental 

judicial nominee sent to the Senate in my 30 years here. And I 

think this shows how the appointment process has been misused. 

Senator Schumer spoke about ‘‘the tyrannical actions of King 

George.’’ 

I come from the part of the country that fought a revolution 

against King George. We have that in our bones and in our soul. 

My State was involved in some of the critical battles in that Revolution, and we do not think of our Government, whether headed by 

Democrats or Republicans, as being akin to King George. I think 

of our Government as the most representative, democratic Nation 

on Earth. 

Now, we have had more questions that have come up. I have 

questions about Mr. Myers’ relationship with and role in rewarding 

a lawyer who worked for him who was recently found by the Department of Interior’s Inspector General, by President Bush’s Inspector General, to have been responsible for arranging a sweetheart deal to a politically well-connected rancher. It was not found 

that way by a Democrat. It was found that way by President 

Bush’s own Inspector General. 

For 23 years, Mr. Myers has been an outspoken antagonist of 

long-established environmental protections, usually wearing the 

hat of a paid lobbyist. He has a right to do that. He also has an 

absolute right to speak out and say anything he wants. But we also 

have a right to look at what positions he has taken when we think 

of him going on a court in an area of the country which contains 

hundreds of millions of acres of national parks, national forests, 

and other public lands, tribal lands, and sacred sites. 

We have a Federal judiciary today which in many instances has 

prevented this administration’s attempts to roll back important environmental laws and protections put in by both Republican and 

Democratic administrations. We have to make sure we don’t put 

judges on the bench whose activism and personal ideology would 

circumvent environmental protections that Congress has put in. 

I look at 172 environmental, Native American, labor, civil rights, 

disability rights, and other organizations formally opposing this 

nomination. The National Congress of American Indians, a coalition of more than 250 tribal governments, unanimously approved 

a resolution opposing this nomination. The National Wildlife Federation, which has never opposed a judicial nomination by any 

President in its 68-year history—never has—opposed this one. 

Now, I have great regard for the Senators from Idaho, both of 

them. I have huge affection for the former Senator from Wyoming, 

who is a close personal friend. In deference to them, I examined 

and re-examined Mr. Myers’ record. I asked myself whether I could 

support this nomination. But I did not come back with a positive 

answer. 

12

Mr. Chairman, you have been more than kind letting these statements come out. As I said, we will try to work hard with you to 

move things along, and I will stop. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. 

Mr. Myers, we would be pleased to hear from you on the traditional opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. MYERS III, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

Mr. MYERS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I do not have an 

opening statement. I want to thank the President for nominating 

me, and I want to thank this Committee and you, Mr. Chairman, 

for hosting this hearing. 

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

[The biographical information follows.]

13


21544.001
14


21544.002
15


21544.003
16


21544.004
17


21544.005
18


21544.006
19


21544.007
20


21544.008
21


21544.009
22


21544.010
23


21544.011
24


21544.012
25


21544.013
26


21544.014
27


21544.015
28


21544.016
29


21544.017
30


21544.018
31


21544.019
32


21544.020
33


21544.021
34


21544.022
35


21544.023
36


21544.024
37

Chairman SPECTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Myers. 

We are going to proceed with 5-minute rounds, and there will be 

multiple rounds. I had initially thought about 7-minute rounds, but 

we consumed so much time at this point that we are going to go 

to 5-minute rounds with, as I say, multiple rounds. 

Mr. Myers, you have heard already this morning a long litany of 

charges, really, practically indictments as to what you have done. 

It is not uncommon for nominees to appear before this Committee 

and have this Committee appropriately go into great detail on their 

records and also on the floor of the United States Senate. And then 

the traditional pattern has been, when confirmed and when sworn 

in, that the individual reads the law, follows the law, especially in 

a position not on the Supreme Court but on the court of appeals 

or the district court, and that the judicial record is significantly different because of the change in position as to where the individual 

stands, the difference in roles which he has as a jurist. 

My question to you is: What assurances can you give to your critics as well as to the American public at large, which does not know 

the details of your record, that you will be fair minded, that you 

will observe the law, that you will do your utmost to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, the statutes enacted by Congress, 

and the precedents in the judicial process, and that you will follow 

the law as contrasted with any personal views you may have—not 

that I give credence to what has been said, but that you will observe the law? 

Mr. MYERS. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

the fundamental question that this Committee needs to address. 

Really, you have done an excellent job of stating my view, which 

is it is the paramount responsibility of a judge to dispassionately 

review the law and the facts of the case before him or her without 

regard to political persuasion or public opinion. This is not a recent 

thought of mine. The first time I expressed this in writing was in 

1990 in an article I wrote where I said essentially that. 

It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that to do anything other than that 

would be complete dereliction of duty. I have been a lawyer in my 

private practice, of course. That’s what I was trained to be. That’s 

what I have been. I have not been on a bench. I have not served 

as a judge. And so I’ve been an advocate for clients. If I were to 

be confirmed, I would be an advocate for the law, and I would take 

that with the utmost seriousness to try, to the best of my ability, 

to discern the law and the facts, apply them fairly, consider with 

utmost respect the precedent of the Supreme Court and the Ninth 

Circuit, to consider the precedent of other circuits where Ninth Circuit was absent, to look into the legislative history of a matter if 

necessary, and discern what Congress intended in the passage of 

a law, and to render a decision with my colleagues on the panel. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Myers, a good bit of criticism was leveled in your earlier hearing for your advocacy when you undertook 

in the private practice of law the representation of individual interests, and very successfully in many cases. And I think it is important to put on the record and to draw the distinction between the 

role of an advocate, a lawyer who represents a client in private litigation, with a judicial official or a quasi-judicial official. And perhaps I should not, but one of the best illustrations of that that I 

38

know from my own personal background was my representation between being district attorney and coming to the Senate of a man 

named Ira Einhorn, whom I do not have to describe because he is 

pretty well known. 

I was asked to represent him at a bail hearing, and thinking that 

everybody had a right to counsel, I undertook the representation to 

that extent. And had I been district attorney, I would have opposed 

bail. But when the district attorney did not and the question was 

how much, I brought in the character witnesses, et cetera. 

But that is a firm distinction, and I would like your distinction 

between advocacy and the judicial function. Let the record note 

that I stopped in mid-sentence at 5 minutes, Senator Schumer. 

You are not limited, Mr. Myers, in your reply time. You have 

Senator Schumer’s status for this limited period. 

Mr. MYERS. As an attorney, I am bound, of course, by the Rules 

of Professional of the bars to which I belong. I will use the Idaho 

rules as the example for my answer to your question. 

Under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, as an attorney, 

as an advocate for individuals and companies, businesses, I am required to zealously represent those clients, to advance every legitimate, good-faith argument that I can that is in their best interest. 

And that is the very essence of advocacy. 

That is, of course, not the role of a judge. That is contrary to a 

judge’s role, who listens to the advocates, both for and against, and 

then tries to ferret out the realities of the law and the facts. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Myers. 

As noted, my time has expired, and now I turn to Senator Schumer, who has a time limit. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is this, and this is the dilemma that we are in. You 

do not have judicial writings, and so for those of us who want to 

scrutinize your record, the public statements, which are extremely 

disparaging of various environmental laws, are all we have. 

