[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5773-5790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF MARISA J. DEMEO TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR 
                   COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Marisa J. Demeo, of the 
District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of 
the District of Columbia.
  Under the previous order, there will be up to 6 hours of debate 
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             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

[[Page 5774]]

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 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

[[Page 5775]]

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 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

[[Page 5776]]

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 
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:


[[Page 5777]]

       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.
  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

[[Page 5778]]

     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 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.


                            Financial Reform

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes, if I may 
this afternoon, to talk about an issue that has been the subject of 
much debate over the last number of days, and that is the financial 
reform bill that will be coming to the floor of this body in a matter 
of days--an issue that is going to confront us, as the circumstances 
presently exist, with Members having to make a choice. My hope is that 
before that occurs, we can reach some understanding that will allow us 
to have a strong bill that ends too big to fail, that protects 
consumers, and that builds the kind of architecture for financial 
services that will allow us to avoid the pitfalls that caused our 
economy to reach almost near collapse over the last several years.
  The choice is going to come down to this: There are people who can 
vote to open this debate on financial reform legislation that will hold 
Wall Street firms--large financial institutions--accountable and 
prevent future economic crises such as the one from which we are just 
beginning to emerge or basically defeat this; to somehow walk out of 
this Chamber and leave us basically where we have been, and that is 
highly vulnerable--individuals, families, businesses, and the overall 
economy of our country once again exposed to the kind of 
vulnerabilities that brought so much hardship to our country.
  They can, of course, block--as they are apt to do in some cases--any 
consideration of this bill and leave us in a place--a broken place--
where the status quo would again create the kind of problems I have 
described.
  So one has to ask themselves a question: Who benefits if this bill to 
rein in Wall Street and large financial institutions is strangled by a 
filibuster, where it ends up that we can't even get to debate the bill? 
Who benefits from that? Well, certainly no one can make a case the 
American family would benefit. These families have seen millions of 
jobs lost and trillions in savings wiped out because a greedy few on 
Wall Street gambled with money that didn't even belong to them, causing 
the hardship we have seen in our Nation.
  Certainly, America's small businesses do not benefit. These are the 
ones that have seen the flow of credit and capital literally dry up. 
How many of us in this Chamber, back in our respective States, have 
talked to owners of small businesses who cannot get a dime's worth of 
credit over the past several years in order to hire new people and 
survive during this economic crisis? I hear anecdote after anecdote 
after anecdote of businesses desperately trying to find credit in order 
to stay alive and survive. Yet because of the unchecked risk taking by 
financial firms that caused this economic crisis, credit is virtually 
gone. So American businesses--small businesses particularly--certainly 
are not benefitted if we are confronted again with the status quo and a 
perpetuation of the present set of rules.
  Certainly, Madam President, the American community banks do not 
benefit at all. These are the ones who have found it difficult or even 
impossible to compete on a playing field tilted so heavily toward the 
largest firms and, frankly, financial firms that are unregulated.
  One of the things our community banks and others--and I am not 
suggesting they love every dotted i and crossed t in the bill--are 
seeking is some consolidation of regulation. They want to see their 
competitors, who are not subjected to any regulation, be subjected too 
so they will also have to face the same set of rules.
  The bill I have written, along with my Banking Committee colleagues, 
does just that. We consolidate the regulation so there is not the 
overlapping

[[Page 5779]]

jurisdictions that exist, and their major competitors--the nonbank 
financial institutions--are going to be subjected to the same rules 
they are. That creates that level playing field our smaller banks need 
in order for them to compete effectively.
  Certainly the American taxpayers are not going to benefit with the 
status quo. These are the people who were forced to bail out Wall 
Street in 2008. If this bill is blocked, they might be asked to do it 
again.
  Now, I am not in the prediction business, but if some future Congress 
goes back to the American public, as we did in the fall of 2008, and 
asks them to write a check again for $700 billion because we failed to 
get this legislation through that would end too big to fail--the 
implicit guarantee that the Federal Government will bail you out if you 
are so large or so interconnected that you can't possibly fail--the 
American people, in my view, would reject overwhelmingly a request to 
ask them to write another check for that purpose.
  Our bill, for the first time, writes into legislation an absolute 
prohibition that the American taxpayer would ever or should ever again 
be asked to do what they did in the fall of 2008.
  But here is who would benefit if this bill is blocked: the same large 
financial firms that got us into the mess in the first place. They 
believe--and I presume they are right--that they can bolster their 
bottom lines if the status quo prevails; that they can continue to take 
outrageous risks, using other people's money, knowing that any profit 
is theirs to keep and any loss will be made up by the American 
taxpayer.
  That is why we are faced with this prediction that 41 of our fellow 
colleagues will vote against us going to this bill on what they call 
the motion to proceed to the bill. The letter from the minority leader 
says: We have 41 votes to stop you from even debating this bill. Well, 
you explain to the American taxpayer--to small business, to the 
American family, and to others out there who are paying an awful price 
because of the mess of these very institutions that are today leading 
the charge against us getting to a bill--why the status quo is in their 
interest and their benefit.
  Madam President, those who vote to block this bill are sending a 
clear message to American families, businesses, community bankers, and 
taxpayers, and that message will be: I am sorry, but we are not on your 
side. We are choosing another side of this equation.
  Last month, my good friend, the minority leader, and the Republican 
Senator responsible for campaign fundraising participated in a meeting 
in New York with Wall Street executives. That happens all the time. 
Certainly, there is the right to sit down and talk with people, to 
represent labor and business, and we should do that. But nobody knows 
what was talked about at that meeting. Yet when our friend and 
colleague who chairs the campaign committee came back, right 
afterwards, all of a sudden we get this rhetoric about too big to fail; 
that we can't possibly go to this bill.
  Now, I was born at night, Madam President, but not last night. I was 
born at night, but not last night. And don't tell me that miraculously 
these things happened and all of a sudden we find ourselves with 41 
colleagues, many of whom I suspect are not overly enthusiastic about 
this game plan that says: Don't ask why; don't tell us what is in the 
bill. Just tell us we are going to line up and say no matter what 
anyone says or does or what they have tried to do, we are going to 
object to even going to this bill.
  I firmly believe there is more than a small minority of my Republican 
colleagues who, frankly, find that argument objectionable. That is not 
to suggest they like this bill or agree with every position in it, but 
I know them well enough to know they are sick and tired of being told 
how they are going to have to vote on a procedural motion on a matter 
that I think deserves at least the support of our colleagues to begin 
that important debate.
  What we do know, of course, about the opposition to going forward is 
that the Republican leadership returned armed with some very false 
talking points, talking points written by a political strategist with 
close ties to large financial institutions, talking points that have 
been debunked by the independent media analysis and even Republicans 
such as FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair.
  Let me point out the memo that suggested this game plan was written 
by a political strategist was written long before even one word was 
written on the bill. They were told how to fight a bill that didn't 
even exist out here by accusing the bill of leaving open the too big to 
fail, even though they knew--at least those who had read the bill--
those provisions had been written so tight that no one could possibly 
argue too big to fail would be allowed again.
  The Republican leadership returned promising that every member of 
their caucus would vote to kill this bill before the debate even began. 
I know for a fact that Members of this body, on both sides of the 
aisle, want to pass a good bill. My colleagues know me well, and they 
know my reputation over the years. I have never, ever passed a major 
piece of legislation in this body, in over three decades, when I have 
not had the cooperation and backing of a Member or Members on the other 
side of the aisle--never once on every major piece of legislation with 
which I have been involved. Here we are, at the brink of going forward 
with the single largest proposal to reform the financial services 
sector of our country, and we are divided here like a couple of 
petulant teenagers, instead of sitting around and coming together as I 
have offered for months, getting behind a bill and allowing us to go 
forward. It is long overdue that we grow up and recognize this is not 
some athletic contest, this is about whether our economy can get back 
on its feet, whether we can grow and prosper and create jobs, have 
credit flow and capital form so that businesses and wealth can be 
created. Nothing less than that is at stake in this debate and 
discussion, and all the more reason why we need to go forward, and go 
forward like adults, like Members of the greatest deliberative body--as 
we are told over and over--in the history of mankind, the Senate, to 
resolve these matters.
  I have worked for hours with my colleague from Alabama, as he well 
knows, Senator Shelby, to the point that he has said--and I appreciate 
it very much and I compliment him for it--we are 80 percent of the way 
to a bipartisan consensus. In fact, I suspect if Richard Shelby were 
asked today whether that number were 80 percent, he would have even a 
higher number. Imagine being 80 to 90 percent in agreement, yet being 
told by the minority we cannot go forward. Do I have to write the whole 
bill? Is that when we can go forward? You have 80 or 90 percent of what 
you think is a good bill, but, no, no, we are going to stop any further 
debate. In all my years I have never heard of such an argument, whether 
I have been in the minority or majority, that I agree with 80 or 90 
percent of what you have written, Senator, but I am sorry, we are going 
to stop even considering any further debate on the floor of the Senate.
  I worked for many hours with the Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker, 
to try to get to 100 percent, as he well knows. No matter what was said 
in the meetings between the Republican leadership and Wall Street 
executives, the fact is that the bill I will be bringing to the floor 
reflects not only bipartisan input but good common sense as well. If 
you look at what the bill actually does, it is clear that there is no 
ideology here, just one principle: Hold Wall Street and large financial 
institutions accountable so that American families and businesses can 
grow and thrive without fear of another economic catastrophe.
  The bill creates an early warning system so that for the very first 
time in our Nation's history, someone will be in charge of monitoring 
our entire financial system, to look out for emerging products and 
practices and problems, not just here at home but even globally.
  Again, I don't think you have to have a Ph.D. in economics to know 
what we have seen in the headlines and heard on

