Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is there a time agreement?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't think we are rushing into the prescription drug bill, nor are we rushing into the Energy bill. We have been wrestling with those bills for an interminable period of time--years. They have been up and down and debated and discussed, and conferees have worked their hearts out on these bills. We are spending, on prescription drugs, an additional $400 billion. I don't believe anyone is going to be hurt by this effort. AARP has reviewed this bill and they support it. They would like it to spend even more, but they are supportive of this bill as a historic effort. There is no doubt, with regard to prescription drugs, that there is the potential to provide the poor in this country, many of whom this very day are choosing between food and drugs that they need for their health, with prescription drugs essentially for free, up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. A huge percentage of the seniors in this country are going to have access to necessary prescription drugs, virtually free, under this bill. If there is any problem with it, I suggest that maybe we have done a bit too much, that we could have been somewhat more restrained and focused less universally on this bill. But conferees debated it and it is a bipartisan effort by Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate. Now we have a bill and we will have to see how it goes. I hope to be able to support it because I told my people in Alabama that I wanted the people who could not afford drugs to have them paid for. This change does, fundamentally, make sense. At the present time, we pay for your surgery, we pay for your heart operations, but we will not pay for the drugs that we know will help prevent a heart operation. We will not pay for the drugs that could avert the need for a kidney transplant, but we will pay for the kidney transplant. It is an odd thing. I will take a few moments to talk about the MTBE question. It is a matter that has become a big point in the debate on the Energy bill. Frankly, I think it is a bit overdone. Some senators have said that if a company makes a product, the company ought to pay for it if their product causes damage. But that is not true. That is not the law in America. That is not classical American liability law, tort law. As a matter of fact, it is an indication that this Congress and this country is losing its discipline on what is a legitimate basis for a lawsuit. You can say, well, they made MTBE and it got into the water system in this community; therefore, the maker of MTBE ought to pay for it. They say that is what the law ought to be and they ought to pay. Would somebody say Folgers should be responsible if a Folgers brand of hot coffee burned somebody in a McDonald's restaurant, or that McDonald's should be liable? If somebody takes a can of Campbell's soup and smashes a guy on the head with it, is the maker of the can of soup liable? Certainly not. Let me share a couple of things. After 9/11, we realized we were facing a situation in which airlines had suffered a dramatic loss of ridership. Somebody woke up and said: Wait a minute, they are going to sue the airlines for 9/11. Why? Well, maybe somebody was asleep at the switch when a terrorist got by, so we can sue them. They think the airlines have a lot of money and they can pay for everybody and everybody will make lots of money. We can attach liability to them. Congress, in considering that, passed legislation that would compensate the victims in New Jersey and their families for $1 million or $2 million each. As a consequence of that, they would waive liability claims against the company. The airlines' planes were seized, commandeered by terrorists. In truth, in the history of America, under classical law, the airlines are victims just as much as the owner of the Trade Center towers is a victim. We are in a situation in which the lawsuits in America, having eroded classical constraints on them, too often are successful in suing whoever is standing around--whether they have any real liability or not. I think about the gun liability question. There are over 60 Senators, including Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who support legislation to protect gun manufacturers, under certain circumstances, from liability. Why? Because cities and other groups, for political reasons, are suing the gun manufacturers because someone used their gun and committed a crime with it. Well, under the classical rule of law--and I used this defense in one case--a person is not responsible for an intervening criminal act. The gun manufacturers make a gun that does what it is supposed to do. You aim it and point it and a bullet hits something or somebody. That is what the gun is supposed to do. The Federal Government passes legislation about how and to whom you can sell a gun, under what circumstances. They have to sign a statement, and there is a waiting period. They have to certify that they are not a drug addict or they have not been convicted of a felony. Then they can buy the gun, under certain circumstances. States have even more rules, and they comply with that. But they want to go further. They want to sue the gun manufacturer because somebody took a legal product, sold according to Federal law, and used it for a crime. They want to sue the gun manufacturer because I guess they think the gun manufacturers have a deep pocket of money. That is not what we ought to be about. The MTBE was essentially a Government requirement over a decade ago. It is an oxygenate. It was produced and it did what we required to be done in order to improve air quality in America. The EPA could have stopped it if they had wanted to, but they never stopped utilization of it. It was encouraged. It was passed by Senator Daschle, who introduced an amendment that required it to happen. Everybody knew MTBE would be the product utilized more than any other product as an oxygenate to meet the environmental regulations. So you say, well, if they put it in the water system, they ought to be liable. Right, if they put it into the water system, they ought to be liable. But if they didn't put it in the water system, they ought not to be liable. It is getting into water, but not