Now, it seems to me—or let me ask you this question: Aren’t 

these pronouncements deliberately made over the course of an entire career, not one or two or three but over and over again that 

do not just defend a position but really go out of their way to mock 

people on the other side, aren’t they a better gauge of your beliefs 

about such laws, their wisdom, their applicability than statements 

about your fealty to the law at the last minute when you are appearing before a Committee who obviously you want to get the support of? 

So let me ask you a few questions in regard to that, and you can 

also answer, as you answer these questions, why we should believe 

your statements right here at the Committee rather than a career 

of statements that quite conflict with them, at least by any fair 

reading of what mainstream law is on these issues. 

First, do you think that the Clean Air Act harms the environment or that the Clean Water Act harms the environment? You 

have said that environmental legislation harms the very environment it purports to protect. Can you name the environmental laws 

you had in mind when you said that? 

Mr. MYERS. Senator, I do not think that the Clean Air Act or the 

Clean Water Act harm the environment. 

39

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. So when you said that environmental 

legislation harms the very environment it purports to protect, what 

were the laws that you had in mind? 

Mr. MYERS. At the time that I made that comment, I believe I 

was advocating on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Association, 

for whom I worked. I was employed by them. And I was talking 

about at the time legislation that was pending in Congress to variously regulate the use of about 270 million acres of Federal land 

by ranchers in the West. It was a theme that I carried forward during the time that I was employed by that organization, and the essential idea was that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating Federal lands issues was difficult at best because it is 270 million 

acres and every acre has its own distinct character. 

And so an attempt to try to regulate all that landscape through 

a legislative approach often was unwieldy and sometimes had a 

consequence of harming good actors who were providing good stewardship. 

Senator SCHUMER. So, in other words, you do not believe that 

legislation harms the very environment it purports to—environmental legislation harms the very environment it purports to protect? Obviously legislation is not written acre by acre. 

Mr. MYERS. Right. 

Senator SCHUMER. You made a much broader statement than 

that. What you said here is not what you said there. 

Mr. MYERS. I was making a generalized point there in a generalized writing, and not a legal writing, that a one-size-fits-all approach often does not work on the Federal landscape. 

Senator SCHUMER. You are not really answering my question directly unless you just said it—you are saying you said it rhetorically, you do not really believe what you put in that brief? 

Mr. MYERS. I believe that— 

Senator SCHUMER. You said environmental legislation. You did 

not say application. You did not say apply it differently in different 

places. 

Here is another one you said: ‘‘the fallacious belief that centralized government can promote environmentalism.’’ Is that your belief? 

Mr. MYERS. That’s the same— 

Senator SCHUMER. Is it a fallacious belief that centralized government—is the belief that centralized government, which passed 

the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, for instance, can promote 

environmentalism fallacious? 

Mr. MYERS. It’s my belief that centralized government can do a 

great deal of good for the environment, and the example is the two 

that you mentioned—the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act—

for reasons that we discussed in the previous hearing about, for instance, air and the ability of smog to travel interstate. 

Senator SCHUMER. So what did you mean when you said this 

statement? 

Mr. MYERS. I was again on that same theme, which is sometimes 

a one-size-fits-all approach does not work well in legislative enactments. 

Senator SCHUMER. In all due respect, sir, what you are saying 

now is not addressing what you said there and what you really 

40

meant. You did not say one size fits all. It is a broad, sweeping 

statement that centralized government can’t promote 

environmentalism. 

Mr. MYERS. Senator, I don’t have the article with me, but I think 

the context was that we need to work as a government with the 

people who are on the ground to promote environmentalism, that 

environmentalism and environmental stewardship is good citizenship and good business. And those were quotes that I also think 

may be in that article. 

Senator SCHUMER. Here is another one— 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Schumer, we will have a second 

round. Your time has expired. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. From what I have seen about your tenure here 

in Government, you have been one of the better people who has 

worked here, one of the more knowledgeable people, but you have 

represented clients in the West, right? 

Mr. MYERS. That’s correct. 

Senator HATCH. And the West does have differing viewpoints in 

many instances from those who live in the East because of the 

huge ownership of Federal lands and a whole raft of other issues 

that really are peculiar to the West. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. MYERS. That is true. 

Senator HATCH. And as an attorney, you have had to represent 

your clients to the best of your ability, and that sometimes means 

arguing against even laws that currently exist that may be injurious in the eyes of your clients to the West. Is that correct? 

Mr. MYERS. I had a duty to try to promote and push every legitimate, good-faith argument that I could on behalf of those clients. 

Senator HATCH. That is right. Let me talk briefly about a Solicitor opinion you issued in October 2002 regarding the Bureau of 

Land Management’s grazing permits on Federal lands. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but what your opinion concluded was that 

BLM does have the authority to retire permits at the request of a 

permittee, but only after compliance with statutory requirements 

and a BLM determination that the public lands associated with the 

permit should be used for purposes other than grazing. And BLM’s 

decision to retire grazing permits is subject to reconsideration, 

modification, or reversal. 

Now, what prompted you to issue this opinion? 

Mr. MYERS. The Federal Land Policy Management Act. That 

statute puts forward a structure in which land use plans are created by the Department of the Interior, and specifically the Bureau 

of Land Management in this case, for the management of the Federal landscape. It is my opinion that if a permittee wanted to temporarily retire a permit, they could do so, but it had to be in compliance with the land use plan promulgated pursuant to the statute. 

Senator HATCH. As you know, some found this opinion controversial. Some saw it as a shot across the bow against environmental 

activist groups to try to buy up grazing permits and then seek to 

retire them permanently in order to shut ranchers off from those 

permitted areas. But at least in the case of a dispute over a portion 

of Utah’s Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, a spokesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:53 Jun 10, 2005 Jkt 021544 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\21544.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
41

man for the environmental group that sought to buy and retire 

grazing permits had this reaction to your opinion. He said, ‘‘What 

the Solicitor’s memo sets up is an acknowledgment of what we 

have already known. Once an area is closed to grazing, someone 

could still come along later and say we want to graze here, and the 

BLM could reopen the area to grazing. What people consider new 

about the memo is that plan amendments are not permanent, but 

that was not new to us.’’ 

Now, would you agree with this assessment of your opinion? 

Mr. MYERS. I would, Senator. I think that the writer of that letter was basically confirming my view as I stated to your earlier. 

Senator HATCH. And he was an environmental leader in the 

Intermountain West. 

Mr. MYERS. That’s correct. 

Senator HATCH. In fact, a portion of the 1999 Tenth Circuit in 

Public Lands Council v. Babbitt that the U.S. Supreme Court did 

not review found that there is a presumption of grazing use within 

grazing districts, and that BLM could not unilaterally reverse this 

presumption. Now, that finding supports your opinion, doesn’t it? 

Mr. MYERS. It does, and I cited that opinion in my— 

Senator HATCH. Well, then, you should not be criticized for something that is accurate, and admittedly accurate by the so-called environmentalists. Right? 

Mr. MYERS. That is correct. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. Now, let me also note that your opinion 

supersedes a prior memorandum issued by former Secretary 

Babbitt’s Solicitor on January 19, 2001, during the final hours of 

the Clinton administration. Now, had that memorandum failed to 

consider a critical factor in any analysis of grazing permits under 

the Federal Taylor Grazing Act, namely, that the Secretary of the 

Interior has deemed lands within existing grazing districts ‘‘chiefly 

valuable for grazing and the raising of forage crops.’’ 

Mr. MYERS. You’re referring to a memorandum and an opinion 

that was written by my predecessor, Solicitor Leshy. 

