[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S1775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate will continue to 
fill vacancies across the Federal bench.
  This afternoon, we will vote to confirm Paul Matey to be U.S. Circuit 
Court Judge for the Third Circuit, and then we will move to the 
nomination of Neomi Rao for a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--
the seat that was vacated by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
  Throughout her career, Ms. Rao has served in all three branches of 
government. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme 
Court and Judge Harvie Wilkinson on the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. She also worked here in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee 
for then-Chairman Orrin Hatch.
  She has worked as Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to 
President George W. Bush and in her current position as Administrator 
for the Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs--one of the 
most important and least understood Federal Agencies.
  In addition to her outstanding career in public service, Ms. Rao was 
also an associate professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George 
Mason University and is a leading scholar in the field of 
administrative law.
  Knowing her impressive background, it was no surprise to see that the 
American Bar Association, once hailed by the minority leader as the 
``gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged,'' rated her as 
``well qualified.''
  When considering this particular seat, it is hard to imagine anyone 
better prepared. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has sometimes been 
referred to as the ``second highest court in the land'' and is unique 
because its caseload is disproportionately weighted toward 
administrative law and litigation involving the Federal Government.
  Despite her outstanding qualifications, our Democratic colleagues 
have attempted to tank Ms. Rao's nomination over decades-old writings. 
That sounds pretty familiar, although, as I recall, Justice Kavanaugh 
was excoriated for things in his high school yearbook. At least we have 
moved on to college when it comes to Ms. Rao.
  During her confirmation hearing last month, critics reverted back to 
that Kavanaugh playbook and began criticizing her for things she wrote 
in college rather than asking her productive questions about maybe what 
she has learned since that time or how her views may have changed or 
how she has functioned as head of the OIRA or how her office has 
reduced regulatory costs by more than $23 billion. Instead, critics 
chose to focus on her decades-old writings in college.
  Over the years, Ms. Rao has done what we have all done: She has grown 
and learned from her experiences. She has repeatedly said that she no 
longer holds the views that she wrote about back in college.
  I believe we should judge a nominee not by views they expressed in 
high school or college but what they have done since that time as 
mature adults and professionals. So just add me to the long list of 
people who believe Neomi Rao should be confirmed for the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  Two dozen former Supreme Court clerks who worked alongside Rao sent a 
letter to the Judiciary Committee, touting her qualifications. They 
said:

       Many of us have worked in government, at both the federal 
     and state levels, some for Democrats and some for 
     Republicans. . . . While our professional and personal paths 
     may have diverged, one of things we have always shared is 
     admiration for Neomi. We are confident she will serve our 
     country well on the DC Circuit.

  We have seen similar letters from her classmates at both Yale and the 
University of Chicago Law School, as well as a group of more than 50 of 
her former law students.
  Her former students wrote:

       Our views span the political spectrum; we have differing 
     positions on the role and work of the Federal judiciary; and 
     we have gone on to work in law firms, government, public 
     interest organizations, and judges' chambers. Yet despite her 
     differences, we all agree that Professor Rao would make an 
     outstanding addition to the bench. We have no doubt that, if 
     confirmed, she would be a brilliant and fair arbiter of the 
     cases that came before her.

  I agree.
  I supported Ms. Rao's nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
and I will once again look forward to supporting her nomination when 
the full Senate votes on her nomination this week.