[[Page 5780]]

our news shows a few weeks ago, that there were major economic problems 
in the small nation of Greece, and that all of a sudden the financial 
system of every other nation around the world was at risk. Or when that 
small exchange in Shanghai, China, began to decline by 12 percent a few 
years ago, every other exchange around the globe within hours was 
adversely affected.
  That market, that exchange, represented less than 5 percent of the 
volume of the New York Stock Exchange. Yet because it declined by 12 
percent one morning, every other exchange around the world reacted. 
What more do I need to say about whether our issues here are global in 
scope, not just domestic? Again, it is even further reason why we need 
to be able to pull together and create this bill that is essential so 
we have a warning system in place that looks out for and monitors 
products, practices, and even problems that can emerge in other parts 
of the world if they can pose the kind of risk that could bring our 
financial system to near collapse.
  Under the status quo, of course, no regulator can see beyond the 
narrow silo of their own radar screen. We changed that. This now 
involves all of these prudential risk regulators sitting at a systemic 
risk council headed up by the Federal Reserve and Treasury here, so 
they can actually look over the horizon and act as a financial radar 
system. What is going on out there? Are there problems emerging in 
products or companies or nations that could bring our country to near 
disaster financially?
  If we had had that in place back a few years ago, I would argue we 
might not find ourselves where we are today. So this is one of our 
provisions in the bill. What a pity it would be to lose the opportunity 
to create that kind of an early warning system. That is how the 
subprime lending sector was able to grow so large despite the dangers 
it posed to the economy and why no one was able to stop it before it 
precipitated a crisis. I do not believe members of the minority caucus 
want regulators to be unaware of emerging threats to our financial 
system.
  The bill brings new transparency and accountability as well to 
financial dealings by ensuring that even the most complicated or 
obscure transactions are concluded in an open marketplace.
  The Presiding Officer, of course, is well versed and talented, coming 
from the Empire State, and understands these issues. I believe that 
derivatives, for instance, are a very important instrument, critically 
important to economic growth and prosperity. They have become a 
pejorative, unfortunately, but my view has been let the markets work.
  How do the markets work best? Markets work best when there is 
transparency, when buyers and sellers, investors, have an opportunity 
to see with clarity what these instruments are, what they are designed 
to do. Right now we have a shadow economy where some of these 
instruments operate in darkness, and that is one of the problems that 
created the financial mess we are in. Our bill opens up, sheds light, 
brings sunshine to these instruments so that taxpayers but, more 
importantly, investors and others can honestly understand what they 
are, what they are intended to do and how they work.
  For the first time here we would force risky financial companies such 
as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers that have operated the shadow 
banking system to be subject to proper supervision, again, so we have 
the ability to understand what they are doing.
  Of course, under the status quo these dangerous giants that have been 
free to take enormous gambles in a single-minded quest for maximum 
profit and when they go down like the Hindenberg, taxpayers are left to 
clean up the rubble. I do not believe that members of the minority 
caucus want to leave the Lehman Brothers unsupervised until its 
collapse shakes the very foundations of our economy.
  This bill I have before us beefs up the SEC oversight, it strengthens 
protections for investors, and gives shareholders a greater voice on 
how executives are compensated and how big their bonuses can get. Under 
the status quo, of course, the same executives whose mismanagement 
caused the collapse of financial giants get to collect ridiculous 
bonuses again. Kill the bill and there is nothing in here that would 
preclude the same kind of abuses, the outrageous gouging, if you will, 
at taxpayer expense by a handful of these executives who fail to 
understand--or if they understand, more outrageously were willing to 
reward themselves for their own failures because the American taxpayers 
shored up their financial institution.
  The Allen Stanfords and Bernie Madoffs of the world are able to rip 
off investors for millions while the understaffed and underfunded SEC, 
the Securities and Exchange Commission, fails to stop them.
  I do not believe members of the Republican caucus want to leave these 
executives free to line their pockets with unearned billions or leave 
investors vulnerable to Wall Street predators and con artists. That is 
what happened. That is what went on. Our bill stops it. We need to be 
able to go forward with this bill.
  Our bill requires full disclosures in plain English so that Americans 
can easily understand the risks and returns of any financial product, 
whether it is a mortgage or a student loan. Our bill creates an 
independent consumer protection agency, a watchdog with bark and bite, 
to protect consumers from the abusive practices that have become almost 
standard operating procedures--skyrocketing credit card interest rates, 
the explosion in checking account fees, predatory lending by mortgage 
firms, and so much more.
  You do not have to educate the American people. You will hear it over 
and over from your own constituents. Listen to what they have been 
through with these increased interest rates, increased fees--every 
gimmick you can think of to pick the pocket of the American taxpayer 
who, today, necessarily needs to depend on credit cards in order to 
make ends meet in their families.
  Of course, under the status quo, consumers trying to make smart 
decisions about their family finances are confronted with a sea of fine 
print and technical jargon and they are vulnerable to the predatory 
lenders, the greedy predators who have taken advantage of them. Our 
bill stops that. Our bill puts an end to that. If we do not get a 
chance to debate this and go forward, that would be the end of it. What 
a disgrace it would be to be confronted, as we were at the outset of 
this Congress, with the problems the American taxpayers have been 
through--8\1/2\ million jobs lost, 7 million homes in foreclosure, 
retirement accounts evaporated, small businesses failing, and we did 
nothing to stop it, despite the fact that 80 or 90 percent of what I 
have written in this bill is agreed to by many in the minority. But you 
will not even allow the bill to go forward to be debated. For the life 
of me I do not understand that logic.
  In short, this bill protects the American consumers, American 
businesses, community banks, as I mentioned, and taxpayers from the 
very exact situation that occurred in 2008, an economic crisis brought 
about by Wall Street highjinks, large financial institutions and 
regulatory failures. Our bill creates a stronger foundation, I might 
add, on which we can rebuild the prosperity we have lost in our Nation 
over the last number of years.
  I do not believe members of the Republican minority, our friends and 
colleagues here, want to kill this bill. I do not want to believe that. 
Unlike other matters we have debated over this Congress, this matter 
ought to be one where we can come together as I have tried to do, day 
in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, to craft 
a piece of legislation that reflected the myriad views embraced by the 
Members of this Senate.
  We are on the brink of going forward and I will go forward with this 
bill. We can do it one of several different ways. We can go forward. I 
will bring this bill up. The leader, I am told, will offer a motion to 
proceed. My hope is we will not have to have a vote on that, that there 
will be enough common sense

