[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2447-S2452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nuclear Energy
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record following my remarks an article from Newsweek magazine by
George F. Will entitled ``This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Thursday is Earth Day. Actually, it is
the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. It is a good day to celebrate by
creating a national resolve in our country to build 100 new nuclear
power plants in the next 20 years, which would be the best way to
create the largest amount of pollution-free, carbon-free electricity.
Today, nuclear power produces 20 percent of America's electricity but
69 percent of all of our carbon-free, pollution-free electricity.
During 2009, America's national energy policy looked more like a
national windmill policy--the equivalent of going to war in sailboats.
If we were going to war, the United States wouldn't think of putting
its nuclear navy in mothballs. Yet we did mothball our nuclear plant
construction program--our best weapon against climate change, high
electricity prices, polluted air, and energy insecurity. Although 107
reactors were completed between 1970 and 1990, producing 20 percent of
our electricity today--which, as I said, is 69 percent of our carbon-
free electricity--the United States has not started a new nuclear plant
in 30 years.
Instead of using our own nuclear power invention to catch up with the
rest of the world, President Obama, in his inaugural address, set out
on a different path: America would rely upon ``the sun, the winds, and
the soil'' for energy. There was no mention of nuclear power. Windmills
would produce 20 percent of our electricity. To achieve this goal, the
Federal Government would commit another $30 billion in subsidies and
tax breaks.
To date, almost all the subsidies for renewable energy have gone to
windmill developers, many of which are large banks, corporations, and
wealthy individuals. According to the Energy Information
Administration, big wind receives an $18.82 subsidy per megawatt hour--
25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of
electricity production combined. Last year's stimulus bill alone
contained $2 billion in windmill subsidies. Unfortunately, most of the
jobs are being created in Spain and China. According to an American
University study, nearly 80 percent of that $2 billion of American
taxpayer money went to overseas manufacturers. Despite the billions in
subsidies, not much energy is being produced. Wind accounts for just
1.3 percent of America's electricity--available only when the wind
blows, of course, since wind cannot be stored, except in small amounts.
Conservation groups have begun to worry about what they call the
``renewable energy sprawl.'' For example, producing 20 percent of U.S.
electricity from wind would cover an area the size of West Virginia
with 186,000 turbines and require 19,000 miles of new transmission
lines. These are not your grandmother's windmills. These turbines are
50 stories high. Their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles. An
unbroken line of giant turbines along the
[[Page S2448]]
2,178-mile Appalachian Trail--except for coastlines, ridgetops are
about the only place turbines work well in much of the East--would
produce no more electricity than four nuclear reactors on 4 square
miles of land--and, of course, you would still need the reactors for
when the wind doesn't blow.
There are other ways a national windmill policy also risks destroying
the environment in the name of saving the environment. The American
Bird Conservancy estimates that the 25,000 U.S. wind turbines today
kill 75,000 to 275,000 birds per year. Imagine what 186,000 turbines
would do. One wind farm near Oakland, CA, estimates that its turbines
kill 80 golden eagles a year.
To be sure, similar concerns about sprawl exist for other forms of
renewable energy. For example, it would take continuously foresting an
area 1\1/2\ times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
to produce enough electricity from biomass to equal the electricity
produced by one nuclear reactor. A new solar thermal plant planned for
California's Mojave Desert was to cover an area 3 miles by 3 miles
square, until environmental objections stopped it.
At least for the next couple decades, relying on windmills to provide
our Nation's clean electricity needs would be like wandering off track
from your house in Virginia through San Francisco on the way to the
corner grocery store. This unnecessary journey offends the commonsense
theory of parsimony, defined by scientist Spencer Wells as ``don't
overcomplicate . . . if a simpler possibility exists.''