because it is burned in the engines and goes through the environment and settles into the water. The argument is that some water aquifers are being polluted with MTBE as a result of leaking from tanks and from pipelines and matters of that kind. It is legitimate, fair, legal theory that if a manufacturer of MTBE allowed its pipeline to leak or allowed the storage tanks to leak and the chemical got into the water system, then you can sue him. That is what we ought to be doing. As I understand the language in this bill, it does not prohibit that kind of lawsuit. If you allow it to escape negligently into the system, then you are liable. That is what classical American law is all about. That is what it has always been about. However, it has never been about the producer of a substance being liable for pollution if somebody else takes it and dumps it into the water system of America. How ridiculous can that be? The person who dumped it in the water system is the one who ought to be liable and ought to pay. As I understand the language in the bill, that is all that it says. You have to be the one who was responsible for letting it get into the water system. Maybe it is a local gasoline distributor who has a bunch of old tanks that leak and that person allowed it to get into the water. Is a manufacturer somewhere that didn't have any contact with this company liable for the leak? Certainly not. If we have any legal discipline left in this country, certainly not. But that is where we are heading. I also know there have been a good many problems with leaking tanks in this country. There is a big trust fund--I believe there is $2 billion in that fund--in case the gas station or the small gasoline distributor has gone bankrupt, doesn't have insurance, or doesn't have any money. What happens then if some of these even more dangerous chemicals, certainly more dangerous chemicals than MTBE, leak? Who would pay? This fund will pay. The point is, Shouldn't we make sure we are thinking clearly about this issue? What is wrong with having within this legislation language that affirms a classical understanding of liability? That is what it is all about. Companies get nervous. You get a water system that has some MTBE in it, which is not a cancer-causing substance, it is not a disease- causing substance, according to every report I have seen. If enough of the substance gets into the water, it will have a bad taste and unpleasant smell, and it is bad--we don't want it in our water system-- but it has not proven to be any kind of significant health hazard, to my understanding----

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. No, I have not.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. Two questions there. One is the existing lawsuit question. The Senator makes a legitimate point and expresses a legitimate concern. Frankly, I am not sure it is fully meritorious, but he certainly raises a legitimate concern. The second point is, Who should be responsible? That is the question. That is all, as I understand it, this legislation deals with. If this legislation were to say that the person who is responsible for putting the MTBE in a New Hampshire citizen's home was not liable, I would oppose it. But if they took asphalt and dumped it in somebody's home, should the asphalt maker be liable if they were not responsible for putting it in that home? That is the legal question with which we are dealing.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for the question. I think it is a good one. I just hosted and chaired a hearing on the question of restaurants that sell food that might cause obesity. The question is, Is a restaurant that makes a good cake responsible for somebody's obesity? They made the product that perhaps made the person overweight and obese, but they are not responsible for it. Should Congress act? I think it is perfectly appropriate and fair that the Congress set the rules for litigation in America. We established when the statute of limitations runs. We established a lot of rules. In fact, we established basically that MTBE should be used. It was a congressional action that required this to be done before I arrived in the Senate. I don't know how the Senator from New Hampshire voted on that legislation. It was a good Government environment bill at the time. Senator Daschle, I believe, was the prime sponsor of it. The question is this, Companies make a substance. Somebody else spills it in the environment. Now we are going to have the person who made it, because maybe they have good insurance, pay for cleaning up any place in America that this stuff was spilled? I don't think so. Of course, we have in this bill liability protection for ethanol, and the House stuck in the liability protection for MTBE. It really was not considered in the Senate, I admit, but I think it is appropriate we follow through with it. At least I believe there is a strong justification for it. I don't believe this bill should be blocked on that basis.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator's position is this--if someone polluted your water so you can't drink it, and did so to the required degree of negligence and liability, they are responsible for it and should pay. The question is, What if you didn't do anything that justifies a lawsuit? What if you had no connection whatsoever? You made MTBE and somebody takes it and pollutes your house with it. Who is responsible? I can tell you what the law has been historically in America.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is a very good point. I know a number of Senators who favor this bill said they would be open to consider reforming it on a short basis if there was any abuse. Any language of this kind deserves to be carefully examined. I understand New Hampshire has filed a lawsuit that might be prohibited by this legislation, so I can understand the Senator from New Hampshire being concerned about that. From what I understand, if the fundamental principle in the legislation appears to be sound, I can be supportive of it. If, in its application, it is unfair and unjust, I would be prepared to support reform.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. The person who caused the action, made the house uninhabitable, that is who should pay; not the person who made the substance.