[[Page 5781]]

here that would say this is a good product even for those who do not 
like various provisions of it, and then do what we are supposed to do 
in this body--debate, offer amendments, try to improve the bill based 
on your own view of what constitutes an improvement. But let's act like 
the Senate on a major bill of this import here, instead of putting on 
the brakes, don't show up, don't say anything, just vote no, we are not 
going to debate this until you do exactly as I want you to do.
  That is not the Senate that I think the American people expect to see 
work. My hope is, of course, that I will be right in that. My 
colleagues, many of whom I have worked closely with on many issues, do 
not want to be part of a blind, pointless effort here, just to walk 
away from this process. I believe they, our friends on the other side, 
are caught between the same commonsense principles that led many of 
them to spend so many hours helping us create this legislation, and the 
political deals that have led their leadership to demand they help to 
kill it.
  As I said a moment ago, I have been in this body for some 30 years. I 
have served with many Republican colleagues for a long time. I have 
great friends, as my colleagues know, on the other side of this aisle, 
people who I believe care as much about this country as any other 
Member, and they want to be part of answers, solutions. They did not 
come here, they did not fight hard to get here, to say no. They came 
here because they wanted to be part of the answers to how we can get 
our country moving again.
  Again, I am charged as the chairman of a committee to try to pull 
together a bill that reflects the disparate points of view, that 
listens to our colleagues here in crafting a piece of legislation that 
can work. I have tried to do that now for many months. I have come to 
the point where, frankly, we need to go forward in this body. I am 
confident, again, if our colleagues would give us a chance we can 
achieve the results they seek and I am hopeful they will when the 
motion to proceed occurs, and then engage in the kind of thoughtful, 
intelligent debate this Senate has a reputation of achieving and 
accomplishing.
  I thank my colleagues for the work they have contributed to it so 
far. Let's not take all of that work and dash it on the rocks of 
procedural filibustering. We can do better than that. I am confident we 
will. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of these efforts.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination 
of Marisa Demeo to be a Superior Court judge in the District of 
Columbia. I do not believe she has enough judicial experience to sit on 
the DC Superior Court. She is currently serving as a magistrate judge, 
a position she has held for the past 2\1/2\ years. Although being a 
magistrate judge is good training for a Superior Court judge, 2 years 
is not enough of that training. Of the 25 magistrate judges in the 
District of Columbia, she is one of the least experienced. Nineteen of 
the current DC magistrate judges have served for 5 years or more 
compared to her 2\1/2\. Some have served for decades. In fact, only 3 
of her 24 colleagues have served less than Ms. Demeo.
  Looking at her record, I see she has much more experience working as 
a lobbyist for a special interest group than a magistrate judge. She 
was chief lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, a national Latino civil rights organization, from 1997 to 2004. 
In this position, she became more well known for divisive comments she 
made against Hispanic Republicans than for her legal expertise. She 
took on a high-profile role opposing President Bush's nomination of 
Miguel Estrada, criticizing him in numerous newspaper stories because 
he did not appear to support her political agenda. During this time, 
she made personal attacks against him, suggesting he was a traitor to 
other Hispanics.
  Let me read from a 2003 article from National Review entitled, ``Dems 
to Miguel Estrada, You're Not Hispanic Enough.'' Ms. Demeo said:

       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.

  In another press statement she said:

       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.

  Instead of debating these issues, Ms. Demeo tried to convince the 
media that an entire community should only think one way--her way--and 
that Miguel Estrada was wrong for thinking anything otherwise. To me, 
this sounds like ethnic bullying. It is dangerous and insulting to 
believe a particular community should think uniformly, and Ms. Demeo 
was wrong to do this.
  I was not in the Senate at the time; however, I have come to work 
closely with Miguel Estrada since that time, especially during my work 
on the Honduras crisis. He is a patriotic American and one who gave his 
own time and energy to help us understand the legal issues facing 
Honduras. I do not doubt for a minute his qualifications to serve on 
the Federal bench. Comments by Ms. Demeo and others questioning Mr. 
Estrada's credentials, encouraging the filibuster of his nomination, 
and accusing him of not being ``authentically Hispanic'' made the 
confirmation process very painful for him and his family.
  This was not the only time Ms. Demeo advanced this terrible argument. 
She used this same line of attack against Linda Chavez, President 
Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Labor.
  Ms. Demeo was quoted by the Washington Post in January of 2001 
saying:

       We generally support the nomination of Latinos to important 
     positions, but Linda Chavez could really turn things 
     backwards for the Latino community. We just really question 
     what kinds of efforts she is going to put into enforcing the 
     affirmative action laws.

  Ms. Demeo has also attacked those of us in Congress who opposed the 
amnesty legislation of a couple years ago, saying we were ``anti-
immigrant and not interested in seeing immigrants become full 
participants in this country.''
  She strongly opposes English as the official language and says the 
government must accommodate non-English speakers. She was quoted by the 
Associated Press in 2003 saying ``governments have a legal obligation 
to help those who don't speak English well.''
  She demanded that the Census Department use ``sampling'' to puff up 
the number of voters in Hispanic districts. She told National Public 
Radio in 2001 that raw census data should not be used because it ``does 
not fully represent those minority communities who were missed by the 
census.'' Instead, she advocated that less accurate sampling data be 
used to redraw political districts.
  Ms. Demeo has shown similar disregard for verified information by 
arguing that photo requirements for voting ``violates the rights of 
minority voters.''
  She is also an active proponent of affirmative action, again 
suggesting to the public that all Latinos are in lockstep agreement on 
this issue.
  After the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter, Demeo said:

       All segments of the Latino community supported the 
     continuance of affirmative action. . . . The nation must now 
     also turn and concentrate on ensuring equality of opportunity 
     in our elementary, middle and high schools. Colleges and 
     universities that use race-conscious admissions have made 
     those universities a better place for everyone to learn.

  Ms. Demeo has also attacked the definition of traditional marriage. 
These views have led groups such as Eagle Forum, Numbers USA, the 
Federation of American Immigration Reform, English First, Concerned 
Women for America, and the Traditional Values Coalition to oppose Judge 
Demeo's nomination.

[[Page 5782]]

  I assume Ms. Demeo will be confirmed. If she is, I will wish her well 
in this new position. But I, regrettably, will vote no on this 
nomination.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the nomination of 
Marisa J. Demeo.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am going to actually speak on a 
different matter. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be moved to 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, here, in our Nation's Capital, we stand 
for justice, for fairness and opportunity and for the rule of law.
  On the floor of this Senate and in the Oval Office, we shape national 
policy, and guide the course of a Nation.
  In the chambers of the Supreme Court, the principles of justice laid 
down in our Constitution are translated into the real world.
  Our system of government, embodied in this city, stands as an example 
for all others around the world.
  And yet today we are met with a certain irony.
  As I address this chamber, the DC Superior Court has been paralyzed, 
and our justice system has ground to a halt, thanks to my Republican 
colleagues.
  My good friend, the junior Senator from South Carolina, has chosen to 
obstruct an eminently qualified judicial nominee and current DC 
magistrate judge, named Marisa Demeo.
  When the President of the United States appoints a judge to the 
Superior Court here in Washington, these nominations are generally 
approved by the Senate without delay or controversy.
  But this time, my Republican friends have decided to play politics 
with our judicial system.
  They have stalled Judge Demeo's nomination for 8 months, and have 
turned a routine vote into the longest confirmation battle of the Obama 
Presidency.
  As a result, DC government officials have warned that their ability 
to administer justice is being tested.
  As a former attorney general of Illinois, I understand how dire this 
situation is. I understand how this obstructionism is crippling the 
Superior Court system.
  And for what reason? My colleagues and I have asked our Republican 
friends to name their objections, but no one can get a straight answer.
  No Republican has cast any doubt on Judge Demeo's qualifications, 
which are superb.
  She has served as a magistrate judge since 2007. Before that, she 
worked at the Department of Justice, in the Civil Rights Division and 
as an assistant U.S. attorney.
  She has degrees from Princeton and New York University. Her legal 
training and experience are more than adequate for the post of Superior 
Court Judge, and yet, for unspecified political reasons, the junior 
Senator from South Carolina continues to hold up this important 
nomination.
  He said he has concerns that Judge Demeo may not be fair and balanced 
in her approach. But there is nothing in her record to suggest anything 
of the sort.
  In fact, not a single Republican even took the time to ask a question 
at Judge Demeo's confirmation hearings.
  So I cannot imagine what they find objectionable.
  The court system in our Nation's Capital is strained to the breaking 
point, and my friend from South Carolina doesn't seem to mind.
  I believe this is simply unacceptable.
  This is why the American people are frustrated with their government: 
because petty political battles and Republican obstructionism are 
impeding our ability to govern.
  My friends on the other side are certainly entitled to play political 
games if they like, but I would urge them to save politics for the 
campaign trail, and stop holding up the course of justice and the 
important business of the American people.
  We simply do not have time for this. This is not about politics, this 
is about people's lives.
  This is about the functioning of the American justice system, right 
here in the Capital of the United States.
  This is about the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, a 
right which has been denied to DC residents by Republican political 
games.
  The American people have had enough.
  So I urge my friends on the other side to abandon this kind of 
obstructionism and take their political games elsewhere.
  Let us stand up for the ideals of fairness and justice that are 
embodied here, in this system of government.
  And let us make sure that every American, including the residents of 
our Nation's Capital, can avail themselves of this system.
  I ask my colleague from South Carolina to drop his hold on this 
eminently qualified nominee, so this Senate can hold a vote, and then 
we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges we 
face.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week in the Senate we are calling 
attention to the unfortunate obstructionism coming from the other side 
of the aisle when it comes to President Obama's nominations. There are 
now 101 nominees who have been voted out of committee--most of them 
with unanimous support but who are languishing on the Senate floor 
because the Republican minority won't allow them to have a vote. In 
many cases, they won't even give a reason--they are using anonymous 
holds. That is fundamentally unfair.
  Let me speak briefly about a nominee we will vote on today: Marisa 
Demeo. She was nominated to be an associate judge on the District of 
Columbia Superior Court. This is a local court here in Washington that 
primarily hears misdemeanor and felony cases. It is not a Federal court 
and its judges do not serve lifetime appointments.
  Marisa Demeo is currently a magistrate judge on this court, and she 
has an excellent reputation. She is a former Federal prosecutor and was 
hired by the John Ashcroft Justice Department as an assistant U.S. 
attorney here in Washington.
  Before she was a prosecutor, she was a civil rights lawyer in the 
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and at the Mexican American 
Legal Defense Fund, one of the most respected civil rights 
organizations in America.
  Judge Demeo has received numerous awards throughout her legal career, 
including the ``Rising Legal Star'' award from the Hispanic Bar 
Association 
of Washington, DC, and a Special Achievement Award from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
  Judge Demeo was unanimously approved by the Senate committee that 
oversees DC Superior Court nominations, so you would think she would be 
confirmed by the full Senate in short order. Well you would be wrong. 
After being voted out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
on May 20, 2009, Judge Demeo has been held up on the Senate floor ever 
since. For 11 months now, the Republican minority obstructed her 
nomination and objected to an up-or-down vote. No other nominee of 
President Obama's has been pending on the Senate floor longer than 
Judge Demeo.
  As a result of this delay, the DC Superior Court has struggled to 
handle its crushing caseload. Last month, the Senate received a letter 
from the chief judge of that court, Lee Satterfield, who said the 
following:

