Nomination of William Gerry Myers III to be a United States Judge for the Ninth Circuit

NOMINATION OF WILLIAM GERRY MYERS III TO BE A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 5 minutes from the time of the minority.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues here today.

I rise in strong opposition to the confirmation of William Myers. When the nine Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee unanimously vote against a nominee, you can be sure that there are real questions about the nominee that must be answered. We rarely do it.

Once again to reiterate, 198 judges approved, 6 opposed. Why are we trying to make Mr. Myers the seventh? Is it some lobbying group? Not at all. Is it the fact we just do not agree with his views? Clearly not.

The bottom line is that Mr. Myers is extreme on environmental issues and on land issues. And these issues are important where the Ninth Circuit probably has much more to say than any other circuit in the land, given the vast territory out west that it covers.

Mr. Myers is one sided and extreme. There has been no balance. There has been no attempt to see the other side. There has been no attempt to be judicious in the true sense of the word. That is why so many of us feel constrained to rise against him.

Nominating William Myers is like sticking a thumb in the eye of all Senators who believe extremists, right or left, should not be on the Federal bench.

The bottom line is very simple; that is, Mr. Myers has not shown a single iota of moderation as he has moved through his career. He has not been a judge or somebody who has had judicial experience. But that doesn't bother me. It bothers some. It doesn't bother me.

The problem is Mr. Myers' record screams "passionate activist." It doesn't so much as whisper "impartial judge."

Let us go over some of the things my colleague, Mr. Durbin, mentioned. I will elaborate on some of those. It is not just that Mr. Myers has spent almost every day of his career as a professional lobbyist advocating for mining and ranching interests to the detriment of environmental concerns. It is how he has done it. There is never an understanding that the other side has any merit.

The bottom line here is what he said: "Environmentalists are mountain biking"-that was snide-"to the courthouses, never before done, stopping human activity wherever it may promote health, safety, and welfare."

Human activity that pollutes the air or water? This man comes from such a narrow mindset that it is clear he doesn't belong on the bench.

The cases he was discussing when he said that included suits to halt the discriminatory placement of waste treatment facilities, protection of irrigation canals from toxic chemicals, and to stop logging in protected national forests.

Again, he shows such little tolerance for the other viewpoint that one doesn't have much faith that he can be an impartial judge.

When it comes to the environment, it seems like confirming William Myers would be like putting the fox in charge of the environmental hen house.

If one remark were an isolated incident, you could say, well, one remark shouldn't stop someone from being a judge. But he said the Clean Water Act has the unintended consequence of actually harming the environment. Who in America believes that? Some people-very few-may say it goes too far. But that it harms the environment?

He argues that it is fallacious to believe the central government can promote environmentalists.

Let me tell Mr. Myers something. In New York City where I live my lungs are cleaner because the Federal Government has a Clean Air Act. Maybe he doesn't need one in Idaho, but they sure need one in Los Angeles which is in the Ninth Circuit.

And the intolerance to say that the central government can never promote environmentalism-he has compared the Government's management of public lands to King George's tyrannical rule over the American Colonies.

I guess that kind of selfish freedom-you own the land and you can do whatever you want with it-is Mr. Myers' view. It is not America's view. This man has continued to have that view.

He said that professional environmentalists are primarily interested in fundraising and the selling of magazine subscriptions.
Do we want to say the Cattlemen's Association is only interested in making money no matter what happens? What would the Cattlemen's Association or a rancher who is trying to do a good job think of that?

Mr. Myers' comments are hardly reflective of the moderation and temperament we look for from judicial nominees. His lack of understanding and intolerance come across over and over and over again.

When it comes to comments about the environment, Mr. Myers is like the Energizer bunny: He just keeps on going and going.

Earlier this year, the Buffalo News ran an editorial against his nomination, saying in part:

The Bush administration is showing an Oz-like talent for turning over protect-the-environment posts to former lobbyists who once sought to overturn the rules they are now being charged with keeping.

I couldn't agree more.

This is just another example of the Bush Administration saying one thing and doing another. They say they care more about the environment and then they nominate anti-environmentalists to defend it.

With Mr. Myers' nomination, we are not just through the looking glass; we are all the way down the rabbit hole.

I wish we didn't have rise today and vote no but I think we are compelled to. I urge my colleagues to reject this nomination.