[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4715-S4716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I understand the procedure, are 
we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on the Bress nomination.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to oppose the 
nomination of Daniel Bress to the Ninth Circuit in California.
  First, by history and tradition, this is a California seat on the 
Ninth Circuit. The fact is that Mr. Bress is neither a California 
attorney nor a California resident. In fact, he has not been a resident 
of the State for over a decade. He has lived and practiced in the 
Washington, DC, area for almost his entire adult life.
  As California Senators, Senator Harris and I know that experience and 
connection to California are really necessary for a Ninth Circuit judge 
to be effective on the bench. We know our State, we know our 
constituents, and we know the challenges they face.
  That is why the blue slip is so important. Honoring the blue slip 
ensures that Senators who understand and are accountable to their 
constituents have a say in judicial nominations for their home States.
  Senator Harris's and my blue slips were not returned. That ultimately 
symbolizes our objections. I was also very disappointed that the White 
House ignored that and moved forward with Mr. Bress's nomination.
  Senator Harris and I worked in good faith with the White House to 
find nominees acceptable to the President and to us. During our 
negotiations that took place, we informed the White House that we could 
support several other nominees who were, in fact, selected by the White 
House. Yet the White House and the Republican members of the Judiciary 
Committee have claimed we were at an impasse. That is simply not true. 
For reasons still unknown to us, the White House abandoned our 
negotiations and nominated Mr. Bress for this seat instead.
  I am very disappointed that Republican leadership decided to schedule 
a vote on Mr. Bress's nomination, given both of our objections to his 
nomination and our concerns about a lack of connection to our State.
  Next, I want to discuss what I mean by a lack of connection to our 
State.
  The White House has greatly exaggerated Mr. Bress's connections to 
California to justify their decision to move forward with a non-
California nominee.
  I have studied Mr. Bress's record extensively, and I would like to 
run through some of what I have found.
  Mr. Bress claims to spend a substantial amount of time working in his 
law firm's San Francisco office. However, as recently as November 2018, 
Mr. Bress's profile on the Kirkland & Ellis LLP website listed him as 
an attorney working exclusively in the firm's Washington, DC, office. 
His profile page likewise provided contact information--phone and fax--
only for the Washington, DC, office.
  Just before he was nominated, Mr. Bress's Kirkland & Ellis profile 
was revised to list him as an attorney in both the Washington, DC, and 
San Francisco, CA, offices of the firm.
  In addition, according to a review conducted by my staff, every 
public legal filing signed by Mr. Bress lists his office as Washington, 
DC. This includes legal filings submitted in California courts. Mr. 
Bress has never had an oral argument before the Ninth Circuit--never 
had an oral argument before the Ninth Circuit.

  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee entered a letter into the 
record at Mr. Bress's hearing identifying 26 cases in California courts 
that Mr. Bress has been involved in. However, according to Mr. Bress's 
Senate Judiciary questionnaire, 11 of these 26 cases were asbestos 
lawsuits for a single client, the chemical company BASF Catalyst. 
Another four cases were products liability lawsuits involving another 
single client, the air conditioning manufacturer United Technologies 
Corporation. So those are two clients. This is hardly the wide breadth 
of California court experience that one would expect of a Ninth Circuit 
court appointee.
  Mr. Bress does not belong to any legal organizations in California. 
His children do not attend school in our State. He has voted only once 
since high school in a California election. And he does not have a 
California driver's license. Finally, Mr. Bress does not own any 
property in California outside of one share in a family business 
venture.
  These facts, along with Mr. Bress's residency in the Washington, DC, 
area--he lives here; his family lives here--make clear to us that he is 
not a Californian, nor is he suited for the Ninth Circuit.
  This is something we have never experienced before; that is, bringing 
a judge from one coast to put him on the Ninth Circuit on the other 
coast.

[[Page S4716]]

  Some of my Republican colleagues have cited past instances when an 
attorney living and practicing in one State has been nominated and 
confirmed to a seat in another State. This is highly unusual.
  Republicans have been able to provide examples of this occurring only 
4 times in the past 20 years, and in each case, it was with the support 
of the home State Senators. This support is simply not here in this 
case; this is not the case with this nominee.
  California is a diverse and complex State. We have over 40 million 
people. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. It makes up 14 
percent of the U.S. economy. There are 53 Fortune 500 companies that 
are based in our State. We have the largest ag industry in the country. 
We produce more manufacturing revenue than any other State. And 
California technology companies produce 53 percent of all tech revenues 
in the United States.
  This vast and diverse nature of California's people and economy means 
the Ninth Circuit regularly considers challenging and complex issues of 
fact and law. These cases require not only the sharpest legal minds but 
lawyers and judges who know and understand the complexities facing the 
State of California.
  We have an imported judge now coming to the Ninth Circuit. One of our 
most critical tasks as Senators is to ensure that lifetime appointments 
to the Federal courts are well qualified and well suited to the seats 
to which they have been nominated.
  Home State Senators are a crucial part of this evaluation process. 
The Presiding Officer knows this very well. I am so disappointed that 
the majority has disregarded this.
  This disregard of blue slips represents another breakdown of Senate 
traditions. It is really very disturbing. One thing I have learned over 
20 years here is that what goes around comes around. By doing this, it 
is a major violation of a precedent that this Senate has followed, I 
believe, to its absolute.
  I will vote against Mr. Bress's confirmation, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.