       The Superior Court is a busy, urban court with a caseload 
     of over 100,000 cases per year. Each day we make life and 
     death decisions about neglected and abused children, 
     juveniles alleged to have committed crimes, criminals charged 
     with everything from minor misdemeanors to first degree 
     murder and sex abuse. . . . [T]he people of the District of 
     Columbia deserve a court with a full complement of judges 
     making the crucial decisions affecting the lives of D.C. 
     residents.

  I am pleased the Republicans have finally relented and agreed to a 
vote on Judge Demeo. We owe it to her, and we

[[Page 5783]]

owe it to the people of the District of Columbia.
  I know there has been some criticism of some positions Judge Demeo 
took when she worked at MALDEF. A few of my Republican colleagues have 
discussed these criticisms on the Senate floor today. I would like to 
make two points in response.
  First, the positions Judge Demeo took when she was an advocate at 
MALDEF are mainstream positions. She advocated for comprehensive 
immigration reform. She opposed the nomination of Miguel Estrada, one 
of President Bush's most controversial nominees. She supported 
affirmative action, and she opposed a photo ID requirement in the 
voting context because of its adverse impact on minorities. And she 
opposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. These are 
positions I share, and many members of the Senate share. They are 
positions that are hardly out of step with the political mainstream in 
America.
  In any event, Judge Demeo has been a magistrate judge for the past 
three years, and she has demonstrated her ability to be fair and 
impartial. She has skillfully made the transition from advocate to 
judge, and she deserves this promotion from magistrate judge to 
associate judge on the DC Superior Court. I urge my colleagues to 
support her confirmation.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote to confirm the nomination of Marisa Judith Demeo as associate 
judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
  She has waited long enough and the Superior Court of the District has 
waited long enough. Judge Demeo epitomizes what it means to serve. A 
consummate community leader, she has always believed in the importance 
of public service.
  She is currently serving as magistrate judge in the Criminal Division 
of Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
  As an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
District of Columbia, she has ample experience prosecuting misdemeanor 
and felony cases.
  Having said that, she also has deep roots in the community, a woman 
who cares about justice--about doing what's fair and what's right. She 
believes in the rule of law.
  From her work at the AIDS Service Center of Lower Manhattan, her 
service for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, her time as a 
Texas rural legal aid and a paralegal in the Civil Rights Division of 
the Department of Justice, she has taken pride in acting on a spirit of 
community that is part of who she is--each of us working together for 
the betterment of all of us.
  I know the good work she has done at the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund and what that work has meant to her and to 
those she has served.
  The professional awards and honors she has received as well as her 
academic awards are far too numerous to mention here. Suffice it to say 
that, in my view, she is one of the most accomplished nominees we have 
had before us.
  A graduate of Princeton University and New York University School of 
Law, Judge Demeo's credentials are impeccable.
  I know her dedication and her keen mind, her judicial temperament, 
her belief in the rule of law and those powerful words that mean so 
much to her and to all of us in this Chamber--equal justice under law.
  Judge Demeo is ready to serve on a busy urban court with a caseload 
of over 100,000 cases per year. As an associate judge on the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia she will bring her knowledge, skills, 
and expertise to every decision in a busy courtroom dealing with 
hundreds of neglected and abused children who will come before her--
juveniles alleged to have committed crimes, and those who have been 
accused and charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanors to first 
degree murder and sexual abuse.
  Judge Demeo will be there to serve as she always has, ready to make 
timely and fair decisions on domestic violence cases, housing issues, 
child custody and support.
  The caseload will not deter her. It will invigorate her, and I am 
proud to cast my vote to confirm Judge Demeo as an associate judge on 
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  The time has come to confirm this nominee.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support the long-delayed 
nomination of Judge Marisa Demeo for a seat on the DC Superior Court 
and urge my colleagues to approve her as quickly as possible so she can 
take her place on this court that is both busy and shorthanded.
  Judge Demeo is well qualified for this position and brings a range of 
legal experience to her new job that would make her an asset to the 
court. She has been a judge, a prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney 
advocating for civil rights and a law professor.
  Specifically, for the past 2 years, Judge Demeo has served as a 
magistrate judge in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia.
  Prior to that, from 2004 to 2007 she served as an assistant U.S. 
attorney in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Columbia; from 1997 to 2004 she served as the Regional Counsel for the 
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, from 1993 to 1996 
she was an honors program trial attorney with the Justice Department 
Civil Rights division, and she was an adjunct professor of law at 
Howard University in 2003, 2005 and 2008.
  Judge Demeo is a graduate of Princeton University with a bachelor's 
degree in political science and earned her law degree at New York 
University. And besides her legal work, she is also in demand as a 
speaker on legal issues and is the author of many articles on civil 
rights law.
  Judge Demeo also has a compelling personal story that reminds us that 
the American dream is alive and well. Her father--the son of Italian 
immigrants--and her mother--a Puerto Rican immigrant--taught her that 
if you work hard, anything is possible and Judge Demeo has channeled 
her talent and drive into a successful career in public service.
  These facts taken together led the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee to endorse Judge Demeo's nomination by voice vote in 
May.
  Let me say that again, the committee reported Judge Demeo's 
nomination to the full Senate in May--11 months ago--and it has been 
stalled ever since.
  There is also speculation that some object to her because of legal 
advocacy work she has done on behalf of the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, also known as MALDEF.
  But there is no reason that this sort of work should be held against 
any nominee. Under our system of justice, when an individual or group 
believes something is not just, they are allowed to have their day in 
court and have an attorney zealously argue their cause.
  In her confirmation hearing, Judge Demeo was specifically asked if 
her advocacy work would affect her decisionmaking as a judge. Let me 
give you Judge Demeo's response in her own words:

       When you think about the parties that appear in the 
     courtroom, oftentimes it's plaintiffs versus defendants and 
     one party against another, and I've . . . worked in both 
     positions in my career. Being in the judge position has 
     allowed me to take a step back already, in the magistrate 
     position, and listen to the parties and be open to both 
     sides.

  To that end, at her confirmation hearing, representatives of the 
Justice Department and the Public Defenders' office came to lend their 
support to her nomination.
  And we should remember, that nominations for the DC courts are made 
through a process different than other judicial nominees.
  Under the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
Reorganization Act, the Judicial Nominations Committee recommends three 
individuals for each position to the President, and the President then 
selects one of those individuals and sends the nomination to the Senate 
for confirmation.