Senator HATCH. Right. 

Mr. MYERS. I read that and essentially agreed with his analysis. 

What I did was take it a step or two farther to address particular 

issues that were coming up in the context of the Grand Staircase. 

Senator HATCH. And good legal consideration allowed you to do 

that, in your opinion, right? 

Mr. MYERS. That’s correct, yes. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. Now, Mr. Myers, you and many others 

have criticized the Endangered Species Act for its basic failure: the 

very small percentage of species that actually have been recovered 

during the law’s 30 years, and for functioning in practice as tool 

for land use control by Federal agencies and environmental activists. Clearly, many of your private clients were and are adversely 

impacted by the ESA, which is why you have spoken out against 

its abuse, as any advocate would argue, and would. But when you 

became Solicitor General of the Department, you had to and did defend the ESA. Is that right? 

Mr. MYERS. That’s right. And, Senator, I want to make one clarification, if I might. I don’t think I’ve ever been critical of the EnVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:53 Jun 10, 2005 Jkt 021544 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\21544.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
42

dangered Species Act. The reference you make is criticism to misuse of the Act. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. Could I ask one further question, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Chairman SPECTER. Certainly. 

Senator HATCH. Moving to just a more concrete example of an 

abuse of the ESA that you successfully fought, can you tell us 

about the 1998 Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association case in which 

the Federal district court judge noted that he did not believe that 

Congress intended ‘‘to have good people who were trying to make 

a decent living for themselves and their families in a hard business 

put out of business based on mere speculation’’ that an endangered 

species might be harmed? 

Mr. MYERS. That was a decision of the Ninth Circuit on review 

of the district court’s opinion. 

Senator HATCH. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in 

2001, right? 

Mr. MYERS. That’s right, and I agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision. 

Senator HATCH. It was a 3-0 panel decision. 

Mr. MYERS. Correct. Basically what the Ninth Circuit held was 

that land use managers in the Federal Government should not use 

the Endangered Species Act and that provision within the Act regarding takings and issuing of permits where there are no endangered species. 

Senator HATCH. And the panel was composed of two judges appointed by President Clinton and one judge appointed by President 

Reagan. And one of the judges appointed by President Clinton 

wrote the following, ‘‘The Fish and Wildlife Service acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by issuing incidental statements imposing terms and conditions on land use permits where there either 

was no evidence that the endangered species existed on the land 

or no evidence that a take would occur if the permit were issued. 

We also find that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to issues terms and conditions so vague as to preclude compliance therewith.’’ 

So basically abuses of the ESA by Federal agencies are not just 

figments of the fevered imaginations of property rights zealots as 

many leftist environmental groups would have us believe. Was it 

abuses of this kind—and I am sure you can cite others—that led 

to your reported statement at the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association 

meeting in 2002 to the effect that the ESA ought not to be used 

by Federal agencies as a land management or zoning tool? 

Mr. MYERS. That’s right. I was referring to the Ninth Circuit decision that we’ve been talking about when I made that comment. 

Senator HATCH. You would be heck of a poor intermountain lawyer if you did not make that argument. Would you agree with me? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, I felt like I was on pretty good ground since 

the Ninth Circuit had decided it. 

Senator HATCH. I think you are on good grounds, and some of the 

criticisms that are used against you have not acknowledged the 

fact that you are one of the experts in these areas and, frankly, a 

very honest, decent, competent man. And I just wanted to bring 

some of these things out. I wish I had a little more time. 

43

Mr. MYERS. I appreciate it. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Hatch, a little extra deference on 

time as an ex-Chairman and somebody who did not get to make an 

opening statement. And Senator Hatch knows an intermountain 

lawyer when he comes up against one. 

Senator HATCH. I do, and this is a very good intermountain lawyer, but really a good lawyer for our country as a whole, even 

though he undoubtedly has differed with some of our folks on this 

Committee from time to time. But, gee, that is not unusual either. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Leahy? 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let’s go into this Inspector General report. We have talked about 

it. The press has certainly carried a lot about it. The Inspector 

General of the Department of the Interior issued a report on the 

results of its investigation into a settlement reached between BLM 

and Harvey Frank Robbins, a rancher in Wyoming. 

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, before I go on, I have got—Senator 

Hatch spoke of people who may oppose or not oppose. I would want 

to put into the record the letters and editorials in opposition. 

Chairman SPECTER. Without objection, they will be made a part 

of the record. 

Senator LEAHY. But I know the press reports say you have been 

absolved of blame in the Robbins settlement. I still have a couple 

of questions about the role of political influence in this case, especially your role in the hiring and the supervising of Robert Comer. 

He is the lawyer whom the investigation, as you know, squarely 

blamed for this mess. He is responsible for what apparently the Inspector General and just about everybody else regards as a sweetheart deal made for Mr. Robbins. Mr. Comer was at that time a 

political appointee in your office working as just one of a few Associate Solicitors. 

What was your role in recruiting and getting approval for Mr. 

Comer’s hiring at the beginning of the administration? 

Mr. MYERS. It was the same process, Senator, that was used for 

political hires in my office. I had a handful out of the 300— 

Senator LEAHY. I am asking about him specifically. 

Mr. MYERS. Right. I understand. I would look for candidates who 

would fill various Associate Solicitor positions, and the one that he 

filled was Associate Solicitor for Land and Water. 

Senator LEAHY. Why did you pick him? 

Mr. MYERS. Based on my understanding of his work in the past, 

his resume, he came with good references. 

Senator LEAHY. How did he first come to your attention? 

Mr. MYERS. I had known Mr. Comer prior to becoming Solicitor 

because he worked in Federal land issues, as had I. That’s a fairly 

small bar, so to speak. I don’t recall precisely how he came to my 

attention. Often these people would put their resumes into the 

White House for positions. The White House then sends them out 

to the various agencies for review. I don’t recall if that’s how I got 

his resume or not. 

Senator LEAHY. The reason I ask you, at your first hearing you 

testified you specifically authorized a subordinate to negotiate the 

Robbins settlement. Was that subordinate Mr. Comer? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, it was. 

44

Senator LEAHY. Did you ask him to work on this matter, or did 

he ask you to— 

Mr. MYERS. No, he came to me. The BLM, the client agency, 

came to him and said, ‘‘Would you help us settle this matter?’’ Mr. 

Comer came to me and said, ‘‘The client wants me to help settle 

this matter, and I’d like to work on it.’’ He didn’t need to ask my 

approval. He already had that authority under the Solicitor’s manual that was in place. 

Senator LEAHY. But you said you specifically authorized a subordinate to negotiate— 

Mr. MYERS. I said it was okay because it was okay for him to 

try to settle an administrative case. 

Senator LEAHY. When I read the IG report, it makes a pretty 

mysterious reference to some friends of Mr. Robbins and his father, 

one of whom the IG refers to as a political consultant who had 

known Mr. Robbins since their childhood. 

Now, one of these friends seems to have been the one to arrange 

a meeting Robbins had in Washington with the chief of staff of the 

BLM and some Congressional staff to discuss the problems he was 

having with the Wyoming BLM. These friends attended the meeting. Mr. Comer was there, too. Did you know about these friends 

of Mr. Robbins and their role in helping Robbins out with these 

components of the Department of Interior? 

Mr. MYERS. No, Senator. The first time I learned about that was 

when I read the redacted report of the Inspector General. 