The simpler possibility that exists for producing lots of low-cost,
reliable green electricity is to build 100 new nuclear plants, doubling
U.S. nuclear power production. In other words, instead of traveling
through San Francisco on your way to the corner grocery store, do what
our country did between 1970 and 1990: Build 100 reactors on 100 square
miles of space--several of them would be on existing reactor sites--
compared with the 126,000 new square miles needed to produce that much
electricity from biomass or the 26,000 square miles needed for wind.
Unlike wind turbines, 100 new nuclear reactors would require fewer
transmission lines through suburban backyards and pristine open spaces.
They would also require much less taxpayer subsidy. At current rates of
subsidy, taxpayers would shell out about $170 billion to subsidize the
186,000 wind turbines necessary to equal the power of 100 nuclear
reactors.
While Federal Government loan guarantees are probably necessary to
jumpstart the first few reactors, once we have proven they can be built
without delays or huge cost overruns, no more loan guarantees will be
needed. In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority just finished
rebuilding the $1.8 billion Brown's Ferry reactor on time and on
budget, proving it can still be done. Yet, even if all $54 billion in
loan guarantees defaulted--which isn't going to happen--it would still
be less than one-third of what we are putting into wind.
My concern about the unrealistic direction of our national windmill
policy led me to give five addresses on clean energy over the last 2
years. The first, delivered at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
2008, called for a new Manhattan Project--like the one we had in World
War II but this time for clean energy independence. Then, a year ago at
Oak Ridge, I proposed building 100 new nuclear plants, a goal that all
40 Senate Republicans adopted, along with 3 other goals: electrifying
half of our cars and trucks, expanding offshore exploration for natural
gas and oil, and doubling clean energy research and development.
My concern during 2009 deepened as members of the Obama
administration, with the conspicuous exception of Energy Secretary
Stephen Chu, seemed to develop a stomach ache whenever nuclear power
was mentioned. The President himself seemed unable to mention the
subject. Last year, at a climate change summit in New York City,
President Obama chided world leaders for not doing more to address
climate change, but he didn't mention the words ``nuclear power''
during his entire speech. That is ironic because many of the countries
he was lecturing were making plans to build nuclear plants to produce
carbon-free electricity and we were not. Climate change was the
inconvenient problem, but nuclear power seemed to be the inconvenient
solution.
Fortunately, with the arrival of 2010 has come a more welcoming
environment for nuclear power. In his State of the Union Address,
President Obama called for ``a new generation of safe, clean nuclear
reactors.'' His 2011 budget request recommends tripling loan guarantees
for the first reactors, and in February, his administration announced
the awarding of the first two loan guarantees for nuclear power. He has
selected distinguished members, both for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and for a new blue ribbon commission, to figure out the best
way to dispose of used nuclear fuel.
Democratic Senators--several of whom, in fairness, have long been
supporters of nuclear energy--have joined with the current 41 Senate
Republicans--to create bipartisan support. Last December, for example,
Democratic Senator Jim Webb, of Virginia, a former Navy Secretary, and
I introduced legislation to create an environment that could double
nuclear power production and to accelerate support for alternative
forms of clean energy.
There seems to be a growing public understanding that nuclear
reactors are as safe as other forms of energy production. A nuclear
plant is not a bomb; it can't blow up. Our sailors have lived literally
on top of reactors for nearly 60 years without a nuclear incident.
Nobody in the United States has ever been killed in a nuclear accident.
Most scientists agree it is safe to store used nuclear fuel onsite for
60 to 80 years while those scientists figure out how to recycle used
fuel in a way that reduces its mass by 97 percent, reduces its
radioactive lifetime by 99 percent, and does not allow the isolation of
plutonium, which could be dangerous in the wrong hands.
In addition, there is a growing realization by those who worry about
climate change that if Americans want to keep consuming one-fourth of
the world's electricity and we want large amounts of it to be low-cost
and carbon-free, nuclear power is the only answer for now.
It has also helped, and been a little embarrassing as well, that the
rest of the world has been teaching Americans the lesson we first
taught them. China is starting a new nuclear reactor every 3 months.