[[Page 5784]]

  The Judicial Nominations Committee is a diverse, Federal-district 
entity, comprised of two individuals appointed by the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia--one being a nonlawyer--two appointed by the Board 
of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar, one nonlawyer appointed 
by the city council of the District of Columbia, one individual 
appointed by the President of the United States, and one judicial 
member appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia.
  This is a process aimed at getting the best qualified nominees, 
without regard to party or politics.
  Finally, Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Lee F. Satterfield, wrote 
to both the majority and minority leaders in October pleading for the 
swift approval of Judge Demeo because the court is already five members 
short.
  In his letter, Judge Satterfield wrote:

       The Superior Court is a busy, urban court with a caseload 
     of over 100,000 cases a year. Each day we make important 
     decisions about neglected and abused children, juveniles 
     alleged to have committed crimes, and accused charged with 
     everything from minor misdemeanors to first degree murder and 
     sexual abuse. Vulnerable families in the District rely on 
     Superior Court judges to make timely and fair decisions 
     regarding domestic violence, housing, child custody and 
     support, and numerous issues that affect them every day. Our 
     goal is to serve the community well by handling the important 
     decisions we are entrusted with fairly, justly and 
     efficiently.

  And last month, Judge Satterfield sent another letter to the majority 
and minority leader with this dire warning, ``We are beginning to 
experience delays in meeting performance measures and standards for how 
quickly cases should go to trial.''
  But, a shorthanded court cannot achieve these goals, which means 
justice is delayed for many. It's long past time that we approve this 
highly qualified nominee and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
nomination and allow her to get to work administering justice for the 
citizens of our Nation's Capital.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               In Praise of Dorothy Metcalf-lindenburger

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak once more about 
our Nation's great Federal employees.
  Forty-nine years ago, President Kennedy stood before Congress and 
offered a bold profession of his faith in American innovation. 
Convening a special joint session to share with the American people his 
plans for economic recovery and global leadership, President Kennedy 
challenged us to reach the Moon in 9 years. He reminded us that leading 
the way in exploring space was central to leading a vibrant innovation 
economy, and that the causes of economic recovery and national security 
would benefit from investing in a Moon shot, and that the newly free 
around the world, caught between East and West, would draw inspiration 
from such a difficult mission undertaken by a free people. He 
challenged us to reach the Moon in 9 years. We made it there in 8 
years.
  Kennedy's call echoed a timeless adage: ``Ad Astra Per Aspera''--to 
the stars through rough times.
  When we are faced with difficult challenges, we look for inspiration 
beyond the bounds of our farthest frontier. We can choose, despite 
uncertainty, to be forward looking and set lofty goals. That, more than 
anything, is the mission of those great Federal employees who work at 
the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, NASA.
  I was among those called to the study of engineering in the late 
1950s during the years of Sputnik and the start of the space station. 
We benefited not only from the amount of investment the government was 
making in STEM fields, but also by the strong sense of purpose the 
space program inspired in all of us.
  America's reach into space is intricately linked with our need to 
train the next generation of scientists, engineers, technologists, and 
mathematicians who will drive our 21st century innovation economy, and 
I know there is no one in the Senate any more committed to STEM 
education than the Presiding Officer.
  That is why I have chosen this week to honor a great Federal employee 
from NASA who spent the last 2 weeks orbiting the Earth on STS-131 and 
has dedicated her career to promoting STEM education.
  Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger is one of NASA's new educator 
astronauts. A native of Fort Collins, CO, Dottie, as she is called, 
took an unusual path to space. As a child, Dottie was always fascinated 
with astronomy and space exploration. When she narrowly lost a contest 
to win a free trip to space camp, her parents saved up enough money for 
her to go. It turned out to be an excellent investment not only in 
their daughter's future, but also in the many students Dottie has 
inspired.
  Dottie pursued her love of science at Whitman College, where she 
majored in geology. She began teaching Earth science and astronomy at 
Hudson's Bay High School in Vancouver, WA, in 1999. In her 5 years 
there as a science teacher, she won awards for achievement. An avid 
marathon runner, Dottie also coached the school's cross-country team.
  In 2003, one of her students asked a question that would change her 
life. The student curiously asked: How do astronauts use the bathroom 
in space? When Dottie went on line to research the answer for her 
student, she discovered on NASA's Web site a recruitment call for 
teachers to join the space program. She jumped at the chance, though it 
was a long shot. Over 8,000 teachers applied. Dottie was one of three 
who made it and is currently NASA's youngest active astronaut.
  She joined NASA in 2004 and began the rigorous, 2-year Astronaut 
Candidate Training. Dottie learned how to fly jets and operate complex 
space shuttle and International Space Station systems. She undertook 
scientific and technical briefings, engaged in physiological training, 
and practiced water and wilderness survival skills. As an educator 
astronaut, Dottie works with NASA's education program, helping to 
develop new ways to bring space and STEM subjects into the classroom 
and inspiring girls and boys alike to follow in her footsteps by 
studying science.
  When she is not training to be a mission specialist on the shuttle, 
running a marathon, or singing lead vocals for an astronaut band, 
Dottie is also inspiring her own daughter. She and her husband Jason, 
who is a history teacher, have taught their 3-year-old daughter, 
Cambria, how to sing ``Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star'' and other songs 
about the Sun and the Moon.
  On April 5, Dottie and the rest of the crew of Discovery's STS-131 
mission lifted off from Cape Canaveral for a 2-week trip to the 
International Space Station. Dottie's primary tasks were overseeing the 
transition of the station's computers to a new Ethernet network and 
orchestrating the space walks conducted by two of her colleagues. She 
also recorded a video to help promote robotics, science, and 
engineering.
  Dottie sees her role as a teacher for all, helping to make science 
exciting for adults and children alike. She and her husband even built 
a telescope that they brought on summer vacation, and wherever they 
stopped they would encourage people to look through it at objects like 
Jupiter or the Moon.
  She said, ``Wherever we go out in our solar system, from a teaching 
standpoint, I really hope that students are engaged in learning math 
and science. We should always try to be a leader in this.''
  America's astronauts--like Dottie--carry out important work with far-
reaching impact.
  Once again we find ourselves as a nation in difficult times, just as 
we were

[[Page 5785]]

when President Kennedy challenged us to look skyward.
  Just last week, President Obama laid out his vision for the future of 
American space exploration. No matter what their next mission, it will 
be carried out by NASA employees.
  The outstanding public servants at NASA give flight to our dreams and 
remind us that, in America, when we will it, there is no impediment to 
grand achievement.
  ``Ad Astra Per Aspera.'' Let us look once more, in these rough times, 
to the stars--to the limits of space and those who would take us there.
  Let us recommit ourselves to inspiring students, just as astronauts 
like Dottie do each day, to study science, math, engineering, and 
technology in pursuit of innovation in space and here on Earth.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Dorothy Metcalf-
Lindenburger and her crewmates from STS-131 for their hard work and 
contribution. We welcome them home.
  They are all truly great Federal employees.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be divided equally between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Marisa Demeo 
to be an associate judge in the District of Columbia Superior Court. I 
chaired her nomination hearing before the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs and believe she is a very well-
qualified candidate.
  Since 2007, she has served as a magistrate judge of the DC Superior 
Court. Prior to that, she was an assistant U.S. attorney for the 
District of Columbia, prosecuting criminals on behalf of the Federal 
Government.
  Judge Demeo also worked as an attorney for the Mexican-American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, an organization that provides legal 
services to individuals of Hispanic descent. She received her 
bachelor's degree from Princeton University and her J.D. from the New 
York University Law School.
  Candidates from the DC Superior Court are identified by the 
nonpartisan Judicial Nomination Commission, which sends three names of 
qualified candidates to the President for his final selection. This 
process has consistently produced excellent nominees for DC's local 
courts. Similar to others chosen through this process, I believe Judge 
Demeo has much to offer the DC Superior Court.
  Judge Demeo has a strong record as magistrate judge and has presided 
over many cases of the busy criminal calendar. My staff spoke with DC 
Superior Court Chief Judge Satterfield today, and he emphasized how 
pleased he has been with her performance. Judge Satterfield said he 
could not understand the concerns raised about Judge Demeo's 
impartiality--she has an open record as a magistrate judge, and no one 
is criticizing her work on the court.
  The committee also interviewed many of her colleagues during the 
nomination process who described her as fair, having a good temperament 
and knowledge of the law. Judge Demeo herself emphasized the importance 
of fairness, impartiality, integrity, and respect for all parties 
appearing before her during her nomination hearing.
  In May 2009, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs favorably reported her nomination. The committee of 
jurisdiction clearly considered her to be well qualified because no 
objections to her nomination were voiced.
  I was pleased that the Senate confirmed Stuart Nash to be an 
associate judge of the DC Superior Court earlier today. However, there 
remains a critical need to fill vacancies at the court. DC Superior 
Court is a trial court that hears over 100,000 cases a year. With many 
judges nearing retirement, it is important to fill empty seats quickly.
  This need is so great that Chief Judge Satterfield wrote two letters 
to Majority Leader Reid asking us to fill these vacancies. Judge 
Satterfield described the situation as dire and stated that unfilled 
vacancies hinder the court's ability to administer justice for the 
people of DC.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
both of Judge Satterfield's letters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Superior Court of the