Senator LEAHY. Do you know who they are now? 

Mr. MYERS. I have no idea who they are. 

Senator LEAHY. Did anyone either outside or inside the Department of Interior, including Mr. Comer, ever speak to you or let you 

know in any way that Mr. Robbins’ problems with BLM in Wyoming should be taken care of because of his political considerations? 

Mr. MYERS. No, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. What about once you learned of the problems 

with the Robbins settlement? You said you were aware of the problems about 6 months after the settlement was signed. We know the 

IG investigation was already going by June of 2003. So I assume 

that means you were aware in the late spring of that year at the 

time you started asking questions about the settlement and its unfair terms, the Wyoming U.S. Attorney’s objections to it. 

So with all that, what kind of disciplinary action did you take 

against Mr. Comer? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, let me first say that I was very concerned by 

what I read in the IG’s report. It disturbed me greatly. 

When I saw the reports that there was potentially something 

amiss—and obviously there was—I asked a senior attorney in my 

employ to work with the Assistant Secretary, who was also concerned about it. She had assigned someone to look into this on her 

behalf. I asked a senior attorney not involved at all in the discussions or the negotiations to assist her to see if we could figure out 

what was going on. 

Senator LEAHY. Did you help Mr. Comer, to use the expression, 

burrow into a career position in the Solicitor’s Office. You know, he 

had been a political appointee. At some point somebody agrees to 

45

take him out of that and put him into a career safer position. Did 

you have anything to do with that? 

Mr. MYERS. I made sure that that process followed the civil employees statutes. 

Senator LEAHY. What does that mean? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, he had to compete for that position. He had to 

compete against other candidates who also wanted the same opening. 

Senator LEAHY. Who made the final decision? Were you involved 

in the final decision? 

Mr. MYERS. I was. Yes, I was. I’m trying to remember how this 

works. A panel was put together to review the candidates. They 

picked out the top three or so. I think they made a recommendation to me as to who they thought would be best. I signed off on 

the recommendation. Then it goes through the Office of Personnel 

Management and through the departmental Office of Personnel 

Management, and then— 

Senator LEAHY. Who picks one out of those top three? Did you? 

Mr. MYERS. I’m trying to recall how that—really, how that 

works. I think that the ultimate decision—my review of it is near 

the end of the pipe. And then there’s an executive official within 

the Department who actually signs off on it after getting OPM 

clearance. 

Senator LEAHY. I want to go back to that, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Coburn? 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you. 

Sorry I missed the opening statements. 

Just a couple of questions. One of the things that I have noted 

is there is a lot of criticism of your words, but very little criticism 

of your actions. And at your time while you were Solicitor for the 

Department of Interior, was there ever a time at which environmental groups praised your work in terms of your carrying out of 

your duties and responsibilities to where it benefited the environment and the environmental groups? 

Mr. MYERS. Often what I did, Senator, was fairly behind the 

scenes, so I did not appear in the marquee credits, but the actions 

that I took advanced environmental causes and issues that were 

praised. I think, for instance, of a settlement that we worked out 

on the Lower Penobscot River in Maine that was roundly applauded by the environmental community. I think of actions I took 

in Dinali National Park in Alaska to prevent gold-mining activities 

within the boundaries of the park on patented mining claims; preventing trespass in Wrangell-St. Elias by an inn holder who had 

access to a bulldozer; by prosecuting through the Department of 

Justice trespass actions of ranchers in California and in Nevada; 

by seeking a record-breaking monetary penalty against an oil company that was illegally flaring gas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

That is a rough run around the country. 

Senator COBURN. The question has been made of frivolous lawsuits. It may not be a question you necessarily want to answer, but 

I think it is important to recognize that there are frivolous lawsuits 

in environmental areas that were never intended by the Congress 

46

to use as a method to delay an action in some way that has nothing 

to do with the environmental action or the lawsuit at the time. 

Did you see that frequently, one? And, number two, are there 

things that should be changed in terms of, for example, ESA and 

the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act that would make them 

more pro-environment but at the same time release the freedom of 

time in which we can accomplish things that are better for the environment and better for the country as a whole? 

Mr. MYERS. Generally with regard to litigation reform, those 

issues do not go to the substantive statutes themselves. They go 

more to management of court dockets, to filings, trying to reduce 

both the time and expense that litigants face when they want access to the courts. Obviously, every litigant deserves that access. 

But some are barred simply because they have neither the time nor 

the money to pursue it, and that is a factor which I think is widely 

recognized and was recognized by the Congress in the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 and at other times. 

As to the specific substance of statutes, my only comment there 

would be a generic one, which is, of course, Congress always needs 

to look at how statutes which, when they are passed, have marvelous and laudatory goals, how those statutes are being implemented by the agencies, whether the agencies are getting it right 

in compliance with Congressional mandate, and whether some 

amendments are useful. 

Senator COBURN. One final question if you could. Can you tell me 

why you would like to have this position? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, Senator, I can. For an attorney who works in 

the judicial branch of the three branches of our Government, this 

would be the penultimate opportunity for public service. I have always enjoyed public service. I think that’s probably clear from my 

record. I’ve been in three Cabinet-level agencies, and I’ve worked 

as a staffer for this body. So it is something that appeals to me. 

It’s an opportunity to give back and an opportunity that would be 

tremendously humbling to me if I were so fortunate as to be confirmed. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Coburn. 

Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome 

back, and welcome back, Mr. Myers. 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to just say one thing 

about the Ninth Circuit, just for the record. There are 28 judges. 

Four appointments have already been made by the President serving. That is 14 percent of the circuit. There are another four openings. When the President fills them, that will be 30 percent of the 

circuit filled. So, you know, I think many of us are concerned that 

the circuit remain a mainstream circuit. And I think the concern 

over Mr. Myers is really the environmental record, not only as an 

advocate but as the Solicitor for the Department of Interior. And 

so I would like to ask this question of Mr. Myers. It is along the 

line of what Senator Leahy has asked you, and that is the InspecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:53 Jun 10, 2005 Jkt 021544 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\21544.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
47

tor General’s recent report on your office and the settlement of the 

Robbins case. 

I think the report called your deputy’s work ‘‘disconcerting.’’ The 

report goes on to say that Mr. Comer entered the Federal Government into a settlement that was essentially not supported by law. 

And Mr. Comer told the Inspector General in its 2003 investigation 

of you that he had briefed you on the settlement. And you testified 

at your hearing last year to Senator Durbin that you were not 

aware of the terms of the settlement in Wyoming. 

Have you read the settlement now? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, I have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And what do you think of it? Is it a settlement that you think your office should have entered into? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, I think there are problems with that settlement. There’s one good provision in it, and that was that provision 

which said that if the rancher violated any terms of the agreement, 

it could be withdrawn. And it was. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is it a settlement that you think your office 

should have entered into? 

Mr. MYERS. No, Senator, not the way it was done. I think from 

my reading of the IG’s report, there were serious concerns raised 

by the U.S. Attorney’s Office that apparently were not adequately 

considered in that settlement. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. 

In 1988, in discussing judicial activism, you wrote the following 

quotation in the Denver University Law Review on page 22: 

‘‘Interpretism does not require a timid approach to judging or protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights. Interpretism is not synonymous with judicial restraint and may require judicial activism 

if mandated by the Constitution.’’ That is a direct quote. 

Does that mean you will be an activist judge? 