France is 80 percent nuclear and has electricity rates and carbon
emissions that are among the lowest in Europe. Japan gets 35 percent of
its electricity from nuclear and plans 10 more reactors by 2018. There
are 55 new reactors under construction in 14 countries around the
world--not 1 of them in the United States.
I believe we must address human causes of climate change, as well as
air pollution that is caused by sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions
from coal plants. But I also believe in that commonsense theory of
parsimony: Don't overcomplicate things if a simpler possibility exists.
My formula for the simplest way to reach the necessary carbon goals for
climate change without damaging the environment and without running
jobs overseas in search of cheap energy is this:
No. 1, build 100 new nuclear powerplants in 20 years.
No. 2, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years. If we plug
vehicles in at night, we probably have enough electricity to do this
without building one new power plant.
No. 3, explore for more low-carbon natural gas and the oil we still
need.
No. 4, launch mini-Manhattan Projects to invent a low-cost, 500-mile
battery for electric cars and a 50-percent efficient solar panel for
rooftops that is cost-competitive with other forms of electricity, as
well as better ways to recycle used nuclear fuel, to create advanced
biofuels, and to recapture carbon from coal plants.
These four steps should produce the largest amount of energy with the
smallest amount of pollution at the lowest possible cost, thereby
avoiding the pain and suffering that comes when high energy costs push
jobs overseas and make it hard for many low-income Americans to afford
heating and cooling bills.
One day, solar and other renewable energy forms will be cheap and
efficient enough to provide an important supplement to our energy needs
and can do so in a way that minimizes damage to our treasured
landscapes. Earth
[[Page S2449]]
Day, as it comes Thursday, is a good day to remember that nuclear power
beats windmills for America's green energy future.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From Newsweek]
This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear
(By George F. Will)
The 29 people killed last week in the West Virginia coal-
mine explosion will soon be as forgotten by the nation as are
the 362 miners who were killed in a 1907 explosion in that
state, the worst mining disaster in American history. The
costs of producing the coal that generates approximately half
of America's electricity also include the hundreds of other
miners who have suffered violent death in that dangerous
profession, not to mention those who have suffered
debilitating illnesses and premature death from ailments
acquired toiling underground.
Which makes particularly pertinent the fact that the number
of Americans killed by accidents in 55 years of generating
electricity by nuclear power is: 0. That is the same number
of Navy submariners and surface sailors injured during six
decades of living in very close proximity to reactors.
America's 250-year supply of coal will be an important
source of energy. But even people not much worried about the
supposed climate damage done by carbon emissions should see
the wisdom--cheaper electricity, less dependence on foreign
sources of energy--of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander's
campaign to commit the country to building l00 more nuclear
power plants in 20 years.
Today, 20 percent of America's electricity, and 69 percent
of its carbon-free generation of electricity, is from nuclear
plants. But it has been 30 years since America began
construction on a new nuclear reactor.
France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear
power; China is starting construction of a new reactor every
three months. Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear
power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3
percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30
billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82
per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the
combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity
production.
Wind power involves gargantuan ``energy sprawl.'' To
produce 20 percent of America's power by wind, which the
Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000
tall turbines--40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be
seen for 20 miles--covering an area the size of West
Virginia. The amount of electricity that would be produced by
wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the
Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying
four square miles of land. And birds beware: the American
Bird Conservancy estimates that the existing 25,000 turbines
kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds a year. Imagine the
toll that 186,000 turbines would take.
Solar power? It produces less than a tenth of a percent of
our electricity. And panels and mirrors mean more sprawl.
Biomass? It is not so green when you factor in trucks to haul
the stuff to the plants that burn it. Meanwhile, demand for
electricity soars. Five percent of America's electricity
powers gadgets no one had 30 years ago--computers.
America's nuclear industry was a casualty of the 1979
meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania,
which was and is referred to as a ``catastrophe'' even though
there were no measurable health effects. Chernobyl was a
disaster because Russians built the reactor in a way no one
builds today--without a containment vessel.