                                         District of Columbia,

                                    Washington, DC, Oct. 14, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: As Chief Judge of the Superior 
     Court of the District of Columbia, I wanted to take a moment 
     to bring to your attention two nominations for associate 
     judges positions on the Superior Court that have been pending 
     for several months. The nominees are Marisa Demeo and Stuart 
     Nash. I understand the press of business before the Senate, 
     given the economy, the push for health care reform, and the 
     myriad of nominees in a relatively new administration. 
     However, I wanted to draw your attention to the dire 
     situation the Superior Court will face by the end of the year 
     due to the announced retirements of three other Superior 
     Court judges, if these nominees are not confirmed in the next 
     few months.
       If these two vacancies are not filled before the Senate 
     adjourns, we will be five judges below our full complement of 
     62 associate judges by the end of January 2010. These 
     vacancies would have serious consequences for the 
     administration of justice in the District of Columbia and for 
     the people we serve. We have been working without a full 
     complement of judges most of the year since one of my 
     colleagues, Judge Robert Rigsby, was sent to Iraq with the 
     National Guard. Fortunately, another colleague, Judge Rafael 
     Diaz, who retired in March 2009 at the end of his term, 
     graciously agreed to stay and handle a full caseload while we 
     await his replacement. I am not sure how long Judge Diaz will 
     be able to continue full time. If the two pending nominations 
     are not confirmed before the Senate adjourns for the year, 
     and Judge Diaz can no longer handle cases full time, by the 
     end of January 2010, we will have only 57 associate judges. 
     Such a scenario would certainly test our ability to 
     administer justice for the people of the District of Columbia 
     in a timely fashion, particularly in our Criminal Division 
     and Family Court.
       The Superior Court is a busy, urban court with a caseload 
     of over 100,000 cases per year. Each day we make important 
     decisions about neglected and abused children, juveniles 
     alleged to have committed crimes, and accused charged with 
     everything from minor misdemeanors to first degree murder and 
     sexual abuse. Vulnerable families in the District rely on 
     Superior Court judges to make timely and fair decisions 
     regarding domestic violence, housing, child custody and 
     support, and numerous issues that affect them every day. Our 
     goal is to serve the community well by handling the important 
     decisions we are entrusted with fairly, justly and 
     efficiently. I would appreciate any help you can provide in 
     moving the two nominations forward.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lee F. Satterfield,
     Chief Judge.
                                  ____

                                             Superior Court of the
                                             District of Columbia,
                                    Washington, DC, Mar. 12, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: I wanted to provide you with an 
     update on the circumstances in the D.C. Superior Court with 
     the five vacancies we are currently experiencing. Judge Diaz, 
     who has been continuing to hear cases on one of the 
     unassigned calendars after announcing his retirement, will be 
     stepping down within the next month. This will leave us with 
     five full vacancies, which clearly hinders our ability to 
     administer justice for the people of the District of Columbia 
     in a timely fashion, especially worrisome in the Criminal 
     Division and the Family Court. We are beginning to experience 
     delays in meeting the performance

[[Page 5786]]

     measures and standards for how quickly cases should get to 
     trial.
       As I mentioned in my October letter, the Superior Court is 
     a busy, urban court with a caseload of over 100,000 cases per 
     year. Each day we make life and death decisions about 
     neglected and abused children, juveniles alleged to have 
     committed crimes, criminals charged with everything from 
     minor misdemeanors to first degree murder and sex abuse. 
     Vulnerable families in the District rely on Superior Court 
     judges to make timely and fair decisions regarding domestic 
     violence, housing, child custody and support, and numerous 
     issues that affect them every day. These cases need to be 
     handled effectively but also efficiently.
       I understand the great press of business before the U.S. 
     Senate, and the multitude of bills affecting the lives of 
     people across the country. However, the people of the 
     District of Columbia deserve a court with a full complement 
     of judges making the crucial decisions affecting the lives of 
     D.C. residents.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lee F. Satterfield,
                                                      Chief Judge.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs works quickly to hold its nomination hearings 
because we understand what an important role the court plays in the 
District's legal system. It saddens me that the District's courts and 
its residents continue to suffer while a highly qualified candidate's 
nomination is slowed.
  I am confident that once confirmed, Judge Demeo will exercise sound 
and unbiased judgment when ruling on cases before her. She has the 
education and experience to make valuable contributions to the DC 
Superior Court bench. I plan to vote in support of Judge Demeo's 
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any remaining 
time for debate with respect to the Demeo nomination be yielded back, 
and the Senate now proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; 
further, that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and the cloture motion with respect to the 
nomination be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Marisa J. Demeo, of the District of Columbia, to be an associate 
judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Ex.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     Byrd
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate finally confirmed the 
nomination of Marisa Demeo for a 15-year term as a judge for the 
District of Columbia Superior Court. Her nomination was the longest 
pending judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar, having been 
stalled since it was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee last May--nearly a year ago--by voice vote.
  There was no reason for this nomination to have been delayed so long. 
Indeed, once the majority leader pressed the matter by filing for 
cloture, Republicans agreed to 6 hours of debate and then used only a 
small portion of that. The bipartisan vote in favor of Judge Demeo is 
hardly unexpected, just delayed a year.
  Judge Demeo has served for 3 years as a magistrate judge on the court 
to which she has been confirmed. She is only the second Hispanic woman 
to hold that position. Judge Demeo is an experienced former prosecutor 
and Justice Department veteran with a sterling professional record. The 
Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Lee Satterfield, has written several 
times to the majority and minority leaders about the ``dire situation'' 
created by vacancies on that court for administration of justice in 
Washington, DC, and in support of Judge Demeo's nomination.
  Judge Demeo should have been confirmed long ago. This sort of 
obstruction of a DC Superior Court nomination is unprecedented. These 
nominations for 15-year terms on the District's trial court are not 
usually controversial.
  Those Senators who opposed this nomination and voted against it will 
have to explain their vote. Some tried. I do not think references to 
``lifestyle'' have a place in this debate. I was also struck by those 
who selectively cited her advocacy for various causes when she was 
previously employed as an advocate as somehow rendering her unfit for 
judicial service. These same Senators were willing to give President 
Bush's nominees the benefit of the doubt, but apparently not those of 
President Obama. Their mantra when there was a Republican President 
nominating Republican activists was that they would be able to put 
aside those views or that they were merely doing their job or 
representing a client. Apparently that leeway only applies to 
Republican nominees.
  I commend those Republican Senators who bucked their party to vote in 
favor of this fine young woman and well-qualified nominee.
  I strongly supported the confirmation of Judge Demeo and regret that 
it has taken nearly a year for her nomination to receive an up-or-down 
vote in the Senate. I congratulate her on her confirmation to the 
Superior Court and have every confidence she will be a fair and 
thoughtful judge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. The President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the cloture motion 
on the nomination is withdrawn.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I indicated yesterday, when I asked 
unanimous consent on a nomination, that I would be back on the floor 
today at 4:30. So following this vote I wanted to come to the floor to 
once again ask unanimous consent. I told my colleague from Louisiana, 
Senator Vitter, that I was going to do this. I told him last week when 
I came to speak about this. I said I don't, under any conditions, come 
to the floor of the Senate wanting to be critical of another Senator. 
That is not something I enjoy doing. In this case, I explained to 
Senator Vitter that I was going to be critical of something he has done 
and I felt it appropriate and as a matter of courtesy I should tell my 
colleague from Louisiana what I was going to do.