Mr. MYERS. No, it doesn’t. What I was trying to convey in that 

quote was that a judge should not have a crabbed interpretation 

of a statute that he or she may be reviewing in a particular case, 

that the judge should give it a full and fair and reasonable meaning, and that that’s the right approach. And, therefore, if a judge 

is presented with a particularly egregious activity of a defendant, 

perhaps in a criminal setting, that the judge should not be timid 

or restrained about bringing the full force of the law down to bear 

on a convicted criminal. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

In that same Denver University Law Review article, on page 25, 

you wrote, and I quote, that ‘‘the Supreme Court has started to retreat from the generalized right of privacy set forth in Griswold

and Roe v. Wade.’’ As evidence, you cited Bowers v. Hardwick.

As you know, since you wrote your article in 1988, the Supreme 

Court has affirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and it has 

overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas. 

What do you think about the Casey and Lawrence decisions? Are 

they examples of, as you wrote, situations where the Court departs 

from the laws—this is your quote—‘‘the Court departs from the 

laws as embodied by the Constitution and the statutes and supplants the individual morals of the Justices’’? If you were—well, 

perhaps you could just answer that? 

48

Mr. MYERS. Okay. No, I don’t think it’s an example of judicial activism. I think that was your question. When I wrote that comment 

about Bowers v. Hardwick, it was shortly after that case had been 

decided, and many scholars, academics, in my review of the literature suggested that it was a retreat from where the Supreme 

Court had been prior to that decision. As you note, in Lawrence v. 

Texas, the Supreme Court has overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, and, 

of course, Lawrence v. Texas is the law of the land. 

You also mentioned Griswold v. Connecticut. I consider that to 

be a bedrock of our privacy standards through the Supreme Court 

and, frankly, one that I am enamored with. I don’t know if I’ve ever 

put it in writing, perhaps somewhere, but there was a quote by 

Justice Brandeis in a 1928 dissent that he wrote in Olmstead v. 

United States, where he said, ‘‘The essence of privacy is the right 

to be let alone.’’ And it’s one of the most cherished of all rights. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Let me say this: Virtually every environmental organization that I know of opposes your nomination. 

They essentially, I think, feel that your views on takings as well 

as other subjects are such that environmental law wouldn’t stand 

a fair shake in the Ninth Circuit. 

I would like you to make the case as to why you believe you 

could provide a fair and open and just hearing in environmental 

matters, particularly when your tenure as an advocate and your 

tenure in the Department seemed to favor the opposite side. 

Mr. MYERS. Senator, I would start with another writing of mine 

from 1990, when I said that it’s the essence of judging to dispassionately review the case before that judge and regard for the 

law and the facts, without regard for political persuasion or public 

opinion. 

I move forward from that to my private life. A good indication 

of a person is what they do on their free time. I’ve spent a lot of 

my free time working for the environment, volunteering for the 

Forest Service, volunteering for the Park Service, volunteering for 

the local city Department of Parks and Recreation. So I think that 

is where I would tell my environmental friends to look first because 

that is, I think, a true mark of an individual, what they’re doing 

when they’re not on the clock. 

Then I would take them through decisions I made as Solicitor, 

and I mentioned several of these to Senator Coburn, decisions 

which based on my neutral reading of the law were compelled to 

reach a conclusion that was pro-environmental, and I did so and 

I didn’t faint from that obligation. 

Yes, I have an extensive record. Sometimes I came down with decisions which environmental advocates did not like. Sometimes I 

came down with decisions that they did like. And I would ask them 

to look at the entire picture and judge me on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Feingold? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you for appearing before us, Mr. 

Myers. You have been asked about your role in the Robbins settlement agreement, and I was surprised that a rancher who moved 

to Wyoming from Alabama in 1994—we are not talking here about 

49

a family who had ranched this land for decades—and who had a 

RICO suit pending against BLM employees would be able to arrange such a high-level meeting to discuss his case. 

From 1996 to 2001, the BLM cited Robbins for 25 different trespass violations, more than half of which were classified as ‘‘repeated willful violations.’’ In fact, a local BLM official declared that 

‘‘Mr. Robbins’ conduct was so lacking in reasonableness and responsibility that it became reckless or negligent and placed significant 

undue stress and damage on the public land resources.’’ 

Yet, in February 2002, Mr. Robbins, Jr., his father, Mr. Robbins, 

Sr., the chief of staff of BLM, a political appointee, other BLM officials, Mr. Robert Comer of your office, a political appointee, the 

DOI Congressional liaison, and Congressional staff from Wyoming 

met at DOI headquarters in Washington to discuss the possibility 

of a settlement. 

After this high-level meeting in Washington, the Department entered into an illegal settlement agreement with Mr. Robbins in 

January 2003. The agreement forgave 16 grazing violations dating 

back to 1994 and gave him preferential grazing fees. Even more 

unusual, Robbins obtained a special status whereby only the Director of the BLM, also a political appointee, or her designee may cite 

him for future violations. According the Inspector General, your 

employee and political employee Robert Comer ‘‘failed to act impartially and gave preferential treatment to Mr. Robbins in negotiating and crafting the settlement agreement.’’ 

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Mr. Robbins’ father, Harvey Frank Robbins, Sr., of Muscle Shoals, Alabama, donated $25,000 in soft money to the Republican Party in 2000. According to the Inspector General’s report, Harvey Frank Robbins, 

Sr., also attended the February 2002 meeting at DOI headquarters 

with your office. Would someone whose father had not contributed $25,000 in soft 

money to the RNC receive this type of preferential treatment Mr. 

Robbins received from the Department of Interior headquarters? 

Mr. MYERS. Senator Feingold, I want to correct one thing I 

thought you said, which was a meeting arranged in my office. It 

was not in my office. It was, I believe, in the offices of the BLM. 

I didn’t know Mr. Robbins prior to that meeting. I have never 

met him or talked to him since, and I was unfamiliar with whatever experience he has or political connections he might have. So 

from where I sat, he was an unknown. He was a rancher who was 

in a dispute with the BLM over his grazing permits in Wyoming. 

You cited the IG’s report that said that that meeting occurred 

and included staff members from the Wyoming Congressional delegation. I do not know this, but I infer from the IG’s report that perhaps those staffers asked for the meeting to occur. 

Senator FEINGOLD. But do you think somebody who had not contributed $25,000 in soft money to the RNC would have received 

this kind of meeting? 

Mr. MYERS. I would hope that political contributions would have 

no effect whatsoever. 

Senator FEINGOLD. But is that your view that they have no effect 

whatsoever in a situation— 

Mr. MYERS. Yes. 

50

Senator FEINGOLD. In an unusual meeting as this? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, that’s my view. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, this meeting and this settlement disturbs me, not just because of the influence peddling it speaks of 

and its reflection on how your office operated, but because it underscores a concern I have about your ability to be impartial. It seems 

that only certain interests had access to your office under your tenure as the Department’s top lawyer. 

You testified previously that you did not meet with the Quechan 

tribe before you issued your legal opinion and the resulting decision 

to approve the highly controversial cyanide heap leaching Glamis 

Mine which rests on sacred tribal land. Tribal leaders have called 

your legal opinion ‘‘an affront to all American Indians.’’ Yet you 

were able to meet with mining industry officials 27 times during 

the first year of your tenure as the Solicitor. In response to Senator 

Feinstein’s written questions, you said that you didn’t meet with 

tribal leaders involved in the Glamis Mine because of the September 11th tragedy. Yet you met with mining officials from the 

company who wanted to develop the mind on September 13, 2001. 