Since the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority,
Alexander's state has played a special role in U.S. energy
policy. The last commercial reactor opened in America is
Watts Bar, Unit 1 in Tennessee. And, in a sense, all uses of
nuclear power began in that state.
In September 1942, the federal government purchased 59,000
acres of wilderness in eastern Tennessee and built an instant
city--streets, housing, schools, shops, and the world's most
sophisticated scientific facilities. This was--is--Oak Ridge.
Just 34 months later, a blinding flash illuminating the New
Mexico desert announced the dawn of the atomic age. That is
what Americans can do when motivated.
Today, a mini-Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle
used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent
and radioactive lifetime 98 percent. Today, Alexander says,
10 percent of America's lightbulbs are lit with electricity
generated by nuclear material recycled from old Soviet
weapons stocks. This is, as Alexander says, ``one of the
greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in world history,
although few people seem to know about it.'' It is a travesty
that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has
neglected it so long because of fads about supposed ``green
energy'' and superstitions about nuclear power's dangers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Alexander for his
remarks. I share his analysis. He is exactly correct. It is very
important for America that we recognize what he has said but even more
important now, since I think the American people overwhelmingly
understand and support that, that we take some action that would
actually help us to get in the game of nuclear power production.
I remain baffled by some of the generalized statements of the
administration on nuclear power but lack of action that could move us
forward and get us out of this funk we are in, where we are not doing
anything. We have to start catching up with countries that are serious
about nuclear power. It will help make us more productive, help create
a lot of high-paying jobs in America, clean power, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, no emissions into the atmosphere, no CO2. It
has so many benefits that I am convinced we need to move forward.
I wish to make remarks on another issue; that is, the nomination of
Marisa Demeo to the DC Superior Court. It is not a nomination that
comes through the Judiciary Committee, as most Federal judges do.
Because she is a DC Superior Court nominee, the nomination went through
Homeland Security. Although, it is not a lifetime appointment, if you
are an advocate or resident of the District of Columbia who might have
to one day appear before a judge, you do want to know that Congress has
made certain that once that judge puts on the robe, he or she is
capable of putting aside personal views and applying the law
evenhandedly.
Unfair jurisprudence to one party is detrimental, costly, and
painful. We need to make sure our nominees exercise judgment--
objective, fair judgment--and not allow their personal politics or
ideologies to influence their decision making.
I am not comfortable enough to say that Ms. Demeo is capable of doing
that. I am just not. Her background and record raise issues with me. I
wish to be fair, but I think we need to talk about them.
The DC Superior Court does have broad jurisdiction. It includes trial
matters, criminal, civil, family court, landlord, tenant, and so forth.
A judge needs to be impartial in all those matters. Ms. Demeo's
background provides evidence that she may be more political and strong-
willed personally than impartial.
Her prior experience includes serving as regional counsel for the
Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund. In this position, she made a
number of troubling statements. For example, she argued that
``governments have a legal obligation to help those who don't speak
English well.'' We have an obligation, all of us, to help people who do
not speak English, and I think that is so. But as a judge, I am
wondering: Does this mean that constitutionally she is saying the
government has a legal obligation to do that? That seems, to me, the
tone of her statement.
During her tenure at MALDEF, the organization sued the State of Texas
because high schools did not offer their exit exams in Spanish. One
does not have to be a lawful citizen of our country to attend the
schools of Texas, even those unlawfully in the country can enroll in
high schools. Apparently, the state of Texas decided individuals should
do their exit exams in English to get a high school diploma. She
opposed that.
She opposed the nomination of Miguel Estrada, a fabulous Hispanic
nominee. He had superior academic credentials, was a brilliant writer,
and testified beautifully, I thought, before the Judiciary Committee.
She said this about him:
The most difficult situation for an organization like mine
is when a President nominates a Latino who does not resonate
or associate with the Latino community and who comes with a
predisposition to view claims of racial discrimination and
unfair treatment with suspicion and with doubt instead of
with an open mind.