[[Page 5787]]

  Let me describe the circumstance. It bothers me a lot. I am pretty 
unhappy about it and so should all of my colleagues be unhappy. There 
is a man named GEN Michael Walsh, a soldier who served this country for 
30 years. He served in wartime. I know him, know him fairly well. I am 
not related to him. I don't have anything other than a professional 
relationship because I have seen his work in the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. He is an extraordinary guy.
  He was recommended unanimously by the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Levin and Senator McCain and the unanimous vote of the Armed 
Services Committee, to be promoted from a one-star general to a two-
star major general. That was last year.
  It has dragged on now for nearly 6 months and this soldier has not 
been promoted because the nomination to promote him, which came from 
the Armed Services Committee unanimously, has been held up by one 
Senator. That is Senator Vitter from Louisiana.
  I understand that Senator Vitter is holding this nomination up all of 
these months because he is demanding certain things from the Corps of 
Engineers for his home State.
  Regrettably, it represents a list of things, for the most part, that 
the Corps of Engineers cannot do--they don't have the legal authority 
to do, they don't have the funding, they don't have the authorization 
to do. In any event, the general we are talking about, General Walsh, 
doesn't make policy for the corps on whether to do these things, even 
if they have the authority. He does policy. That is what the job of 
this general is. He is the commander of the Mississippi Valley Division 
of the Corps of Engineers. He spent a tour in Iraq for this country. He 
has done a lot of work not only in a war zone but all around the 
country, has a distinguished 30-year career. Yet despite the fact that 
last October, he was to have been promoted to major general, this 
soldier's professional life is on hold because of the actions of one 
Senator.
  I say to my colleague from Louisiana, this is fundamentally unfair to 
General Walsh. It is fundamentally unfair. It is not the way we should 
treat soldiers. The demands that are being made of the Corps of 
Engineers are demands the corps cannot meet. I put the exchange of 
letters in the Congressional Record. There are two letters from my 
colleague, Senator Vitter, and two responses from the Corps of 
Engineers. They make it clear that the Senator from Louisiana is asking 
something the corps cannot possibly do. He has made six or eight 
requests. I believe the corps has indicated they will proceed on two of 
them because they do have the authority. The others they cannot because 
they are not authorized. They don't have money, and they don't have the 
legal capability.
  This is 1 out of 100 nominations that is being held up, 1 out of 100 
on the Executive Calendar. This person is someone I know, a one-star 
general who deserves to be a two-star general. That is what Senator 
McCain and Senator Levin believe. Unanimously, the Armed Services 
Committee reported this out last September. This soldier's career is on 
hold because one Senator is demanding of the corps something the corps 
cannot and will not be able to do. It does not have the legal authority 
and does not have the funding and does not have the authorization to do 
it.
  I am here to make a unanimous consent request again. I ask of my 
colleague from Louisiana if at long last he might allow this nomination 
to proceed. This general should not be a one-star general. He should 
have, last September, been a two-star general because unanimously the 
Armed Services Committee believed he was owed that and deserved that 
promotion in rank. Months and months and months and months later, this 
general has had his career stalled by the actions of one Senator.
  My hope is that today perhaps that Senator will tell us he will lift 
that hold and that we will be able to give the second star to General 
Walsh, a patriot, a soldier, someone who served this country in wartime 
and does not deserve what has happened to him in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me join my colleague from North 
Dakota in making a plea to the Senator from Louisiana. As the Senator 
from Louisiana knows, I am chairman of the Armed Services Committee. 
Our committee operates on a bipartisan basis. I see one other member of 
the committee sitting on the floor; in fact, two other committee 
members are on the floor, including the Presiding Officer. I know they 
would confirm what I am saying. We should keep our uniformed military 
officers out of any kind of political crossfire. They don't make these 
decisions. They put on the uniform of the United States. They give 
their lives. Their families support them. The least we can do is give 
them bipartisan support. We do that on this committee.
  This nomination was approved and put on the calendar on October 27. 
This is a document we call the Executive Calendar of the Senate. It is 
printed every day. This general has been sitting here now, MG Michael 
J. Walsh, since October 27. The Senator from Louisiana has expressed 
himself to the Corps of Engineers. He has made his arguments. This 
general cannot do what the Senator from Louisiana is asking for. No. 1, 
he can't do it because the corps has told the Senator they don't have 
the authority to do what he wants them to do in terms of these three 
projects. In any event, this general does not have the authority within 
the corps to make these kinds of decisions, even if the corps had the 
authority to approve these projects.
  As chairman of the committee, I know I am speaking not only for 
myself, I am speaking for every member of the committee who has voted 
for this general's nomination. I know I am speaking for Senator McCain, 
who has told me specifically that I can invoke his name in support of a 
plea to the Senator from Louisiana to no longer hold this nomination. 
It cannot achieve what the Senator from Louisiana wants to achieve. It 
is a terrible message to the men and women in uniform that a nomination 
such as this is obstructed because there is a request from one Senator 
for some projects for his State which the corps cannot approve, 
according to the letter which the corps has sent to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  I join my friend from North Dakota. On behalf of the Armed Services 
Committee, I make this plea. I spoke to the Senator from Louisiana a 
number of months ago. He indicated to me that he just needed a few more 
weeks. He thought he could straighten this out in a few more weeks. A 
couple months have now passed since that conversation. I would make 
this plea as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I know, 
representing the unanimous view of the committee, that this man, this 
soldier, this general should not have his promotion held up for these 
kinds of reasons or any kind of reason, as far as I am concerned, but 
surely not a reason where he himself is personally involved. Once in a 
while we will disagree with a nomination, including of a uniformed 
officer, where we have problems with that uniformed officer's 
activities, something they may have done that we disapprove of--rarely, 
but it happens. But in this case, this has nothing to do with this 
officer. The objection or the effort of the Senator from Louisiana has 
nothing to do with this officer. It is not this officer who is blocking 
anything the Senator from Louisiana wants.
  I join this plea the Senator from North Dakota has made. I know he 
will be making a unanimous consent request. I will be joining in that 
request when he makes it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I do object. General Walsh today, before 
any promotion, is one of nine leading officers of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers. He is part of that leadership. I am happy my two 
colleagues are satisfied with his leadership and the corps' leadership 
and how that agency is being run. I can tell them, as a Senator from 
Louisiana, I am absolutely not satisfied with their leadership and how 
that agency is being run at all.

[[Page 5788]]