The tribe has termed your written responses to Senator Feinstein 

in the Glamis matter and your use of the September 11th tragedy 

as the reason that you did not meet with the tribe as ‘‘highly offensive.’’ 

If you are not willing to meet with both parties involving a controversial decision where the Interior Department has tribal trust 

responsibility, will you please tell the Committee why we should 

believe that you will be impartial as a judge? 

Mr. MYERS. Senator, regarding the meeting with the representatives from the Glamis Mine, that occurred in my office here in 

Washington, D.C., on the 13th of September. That invitation that 

I received from the tribe was to travel to California. I believe I’m 

correct in stating that planes were all grounded at that time, and 

they could not have traveled here to meet with me, and I could not 

have traveled there to meet with them. Had they wished to meet 

with me in my office as the mining company did, I would have welcomed them into my office. 

I subsequently did meet with them after I issued my opinion, and 

they presented to me a PowerPoint presentation of their concerns. 

That presentation affirmed for me the facts that I knew about that 

situation prior to the time that I wrote my opinion. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, as I understand it, your predecessor at 

least gave them a call before he issued his ruling, and I would submit that even if you could not have met with them, if that is true, 

you could have at least picked up the phone. 

Mr. MYERS. Senator, on that point, I don’t know, of course, what 

my predecessor did, but I did read a review from the Inspector 

General of that question, and he said that my predecessor had 

never met with the tribe. He issued a legal opinion, and I reviewed 

his legal opinion to determine whether I agreed with it. It was a 

discrete legal issue, and in my mind fairly akin to a summary judgment motion in that the facts were not in dispute from any side, 

and the question was, as a matter of law, was my predecessor’s 

opinion correct. I decided it wasn’t. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

51

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Feingold. 

Mr. Myers, in your long career in public service, you have made 

many decisions. It is perhaps more interesting to be critical of some 

of them, but I would suggest for the record that there are many 

which you have made which support the pro-environmental position. And as Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, you have 

been involved in some of the settlements of cases which were very 

favorably reported by environmental protectionist groups such as 

the Shell Oil-based activities on the Gulf of Mexico and the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor. 

Would you expand upon those particular items and other high 

marks which you have weighed in on for environmental protection? 

Mr. MYERS. I will, Senator. 

Chairman SPECTER. I think, Mr. Myers, there is a real balance 

in your record if we were to spend the next month with you on the 

witness stand. 

Mr. MYERS. I would be happy to give you the citations. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, how about next month. 

Mr. MYERS. Senator, I will talk to you about the two that you 

mentioned and add maybe one or two other examples. 

The first one you talked about was the Shell Oil matter in the 

Gulf of Mexico. The Shell Oil Company had for some time been 

flaring gas from its platform. Before a company can flare gas from 

a platform in the Gulf, it has to keep records of that flaring. It has 

to report it to the Minerals Management Service within the Department of the Interior. 

Investigations revealed that they had neither kept the records 

nor informed MMS about their activities. These were violations of 

the law. We set about to correct that and imposed upon them a $49 

million payment, a duty to keep adequate records and to follow up 

with the Department of Justice on how they were complying with 

that settlement. 

You also mentioned the Governors Island matter in New York 

Harbor. Governors Island is a wonderful piece of Federal land in 

the harbor off of Manhattan Island. You see it as you travel from 

Manhattan Island to Ellis Island or Liberty Island. But most people probably don’t know what’s there. It is an island that has been 

in the ownership of the United States for over 200 years. It has 

Castle William and Fort Jay, I think it’s called, on that site, all embattlements created for the protection of the harbor against warships of the day. 

President Clinton designated it as a national monument, but 

there was a problem with the statute that required the sale of the 

island, including the national monument, to the city or the State 

of New York, giving them the right of first refusal on the bid. We 

didn’t want to see that monument lost out of Federal hands, so we 

worked with the city and the State and with an intervening environmental group to arrange a transfer of the island to us via that 

intermediary. At the same time we increased the size of the monument to add additional protection. 

I had the opportunity while I was Solicitor to go to the monument and to look at it. It’s an amazing piece of property. I’m excited about the opportunities there. There’s a huge amount of rehabilitation because many of the buildings have fallen into complete 

52

disrepair. But we enhanced the size of that monument and protected it. 

Chairman SPECTER. And pardon my interruption, but a couple of 

points I want to make, and we are going to conclude this hearing 

hopefully reasonably soon. That action was very highly praised by 

environmental groups and it has protected a great U.S. national 

asset. 

Mr. MYERS. That’s right. No one wanted to see the loss of Governors Island. 

Chairman SPECTER. You have, in Colvin versus Snow and other 

similar cases, specifically authorized the regional solicitors to seek 

enforcement action against ranchers who refused to pay applicable 

grazing fees for their use of public lands? 

Mr. MYERS. Correct. 

Chairman SPECTER. So you have taken some stands against 

ranchers— 

Mr. MYERS. Impoundment of livestock. 

Chairman SPECTER.—whom you are generally charged with having unduly favored? 

Mr. MYERS. Right. Impoundment of livestock for sale by the BLM 

because of trespass, actions by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, preliminary injunction sought in District Court in California against a 

rancher who decided to use a bulldozer. 

Chairman SPECTER. Pardon the interruption again, but I only 

have time for one more question if I squeeze it. 

That is your advocacy in urging young people to take up public 

service and your service on the American Bar Association’s Public 

Lands Committee and the article you published in the American 

Bar Association publication on public lands and land-use relating 

to public service, could you state for the record what you did in 

that respect? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes. I was assisting the Chairman of that ABA Committee in writing an occasional column in the newsletter that the 

Committee put out. My particular focus was on public service and 

I think you are referring to an article that I wrote that it was important for lawyers to give back to their community, not just in 

typical pro bono legal activities but also in going into classrooms, 

in helping devise easy to read and understandable environmental 

codes, and in working with the community on environmental 

issues. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, very much. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you and I will be brief. 

I am just still on this Comer. There are three people there. 

Which one of the three did you recommend? 

Mr. MYERS. Bob Comer. 

Senator LEAHY. Would it be safe to say your recommendation 

would carry a fair amount of weight? 

Mr. MYERS. Probably, yes, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Considering some of the things that came out in 

the IG’s report, how do you feel about that? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, Senator, had I known then what I know now, 

I would have made a different decision. 

53

Senator LEAHY. But he came in with a lot of political power behind him and he is now ensconced in a nice safe position; is that 

not correct? 

Mr. MYERS. I do not know that he came in with a lot of political 

power. There were a lot of good candidates that I reviewed for that 

position. 

Senator LEAHY. But he has got himself in a nice safe position 

now. If he is a political appointee he could be easily fired for the 

things that went on. 

Mr. MYERS. Right. When I hired him, he came into the office as 

a political appointee. 

Senator LEAHY. Lucky Mr. Comer. 

Mr. MYERS. Well, after reading that report I am not sure I would 

say lucky Mr. Comer. 

Senator LEAHY. You have been asked a lot of questions about not 

meeting with the Quechan Tribe. Am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Mr. MYERS. Quechan. 

Senator LEAHY. Quechan Tribe. You allowed a permit for a mine 

which destroyed land sacred to them. Obviously your answers, both 

your answers in the earlier hearing, your written answers, have 

not satisfied them. 