I don't think that is an accurate description of Miguel Estrada, who
came here as a young man from Central America. I don't think that is an
accurate description of him. I am disappointed she would make that
statement about him. I am unaware of any provision in the Constitution
which requires that judges show favoritism to one party or another
based on their ethnicity. A judge, no matter what their background,
racial, ethnic, religious, political, should give everybody before the
court the same fair treatment. It is not necessary for a Caucasian to
hear a case involving a Caucasian or for a Latino to hear all cases
[[Page S2450]]
involving Latinos. Every judge puts on a robe, and that robe symbolizes
their absolute commitment to objectivity.
After the Democrats successfully filibustered Mr. Estrada, one of the
first nominees to be blocked by repeated, sustained filibusters--this
was not too many years ago, less than 10, about 7 or 8. We still have
problems in the Senate as a result of the alteration of Senate
tradition where nominees are filibustered. I try not to do that. The
Gang of 14 settled that, saying filibusters, under extraordinary
circumstances, now become possible. This was after the Estrada
nomination.
She was proud of blocking Mr. Estrada. She bragged about it. She
said:
This shows just because we have a Republican President and
a Republican Senate, it is still possible to defeat
candidates who are so conservative that they take us back in
civil rights.
I disagree. I disagree with her analysis of Miguel Estrada's
position. I heard him testify. I think he would have been a fabulous
member of the U.S. courts.
Being a liberal means never having to say you are sorry about what
you say to other people. In opposing Linda Chavez--a wonderful writer,
thinker, and passionate advocate for civil rights--she stated this in
opposing Linda Chavez:
We generally support the nomination of Latinos to important
positions, but Linda Chavez could really turn things backward
for the Latino community. I do not appreciate that. Linda
Chavez would not have turned things back on the Latino
community. I don't know what she means by that.
She went on to say:
A Spanish sounding surname does not make a person
sympathetic to the concerns and needs of the Latino
population.
She, therefore, would appear to only embrace the kind of Latino
nominee who agrees with her politically. It is not truly a question of
ethnicity, is it? It is a question of something different, a political
approach to government and law.
On May 13, 2004, she participated in a press conference with the
coalition against discrimination and the Constitution to ``challenge
the extremism of the Federal marriage amendment backers.'' I guess that
means I am an extremist.
Quite a number of Senators in the majority, as I recall, voted to say
that a marriage should remain as it has always previously been
interpreted: to be a union between a man and a woman. But she says this
is an extremism amendment. I don't think so.
I know there is a legal dispute about gay marriage, one in the
District of Columbia now. She already stated where she is on the
matter, declaring it a fundamental right. I do not believe that is a
fundamental constitutional right for a same-sex union to be declared a
marriage under the law of the United States. It never was for the first
170 years of the existence of this country.
Ms. Demeo is no friend of immigration enforcement. When the INA
announced a plan to enter into the FBI's National Crime Information
Center database the names of 314,000 individuals who had been ordered
deported but who fled and absconded and did not submit themselves for
deportation, in an effort to simply comply with a judicial final order,
she decried that move. She responded that most of the violators who are
guilty only of violating civil immigration laws do not pose a threat to
national security. I am not saying they pose a threat to national
security. They have come into the country illegally. They somehow
became apprehended. Maybe they committed some other crime. They were
ordered to be deported and they should be deported. If they do not show
up and abscond, they should be in the NCIC, just like anybody who has a
speeding ticket and they did not pay their fine.
She also criticized the government's Operation Tarmac, which
identified and ordered the deportation of 600 workers with access to
sensitive areas at airports who had violated immigration law. We had
600 workers at airports with access to sensitive areas, and they were
found to be illegally here and ordered deported.
Indeed, she is an advocate for amnesty openly. I guess we can
disagree on that. Good people certainly disagree on that. She is a big
fan also of affirmative action programs. There is a fine line between
affirmative action and quotas and mandatory racial preferences, and I
fear she has crossed that line.
