[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S1457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Eric D. Miller

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to a nomination we 
are going to be vote on very soon--the confirmation of Eric Miller to 
serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  As a U.S. Senator, I take my obligation to advise and consent on 
judicial nominations very seriously, and I believe Mr. Miller's 
confirmation process has gone against longstanding Senate tradition and 
norms and limited our role to advise and consent on his nomination.
  This nomination has proceeded over the objection of both myself and 
my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. For more than 100 years, 
conferring with Senators and allowing them to advise and consent on 
judicial nominees in their home State has been our process.
  Since 1936, only eight judges have been confirmed when one home State 
Senator objected. In every case, confirmed nominees have been supported 
by at least one Senator from the nominee's State, and to this day no 
circuit court judge has ever been confirmed despite opposition from 
their home State Senators. All that would change if Mr. Miller is 
confirmed.
  His confirmation hearing was held during a recess last Congress, when 
the vast majority of Senators were back in their States. In fact, only 
two Members of the U.S. Senate were present at the hearing, and neither 
one of them were Democrats. Mr. Miller was questioned for less than 5 
minutes--5 minutes--and when the Judiciary Committee Democrats 
requested another hearing, that request was rejected.
  Confirming Mr. Miller without a full vetting by both Democrats and 
Republicans is the wrong way to proceed on a lifetime appointment. 
Moreover, confirming Mr. Miller without approval from Senator Murray 
and I would set a damaging precedent.
  I do have concerns about Eric Miller's record. He has spent much of 
his career fighting against the interests of Tribal governments and 
Tribal sovereignty. He has argued cases opposing Tribal fishing rights, 
challenging Tribal sovereignty, and fighting against the protection of 
Native American religious and traditional practices, so it is no 
surprise that organizations representing all 573 Tribal nations around 
the United States, including the National Congress of American Indians, 
oppose Mr. Miller's confirmation.
  I urge my colleagues to stop this process and oppose Mr. Miller's 
confirmation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.