You are a Westerner. You deal a lot with the tribes. You look at 

the National Congress of American Indians. I met up with them in 

one of their meetings here. I was really impressed with the intensity of their feeling. They have never taken a position on a judicial 

nominee before you and they are opposing you. Why do you feel 

that is so? Here is your chance to say something. 

Mr. MYERS. I think that the opposition is based on that Glamas 

matter that we have already discussed. 

I would submit to you and to that group if they looked at my entire record they would find a Solicitor who was very much an advocate for Indian matters and tried to deal fairly with Indian matters. As examples, I would cite probably first and foremost my 

work regarding the Sandia Pueblo. 

Senator Bingaman had proposed legislation after two different 

solicitors prior to my arrival had issued opposing opinions on 

whether that Sandia Pueblo had any right or access to 10,000 acres 

in the National Forest, an area which was of great significance and 

sacred sites to that tribe in an issue that went back to the 1700’s 

when the King of Spain issued a patent to the Pueblo. 

I came in, I was asked by various factions who were debating 

this question to issue my own opinion. I did not do so. Instead, I 

came to this Senate and I testified in favor of Senator Bingaman’s 

legislation. It passed and resolved the problem. 

As part of that process I went out to the Sandia Pueblo. I talked 

to the Pueblo leaders. I looked at the landscape, both from the air 

and on the ground. And I talked to the others who were concerned 

about as well, and came to the conclusion that the legislation was 

the best approach. 

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you about another one involving 

some of these same subjects. In November 2002 you convinced the 

Department of Justice to file a friend of the court brief in State 

Court of Nevada to argue against the State’s right to deny a permit 

to the Oil-Dri Company that wanted to mine clay on Federal lands. 

54

You did this even though the Department of the Interior, your 

department, had a trust relationship with the Reno-Sparks Indian 

Colony. They, of course, strongly oppose the mine. Late last year 

the Nevada court rejected your argument that Nevada could not 

have local control over this decision. They said that Federal regulations recognized the State law applies. 

Do you agree with that decision or do you think the Bush Administration should continue to oppose the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

and support the mining company? 

Mr. MYERS. The court dismissed that action without prejudice, 

based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

My involvement in that was to review the question specific to 

whether a State or local Government could exercise regulatory control over Federal lands and to what extent they could. In the amicus brief that we filed we said that State and local Governments 

can enact environmental regulations specific to mining, as long as 

those regulations are reasonable because of the primacy of the Federal Government on Federal land issues. That was, I think, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in the California Coastal 

Commission versus Granite Rock case. 

As far as the concerns of the tribal entities, I did take those into 

consideration and specifically in this manner. I was being pushed 

by the Oil-Dri Company, through the Secretary in that they contacted the Secretary and I saw the letter to her, to intervene in 

that case and become a party on their side of the matter against 

the county. I did not intervene. My recommendation to the Department of Justice was to file an amicus brief, thereby foregoing an 

opportunity to become a party in the case and simply acting as a 

friend of the court on the particular issue of Federal environmental 

regulation. 

Senator LEAHY. The other part of my question, should the Bush 

Administration continue to oppose the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 

and support the mining company? 

Mr. MYERS. I think the Administration should continue to support the Supreme Court’s decision in the Granite Rock case. And 

in comment this case that means that environment regulation imposed by State or local Governments is okay as long as it is reasonable. And of course, the flip side of that coin is you do not want 

State and local entities coming in and trying to undermine Federal 

law on environmental issues that affect Federal lands. It is the 

same principle that applies. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, very much, Senator Leahy. 

I have good news before turning to Senator Schumer. He has 

only one question. Senator Schumer. 

Senator LEAHY. However, it is 14 minutes long. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. It has three parts. 

Chairman SPECTER. He just raised the ante to two. And he can 

ask as many as he wants within 5 minutes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just, the places where I had asked you about the statements which seemed rather extreme, you and some of your defenders here seem to indicate well, when you are an advocate, that is 

what you do. 

55

But the statement, for instance, that environmental legislation 

harms the very environment it purports to protect is not from your 

arguing as a lawyer for somebody, but was in an article you had 

written in the—it is called Environmental Command and Control: 

the Snake in the Public Lands Grass. It is in the Farmer, Ranchers 

and Environmental Law Journal of 1995. 

I believe the other quote comes from either that article or another article, as well. 

Are you saying when you wrote these articles these were not 

your beliefs? 

Mr. MYERS. I was on the staff of the National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association when I wrote that article and I was advancing the concerns of the ranchers that were members of that organization. 

Senator SCHUMER. In other words, this article was not your 

views but the views of the cattlemen? Does it say that? I mean, I 

do not know law journals, and I am not familiar with this publication, but I do not know law journals where people submit articles, 

lawyers, distinguished lawyers, and simply represent a client, rather their views. 

Did it say anywhere in there that these are the views of the 

Cattlemen’s Association and not of Mr. Myers? 

Mr. MYERS. I do not know for sure without looking at it, but I 

think it indicated that I was employed by those organizations and 

that I was not writing in my individual capacity. And part of my 

job at that time, Senator, was to advocate the constituents’ concerns in the public media. 

Senator SCHUMER. I want to ask you a question. So are you saying you did not believe these things? That you only believed part 

of what you wrote? That it was just hyperbole to make the point? 

Or that you were just representing the Cattlemen’s Association? 

Would you write articles where you did not believe what was said 

but you were just representing your client in law reviews? 

Mr. MYERS. Writing articles was part of my job. 

Senator SCHUMER. I did not ask that. I asked you do you believe 

these statements that you have written? Do you stand by them? 

Mr. MYERS. I stand by the statements that include that 

environmentalism is good citizenship and good business and that 

ranchers and environmentalists ought to work together. 

Senator SCHUMER. I understand you stand by those. That is not 

the question I asked you. I asked you do you stand by the statement that environmental legislation harms the very environment it 

purports to protect? You were not arguing a case there. That was 

an article. 

Mr. MYERS. That is right. 

Senator SCHUMER. Do you stand by—do you believe that statement? 

Mr. MYERS. The statement was meant to suggest— 

Senator SCHUMER. Do you believe it? I did not ask what it was 

meant to suggest or who. I want to know if you believe it? 

Mr. MYERS. I believe that sometimes environmental legislation 

has a blunt sword approach to particular problems and that working with the regulated community can result in better environmental protection than legislation, on occasion. 

56

Senator SCHUMER. So in other words, you left out the words 

sometimes, on occasion? You just wrote a sweeping statement? 

Mr. MYERS. Right. 

Senator SCHUMER. How about this one? Do you believe the statement you wrote that the fallacious belief that centralized Government can promote environmentalism—do you believe that statement? 

Mr. MYERS. It is the same answer, Senator. It is the point that 

centralized Congressional action sometimes is not the best result 

for an environmental problem. 

Senator SCHUMER. I think you will admit that what you are saying, if someone read this article and heard what you were saying 

here, they would say those are two different things. 

Mr. MYERS. I am no longer employed by the National Cattlemen’s Association. 

Senator SCHUMER. I understand that, but would they not say 

they are two different things? 

Mr. MYERS. I think they are sympathetic. 

Senator SCHUMER. I would think any reading of this would say 

there is quite a bit of divergence: a judicious statement that sometimes any law does not get applied right, as opposed to statement 

after statement, broad sweeping statement basically holding in illregard—and that is not as strongly as you put it—all environmental laws. 