During the Clinton administration, when Energy Secretary Frederico
Pena announced his resignation, she insisted he be replaced by a
Latino, indicating that was necessary for Latino concerns to receive
consideration. I think it is all right to ask that happen. But to
demand that and to insist that only a person of your ethnicity can give
fairness to your ethnic group I think is wrong and goes against
fundamental American concepts of law.
In a 2000 opinion editorial for the San Diego Tribune, Ms. Demeo
fully embraced the concept of dangerous identity politics, in my view.
She said:
We must create the pressure to move the nominations of
Paez--
Who had been nominated to the Federal bench--
and other Latino nominees. . . . Latinos must be appointed in
greater numbers at all levels, especially to the appellate
courts, where most of the decisions interpreting the
Constitution and Federal laws are ultimately made. Without
sufficient representation at every level, equal justice for
Latinos--or even the perception of justice--will not exist.
I think that is overstatement. It is one thing to advocate, and I
respect that, advocating for more people, groups who appear to be
underrepresented. That is a legitimate factor that would play in a
nomination. To use that kind of language, I think, is dangerous because
it suggests fairness is not otherwise obtainable.
Perhaps Ms. Demeo can set these views aside and be fair on the bench.
I think they are extreme in many instances. I am not certain she can.
It appears to me she is entrenched in a political approach, a lifestyle
of emphasizing rights for one group or another and not so much the
idea, the American vision of equal rights for everybody. That is the
core American principle; that everybody in a court of law is entitled
to equal rights. A judge and our juries are charged to that effect, and
judges put on a robe to show they are going to be unbiased and that
they are going to follow the law regardless of what their personal
views or friendships or so forth might be. So that is my concern and
the reason I have decided I will oppose the nomination. I assume she
will go on and have her vote soon and will probably have a majority and
be confirmed. But if she is confirmed, I hope Judge Demeo will think
about some of the issues I have raised and make sure in her own heart
of hearts that when she takes that bench, she is not going to favor one
party or another based on their religion, their ethnicity, their
politics, or her personal social agendas. I believe that is important.
I have some quotes from some letters in opposition to Judge Demeo's
nomination. Numbers USA has said her nomination ``would be a setback
for the nation in terms of seeking to restore the rule of law in
immigration.''
The Eagle Forum is a conservative group that has studied the
nomination and has written regarding the basis for opposing the
nomination as Judge Demeo's advocacy for issues, such as ``in-state
tuition for illegal aliens, the handling of the census for purposes of
redistricting, photo ID voting laws, official English initiatives,
amnesty for illegal aliens, affirmative action, and traditional
marriage.''
The Concerned Women of America wrote:
Her bias is so ingrained and so much the main thrust of her
career that it [is] not rational to believe that she will
suddenly change once confirmed as a judge. Rather it is
reasonable to conclude she would use her position to
implement her own political ideaology.
They go on to say:
Demeo reveals her own bias and lack of constitutional
knowledge by her statement that the Constitution is a
``flawed document that embodied the historical bias of its
time.''
Well, it is certainly not a perfect document, we all know that, and
it has been amended because it did have some provisions that could not
stand historical scrutiny, such as the question of slavery and equal
rights for all Americans. But I do think her statement is troubling to
me as a whole because I don't think it is a flawed document. Our
Constitution is the greatest document ever struck by the hands of man
at a given time, somebody once wrote.
[[Page S2451]]
The Traditional Values Coalition notes that she has ``demonstrated a
willingness to undermine our nation's effort to secure our borders
against illegal immigrants.''
They go on to make a number of points.
Others have written, which I will ask to have printed in the Record.
The nominee, whom I don't have anything against personally, if
confirmed--and I suspect she will be--will have to think about these
issues, commit herself totally and completely to fair and equal justice
to everybody who appears before her and put aside some of the advocacy
positions that have marked her sustained efforts during her
professional career.
