Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation on the Nomination of William G. Myers III, of Idaho to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit

Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation on the Nomination of William G. Myers III, of Idaho to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit

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 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.

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.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=21544.wais