Did you ever write anything when you wrote—you said you support the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. Was that written in your 

writings back then? 

Mr. MYERS. I submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in support 

of— 

Senator SCHUMER. I said in your article writings, you know, 

where you are saying your own views or whatever? 

What do we have? What can we cling to here, should we want 

to support you, where you on your old, independently or while you 

were working for the Cattlemen’s Association, which shows that 

you were somewhat moderate and judicious? All of your statements 

are over-the-top. 

Mr. MYERS. Well, you asked on my own and when I was working 

for the cattlemen. On my own, that would be my free time when 

I volunteered for agencies to help environmental causes and to 

clean up the environment that others had trashed. 

In my capacity as an employee of the cattlemen, I wrote that 

cattlemen, for instance feedlot operators, should get permits under 

the Clean Water Act and comply with them. Those are the examples. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, very much, Senator Schumer, for 

those two questions. 

Senator SCHUMER. No comment, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. It is too late now not to make a comment. 

You just did. 

I think that this has been a very useful hearing because while 

there can be many statements about your position on one side of 

the advocacy line, there are other actions on your part which show 

grave concern for environmental protection and public service. 

57

It is not unusual to have nominees appear before this Committee 

who are controversial. But you can go back over statements which 

I have made in the course of my activities and public service which 

are subject to challenge. A week does not go by without a challenge 

to the single bullet theory or Ira Einhorn or have not proved or 

many, many other things which I have said. 

I do not know but it might even be possible to go through Senator Schumer’s record and find statements which might bear on 

Senator Schumer’s qualifications. 

Senator HATCH. I would be amazed. I would just be amazed. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Hatch, you might be right. But the 

point is nobody comes to this hearing room perfect. Nobody comes 

to this hearing room perfect. 

I believe that the deference that the President ought to have is 

fully within bounds as to your position. It is easier to talk about 

being outside the mainstream and even poetic, you cannot see the 

shoreline. But have reviewed your record very carefully. And I have 

a record for supporting Democrats under the Clinton Administration when they were appropriate. And I have a record for opposing 

Republicans. And I feel very comfortable supporting your record, 

although many of my good friends on the environmental line have 

urged me to the contrary. 

I have listened to them and I have reviewed your record, and I 

think you are fit to be a member of the Ninth Circuit. 

Do you have family members with you today, Mr. Myers? 

Mr. MYERS. No, Mr. Chairman. My children are in school and my 

mother is with my children. Excuse me, my children’s mother is 

with them. 

Chairman SPECTER. It is my hope, I know this hearing is being 

very closely monitored. Senators are obviously busy but I know 

staffs are taking a look at it. 

I count 98 votes for cloture—58. I wish I could count 98 votes for 

closure. So we not have a cloture motion. I count 58 votes for cloture, so hailing distance. 

I think that you have helped yourself today, Mr. Myers, and I 

think you have helped the cause of trying to avoid the Constitutional issues which we are all conversant with. 

That concludes the hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

58


21544.025
59


21544.026
60


21544.027
61


21544.028
62


21544.029
63


21544.030
64


21544.031
65


21544.032
66


21544.033
67


21544.034
68


21544.035
69


21544.036
70


21544.037
71


21544.038
72


21544.039
73


21544.040
74


21544.041
75


21544.042
76


21544.043
77


21544.044
78


21544.045
79


21544.046
80


21544.047
81


21544.048
82


21544.049
83


21544.050
84


21544.051
85


21544.052
86


21544.053
87


21544.054
88


21544.055
89


21544.056
90


21544.057
91


21544.058
92


21544.059
93


21544.060
94


21544.061
95


21544.062
96


21544.063
97


21544.064
98


21544.065
99


21544.066
100


21544.067
101


21544.068
102


21544.069
103


21544.070
104


21544.071
105


21544.072
106


21544.073
107


21544.074
108


21544.075
109


21544.076
110


21544.077
111


21544.078
112


21544.079
113


21544.080
114


21544.081
115


21544.082
116


21544.083
117


21544.084
118


21544.085
119


21544.086
120


21544.087
121


21544.088
122


21544.089
123


21544.090
124


21544.091
125


21544.092
126


21544.093
127


21544.094
128


21544.095
129


21544.096
130


21544.097
131


21544.098
132


21544.099
133


21544.100
134


21544.101
135


21544.102
136


21544.103
137


21544.104
138


21544.105
139


21544.106
140


21544.107
141


21544.108
142


21544.109
143


21544.110
144


21544.111
145


21544.112
146


21544.113
147


21544.114
148


21544.115
149


21544.116
150


21544.117
151


21544.118
152


21544.119
153


21544.120
154


21544.121
155


21544.122
156


21544.123
157


21544.124
158


21544.125
159


21544.126
160


21544.127
161


21544.128
162


21544.129
163


21544.130
164


21544.131
165


21544.132
166


21544.133
167


21544.134
168


21544.135
169


21544.136
170


21544.137
171


21544.138
172


21544.139
173


21544.140
174


21544.141
175


21544.142
176


21544.143
177


21544.144
178


21544.145
179


21544.146
180


21544.147
181


21544.148
182


21544.149
183


21544.150
184


21544.151
185


21544.152
186


21544.153
187


21544.154
188


21544.155
189


21544.156
190


21544.157
191


21544.158
192


21544.159
193


21544.160
194


21544.161
195


21544.162
196


21544.163
197


21544.164
198


21544.165
199


21544.166
200


21544.167
201


21544.168
202


21544.169
203


21544.170
204


21544.171
205


21544.172
206


21544.173
207


21544.174
208


21544.175
209


21544.176
210


21544.177
211


21544.178
212


21544.179
213


21544.180
214


21544.181
215


21544.182
216


21544.183
217


21544.184
218


21544.185
219


21544.186
220


21544.187
221


21544.188
222


21544.189
223


21544.190
224


21544.191
225


21544.192
226


21544.193
227


21544.194
228


21544.195
229


21544.196
230


21544.197
231


21544.198
232


21544.199
233


21544.200
234


21544.201
235


21544.202
236


21544.203
237


21544.204
238


21544.205
239


21544.206
240


21544.207
241


21544.208
242


21544.209
243


21544.210
244


21544.211
245


21544.212
246


21544.213
247


21544.214
248


21544.215
249


21544.216
250


21544.217
251


21544.218
252


21544.219
253


21544.220
254


21544.221
255


21544.222
256


21544.223
257


21544.224
258


21544.225
259


21544.226
260


21544.227
261


21544.228
262


21544.229
263


21544.230
264


21544.231
265


21544.232
266


21544.233
267


21544.234
268


21544.235
269


21544.236
270


21544.237
271


21544.238
272


21544.239
273


21544.240
274


21544.241
275


21544.242
276


21544.243
277


21544.244
278


21544.245
279


21544.246
280


21544.247
281


21544.248
282


21544.249
283


21544.250
284


21544.251
285


21544.252
286


21544.253
287


21544.254
288


21544.255
289


21544.256
290


21544.257
291


21544.258
292


21544.259
293


21544.260
294


21544.261
295


21544.262
296


21544.263
297


21544.264
298


21544.265
299


21544.266
300


21544.267
301


21544.268
302


21544.269
303


21544.270
304


21544.271
305


21544.272
306


21544.273
307


21544.274
308


21544.275
309


21544.276
310


21544.277
311

Æ


21544.278