Mr. President, before I leave the floor, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record the letters from Concerned Women of America,
the Eagle Forum, Numbers USA, and the Traditional Values Coalition.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 19, 2010.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of Concerned Women for America's
(CWA) 500,000 members nationwide, we write respectfully to
request you oppose the nomination of Marisa Demeo to the D.C.
Superior Court.
Marisa Demeo has a long history as a hard-left political
activist as a lawyer and lobbyist for the ultra-liberal
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF),
which calls into question her impartiality and judicial
temperament. When speaking out against Miguel Estrada, who
had an impeccable legal record, Demeo unfairly tarnished him
by saying, ``If the Senate confirms Mr. Estrada, his own
personal American dream will come true, but the American
dreams of the majority of Hispanics living in this country
will come to an end through his future legal decisions.''
This shows her own prejudice and lack of judicial
temperament.
Her bias is so ingrained and so much the main thrust of her
career that it is not rational to believe that she will
suddenly change once confirmed as a judge. Rather it is
reasonable to conclude she would use her position to
implement her own political ideology.
Demeo reveals how her own bias and lack of Constitutional
knowledge by her statement that the Constitution is a
``flawed document that embodied the historical bias of its
time.'' She has distorted the Constitution to argue that
there is a fundamental right to ``same-sex marriage.''
A judge of the D.C. Superior Court must be impartial and
possess a sound judicial temperament. Marisa Demeo's record
shows that she lacks these necessary attributes.
We urge you to oppose Marisa Demeo's nomination on the
Senate floor. CWA reserves the right to score this vote and
publish it in our scorecard for the 111th Congress.
Sincerely,
Penny Nance,
Chief Executive Officer,
Concerned Women for America.
____
Eagle Forum,
Washington, DC, Apr. 14, 2010.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the many thousands of American
families Eagle Forum represents nationwide, I am writing to
urge you to vote NO on the nomination of Marisa Demeo to the
DC Superior Court.
Marisa Demeo has served as a DC Magistrate judge for the
past 2\1/2\ years, and like so many others President Obama
has nominated to the courts, the majority of her legal
experience comes from far left-leaning legal advocacy groups
such as Lambda Legal and the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Education Fund (MALDEF). Judge Demeo has a strong record
of partiality to minority groups and to the liberal ideology
on a wide range of issues such as in-state tuition for
illegal aliens, the handling of the census for purposes of
redistricting, photo ID voting laws, official English
initiatives, amnesty for illegal aliens, affirmative action,
and traditional marriage.
Not only has she espoused views on the immigration issue
that are odds with a respect for the rule of law, but she has
shown a troubling contempt for conservative Latino Americans.
In a January 2003 press statement announcing MALDEF's
opposition to President George W. Bush's nomination of Miguel
Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Demeo stated:
``The most difficult situation for an organization like mine
is when a president nominates a Latino who does not reflect,
resonate or associate with the Latino community.''
Judge Demeo's public statements on a number of important
policy issues help to demonstrate her leftist personal
opinions which she will, no doubt, reflect in future judicial
decisions:
On laws Supporting Traditional Marriage: ``The right to
marry is a fundamental right that every individual should
have. It was prejudice against Blacks, which was the
underlying force creating and maintaining our anti-
miscegenation laws. It is prejudice against gay men and
lesbians that underlies the drive to prohibit them from being
able to marry.'' (MALDEF press statement, May 14, 2004).
On Requiring Use of Census Sampling: ``When you don't
adjust the data when states are redrawing their political
district lines, what ends up happening is they do not
accurately draw the lines in order to fully represent those
minority communities who were missed by the census.'' (NPR,
March 6, 2001).
On Photo ID Requirements for Voting: ``It violates the
rights of minority voters who may be poor and without photo
identification. The provision makes it hard to vote.'' (AP
Online, February 25, 2002).