  Since Hurricane Katrina, there were 14 major report deadlines put on 
the Corps of Engineers, required of the corps. The corps missed all 14 
of those major deadlines. Today, as we speak, the corps is still 
actively missing and has failed to respond to 13 of the 14, having 
accomplished 1 many months late.
  I have brought nine significant issues before the Corps of Engineers 
in conversations with them, not minor projects, major issues with 
regard to hurricane recovery and hurricane and flood protection. I have 
outlined the authority they have to do constructive things under each 
of those categories. They have not responded in a positive or timely 
way on eight of those nine issues.
  One of those issues is a particularly good example. That is the 
Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project. That is a vital 
hurricane protection project that would protect significant portions of 
south Louisiana that was originally proposed in 1992. The Senators want 
to talk about authority from Congress. That project has been authorized 
by Congress three different times in three different water resources 
bills. Yet the corps continues to drag its feet and is still not moving 
forward toward full implementation of that project, after three 
specific authorizations by Congress, 18 years later.
  I am sorry the corps leadership is frustrated with an 18-day delay or 
an 18-week delay. But I suggest they try 18 years on for size. That is 
how long the people of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, many folks 
throughout Louisiana, have been waiting on the Corps of Engineers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me say to my colleague from 
Louisiana, if he will stay in the Chamber--let the record note he has 
left the Chamber--there is no State, none that has received more help 
more consistently from this Chamber, from the American people, and, 
yes, from the Corps of Engineers in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. 
That State and the city of New Orleans were leveled. It was an 
unbelievable catastrophe for the Senator's State and for his city. But 
after billions and billions and billions of dollars that has come from 
this Congress and, yes, from my subcommittee, the subcommittee on 
appropriations I chair, I think it would be nice for a change to hear 
that maybe the Corps of Engineers, the Senate, and the American people 
have been a great help to New Orleans and to Louisiana.
  Let me describe what my colleague just said on the floor, why this is 
such an unbelievable mistake for him to make. He says, just to pick an 
example: Well, the Morganza to the gulf issue is a perfect example of 
how the corps simply will not do what it is supposed to do. It has been 
authorized three times, he says, on and on.
  Let me read what the Corps of Engineers says and let me tell my 
colleagues what I know as an appropriator. The Corps of Engineers is 
not authorized to construct the Houma lock, which is what he wants in 
this Morganza to the gulf--the Houma lock, as an independent, 
freestanding project--or separable elements of the Morganza to the gulf 
project. An additional authorization will have to be required to 
construct the Morganza to the gulf project in accordance with the new 
design criteria.
  My colleague might not like that. I understand that. There are a 
whole lot of things he doesn't like. But it is a fact. He cannot 
possibly go to sleep believing that holding up the promotion of a 
soldier who has gone to war for his country because of something that 
soldier can't do that he demands be done, he cannot possibly sleep easy 
believing that is the right course of action. It is not the right 
course of action. This is but 1 of 100 names on the Executive Calendar 
to date, 100. This was put on the calendar nearly 6 months ago for a 
general who has an unblemished record, has served America for 30 years, 
gone to war for this country, and was told by the Armed Services 
Committee, Republicans and Democrats unanimously by Senator Levin and 
Senator McCain: You deserve a promotion to the second star as a major 
general. But 6 months later, this is not a major general.
  This soldier has lost his promotion for the last 6 months because of 
one Senator saying: I am going to use this soldier as a pawn in my 
concerns and demands about the Corps of Engineers.
  I could go through the rest of these demands. In fact, let me go 
through a couple, if I might. Outfall canals and pump to the river. He 
is making demands about that. Let me tell you about that. We had a vote 
on this. He lost. He doesn't like it. The Appropriations Committee, the 
full committee, voted and he lost. Why did he lose? Because what he 
wants to do is the most costly approach that will provide less flood 
protection for New Orleans. So you want to spend more money for less 
protection? No, the Appropriations Committee voted on that. I led the 
opposition. The appropriations subcommittee voted no. He is demanding 
holding up, by the way, the promotion for this major general. He is 
demanding it be done. The Corps of Engineers says if Congress 
appropriates the funds for this study, we will do it. But there are no 
funds appropriated.
  Why? Because we voted against it. That is why. Unbelievable. And the 
list goes on. Ouachita River levees. The authorization for this project 
specifies that the levee maintenance is a nonfederal responsibility. 
Congress has not enacted a general provision of law that would supplant 
this nonfederal responsibility or that would allow the Corps to correct 
levee damages that are not associated with flood events.
  That is just two. I mentioned three with Morganza. The fact is, we 
have a circumstance here where a soldier deserves a promotion, and that 
promotion is being held up because we have a Senator who is demanding 
things the Corps of Engineers cannot do. That is unbelievable to me. I 
do not come here very often getting angry about what a colleague does. 
Everybody here has their own desk. Everybody comes here with their own 
election and their own support. But I am saying this to you: These 
demands and using a soldier's promotion as a pawn in demands of the 
Corps that the Corps cannot do is just fundamentally wrong, and I do 
not know how someone can sleep doing it.
  Madam President, I have not yet made the consent request. I would 
alert my----
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield. But I do intend to make a unanimous 
consent request. I have not made it. So I would alert the folks who are 
here that I will be doing that momentarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. It is my understanding, through the Chair, that there 
are dozens and dozens of these holds that are secret and nobody knows 
what demands are being made or why. We do not know.
  In this instance, it is my understanding that this Senator has 
proclaimed publicly why he is holding it. Is my understanding correct 
about that, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct, I think perhaps boasting about it. He is 
saying: I have to do this for my State. But there is nothing he can 
gain for his State because the Corps of Engineers cannot move on these 
issues. They do not have the authority. They do not have the legal 
capability. The result is, this soldier, whose promotion he is holding 
up, meanwhile is wafting in the wind for 6 months and loses his 
promotion.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. That is the part I want to inquire about. Let's just 
say hypothetically, if the Army Corps of Engineers succumbed to what 
the Senator is asking and said: OK, you are going to hold up this brave 
soldier's promotion that he deserves because you want something for 
your State--if they did that, would that not be illegal?
  Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. So what he is saying is, he is asking the Army Corps 
of Engineers to do something that is illegal, and if they refuse to do 
something

[[Page 5789]]

that is illegal, he is going to refuse to allow a soldier's promotion 
to go through? Am I actually getting that right?
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator, I believe you have it pretty close 
to right. As I understand it, the Senator is demanding things of the 
Corps of Engineers that they do not have the legal authority to do. 
Until they do them, he is going to hold up the promotion of General 
Walsh, which I think--it is unbelievable to me that someone would do 
that.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield further?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me read to you from the March 19 letter from the Corps 
on this issue. The Senator from Louisiana said the example he wanted to 
use was something called the Morganza project. That is the example. He 
said, let me just give you one example. Three times, he says, this 
project has been authorized.
  Well, this is what the Corps says relative to Morganza. OK. This is 
in writing, a letter to Senator Vitter:

       The Corps does not have authority to implement the Houma 
     Navigation Lock as an independent project. Section 425 of 
     WRDA 1996 authorized a study of an independent lock, but did 
     not authorize construction. Section 425 in part read . . . 
     ``The Secretary shall conduct a study of environmental, flood 
     control, and navigation impacts associated with the 
     construction of a lock structure in the Houma Navigation 
     Canal as an independent feature of the overall damage 
     prevention study being conducted under the Morganza,--

  That is his project--

     Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico feasibility study.'' The 
     Corps conducted a study in response to Section 425, but that 
     study did not recommend construction of an independent Houma 
     Navigation Lock feature due to uncertainties of benefits and 
     concerns over justification of an independent lock structure.

  That is their answer. They do not have the authority to do it.
  Again, I know the Senator from Missouri is on the committee, so she 
understands that we act in a bipartisan way. We try to protect and 
defend and support the uniformed members of the U.S. military. We have 
unlimited bipartisan support for what they do for us, and this is the 
response--a hold on a nomination because the Corps will not do 
something they are not authorized to do?
  I think it is so unacceptable, I made this unanimous consent request 
about 2 months ago. The Senator from Louisiana objected then. He said 
to give him a few more weeks. He thinks he could work it out. Those few 
weeks have long gone. So I very much support the effort of the Senator 
from North Dakota here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is unbelievable to me that we have 
100 of these. This is one I am particularly concerned about because I 
think it misuses a soldier's promotion in pursuit of something that 
really cannot be done by an agency, and I regret this is happening. 
This should not happen. And how on Earth are we going to find ways to 
work together in this place if this is the way we do business?
  This makes no sense to me. It is not fair to a soldier. People 
listening to this would understand somebody demanding that an agency do 
something it cannot do in exchange for releasing a hold on a soldier's 
promotion? Is that what we have come to here? I hope not.
  So my intention is to offer a unanimous consent request. My 
understanding is, someone is----
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator from Delaware has a unanimous consent 
request which has been cleared. I wonder, just to make sure the Senator 
from Louisiana does have notice--apparently, he has been notified there 
is going to be a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to have the Senator from Delaware do his 
request. I would say, however, that the Senator from Louisiana was on 
the floor, and I would have hoped he would have stayed on the floor to 
object to something that deals with the holdup he has made on this 
nomination. But apparently he has left the floor.
  So let me yield to the Senator from Delaware for his unanimous 
consent request, and then I will propound a unanimous consent request 
on the subject just discussed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 21, 
following a period of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider Executive Calendar No. 699, the nomination of 
Christopher Schroeder to be an Assistant Attorney General; that there 
be 3 hours of debate with respect to the nomination; that upon the use 
or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of 
the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; further, that the cloture 
motion with respect to the nomination be withdrawn; provided that upon 
disposition of the Schroeder nomination, the Senate then proceed to 
Executive Calendar No. 578, the nomination of Thomas Vanaskie to be a 
U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit; that there be 3 hours of 
debate with respect to the nomination; that upon the use or yielding 
back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the 
nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; that the cloture motion with 
respect to the nomination be withdrawn; provided further that on 
Thursday, April 22, following a period of morning business, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 607, 
the nomination of Denny Chin to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Second 
Circuit; that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the 
nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon 
confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table; with the cloture motion withdrawn, and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action with respect to the above-
referenced nominations; with all time covered under this agreement 
equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or 
their designees; finally, the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the cloture motions on the Schroeder, 
Vanaskie, and Chin nominations are withdrawn.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to Executive Calendar No. 526, the nomination of BG Michael J. 
Walsh; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to 
the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Yes, Madam President, for the reasons I have clearly laid 
out, I again object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me again say the reasons that were 
clearly laid out were inappropriate reasons. The very specific project 
my colleague described as the problem--at least one of the problems--it 
turns out he would know, because he has received written notice from 
the Corps of Engineers, that they do not have the legal authority to do 
that which he demands.
  So I do not know. I do not know where you go from here. If facts do 
not matter in this place, then I guess we have a fact-free debate and 
one does

[[Page 5790]]

what they want to do without regard to the consequences. The 
consequence in this case--the negative consequence is for a soldier, a 
patriot who has gone to war for this country is now, in my judgment, 
being treated unbelievably unfairly by at least one Senator.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________