[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.