On English as an Official Language: ``Governments have a
legal obligation to help those who don't speak English
well.'' (AP, October 9, 2003)
On Describing Congressional Opponents of Amnesty: ``There
are certain forces in Congress who are anti-immigrant and not
interested in seeing immigrants become full participants in
this country.'' (The Seattle Times, May 31, 1998)
On Affirmative Action (Grutter v. Bollinger): ``All
segments of the Latino community supported the continuance of
affirmative action.'' (FDCH Political Transcripts, June 23,
2003)
Marisa Demeo's policy positions and public statements have
proved her to be a leftist activist, and we should assume no
different in her future rulings and opinions as a judge on
the DC Superior Court. Eagle Forum believes that Judge
Demeo's nomination should be given serious attention as her
positions and public statements on so many important issues
do not ``reflect or resonate'' American constitutional values
or principles.
Conservative grassroots Americans do not want judicial
nominees who have a record of disrespecting the Constitution
to slip through the confirmation process unchallenged and
without a tough fight. We urge you to join us in opposing
Judge Marisa Demeo when her nomination comes to the Senate
floor for an up-or-down vote. Eagle Forum reserves the right
to score this vote and to publish it in our scorecard for the
Second Session of the 111th Congress.
Faithfully,
Phyllis Schlafly,
President.
____
NumbersUSA,
Arlington, VA, Apr. 13, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sessions: On behalf of NumbersUSA's 940,000
members, we are writing to advise you that the Nation's
largest grassroots organization advocating for immigration
enforcement opposes the nomination of Marisa DeMeo to the
district of Columbia Superior Court.
While we don't often get involved in judicial nominations,
this nominee is troubling. The D.C. court could well serve as
a stepping stone to the federal bench. That would be a
setback for the nation in terms of seeking to restore the
rule of law in immigration.
Marisa DeMeo has served as a general counsel of MALDEF (the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) where she
has a lengthy record of disrespect for federal immigration
laws, with indications that she believes it is illegitimate
for Congress to set enforceable limits. Ms. DeMeo favors
amnesty and official recognition of the illegal alien Mexican
ID, the matricula consular. She opposes the highly successful
287(g) program. With regard to potential judicial
temperament, she has often referred to her opponents in
immigration debates with such ugly name-calling as ``anti-
immigrant.''
Thank you for taking our views into consideration.
Sincerely,
Roy Beck,
President.
____
Traditional Values Coalition,
Washington, DC, Apr. 15, 2010.
Dear Senator: On behalf of 43,000 churches associated with
the Traditional Values Coalition, I am writing to ask that
you vote against the confirmation of Marisa Demeo to become a
member of the DC Superior Court. Many of our churches are
African American and Hispanic.
Marisa Demeo is far out of the mainstream in her beliefs,
statements and activism. Her role as an activist with the
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund is troublesome to say the least.
In addition, while serving as regional counsel for the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF),
Demeo has demonstrated a willingness to undermine our
nation's efforts to secure our borders against illegal
immigration. MALDEF has also been involved in efforts to
undermine our national security efforts by encouraging cities
to refuse to comply with the Patriot Act after the 9/11
attack on our nation.
As an open, radical lesbian, Demeo has openly condemned the
effort to amend our Constitution to protect marriage as a
one-man, one-woman union. Demeo supports gay marriage,
claiming it is a constitutional right. She also claims that
LGBT individuals are equal to racial minorities and can claim
protection as minorities under our civil rights laws.
The American people have overwhelmingly voted against gay
marriage in state after state when they've had a chance to
cast a ballot for traditional marriage. Demeo's views are out
of step with the beliefs of most
[[Page S2452]]
Americans on the sanctity of marriage between one man and one
woman.
As a DC Superior Court Judge, Demeo would be in a key
position to undermine our national security and destroy
traditional marriage through her edicts. The DC Superior
Court is known to be a steppingstone to the Supreme Court.
Demeo's radical lesbianism, anti-marriage, anti-national
security views are dangerous to our nation. She should not be
confirmed to the DC Superior Court.
Sincerely,
Andrea Lafferty,
TVC Executive Director.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.