Mr. SESSIONS. I didn't say the home. I understand the water smells. Is the Senator aware of any report that says MTBE is a cancer-causing substance?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think Senator Cornyn is seeking recognition.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Minnesota is to be recognized next. Is there a time agreement, to clarify my own understanding?

Mr. SESSIONS. I see. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator can use that from the majority side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for his work on this issue, and Senator Warner's efforts as the Chairman. Senator Levin and Senator Warner have discussed this issue in great detail. Senator Warner made clear he was going to take it seriously, that there would be ample opportunity to evaluate any questions that arose from these terrible circumstances, and that the facts would come out in committee and could be presented forthwith. That was done. We heard all of the information that was available. I would note it is time, now, to move forward. General Clark's nomination has been blocked for over a year now. He is a tremendously fine soldier. He is just not the one responsible here. I also should note that I do not think it is correct, as some have indicated, to say people who fail to adhere to DOD policy get promoted. General Clark acted aggressively against the climate and the actions that resulted in this terrible murder. In July of 1999, PVT Barry Winchell was a member of the 502nd Infantry Regiment. He was murdered in his bed as a result of a brutal assault by another private, Calvin Glover. Before his death, Winchell had been perceived as gay by Private Glover, and Winchell had complained about harassment in his company to superiors. I should note that there was evidence that a platoon sergeant had made insensitive comments about gays, but there was not evidence of command responsibility in any way. In December of 1999, after General Clark convened a court-martial and a trial was conducted, Private Glover was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and was given life without parole. The individual who was Private Glover's buddy, who obstructed the investigation to some degree, was given 12 years in jail, without parole. He is serving that time. I know the Chair has served as a lawyer and clerk to Federal judges. General Clark was the convening authority for a general court-martial. He was the superior commander on a base with 25,000 people. We don't hold mayors responsible for crimes committed in cities of 25,000 people. In fact, one of the highest crime rates in America is among young males. So, what we have in this base is 25,000 of the kind of people who, statistically, tend to get in more fights, more crimes, and commit more murders than anyone else. That is my experience as a prosecutor. I think it is indisputable that that is so. So it is therefore not possible for a commander of a 25,000 member facility or military base, to guarantee there are not going to be fights and even murders every now and then. Heaven help us, that they occur, and the climate ought to be set in a way that minimizes that. But we cannot hold every commander responsible for this, any more than we could hold a mayor responsible for a crime in a city. But what I wish to emphasize is that the general took a number of direct and dramatic actions to indicate, without question, his revulsion with this murder. He clearly stated his expectation that everybody at Fort Campbell would be treated with respect, and that violence of this kind is unacceptable. He was quite strong on that point. However, he was unfairly criticized for his actions following Private Winchell's death. The criticism was unfair because in the military he is the convening authority of the courts-martial. He is required, by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to appoint the members of the courts-martial, and he has a duty to remain objective. He has to be careful that he does not conduct himself in a way that prejudices the officers he appointed to try the case. I served as a JAG officer for several years in the Army Reserve. I know a commanding officer has to be careful because the defense lawyers who defend soldiers charged with crimes can raise, as a defense to the trial, that the commander had prejudiced the trial by suggesting the defendant was guilty before he had a trial. General Clark testified at his confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was in regular contact with his staff judge advocate, his lawyer, advising him what he could say, and what he could not say. Some say he should have been more open, he should have been more condemning of this act, he should have been more aggressive. It is clear that he was acting under the legal direction of his staff judge advocate. In fact, his staff judge advocate was talking to the staff judge advocate in Washington, for the Department of Defense. They exhausted every means possible to ensure they conducted themselves properly. They sought to ensure that the trial was fairly conducted, and that if a conviction was obtained, as it was obtained, that the verdict would be upheld. It was. I just would want to say this is not so easy, as some would suggest, for him to be really aggressive in making comments about this while a trial is ongoing. Complaints were certainly made about his conduct afterwards. General Clark, who, if you met him, you would understand, is a man of great integrity, great decency, who wants to do the right thing, said: Look, I haven't done anything wrong. I believe I have conducted myself properly. But I am personally requesting that the inspector general investigate my conduct and my actions. I want him to come in here and investigate this situation to see if I have done anything wrong. Of course, the IG did investigate. An IG team conducted a thorough investigation into the command climate at Fort Campbell. This investigation of the command climate found that Major General Clark was not culpable of any dereliction or failure of leadership, as has been alleged by the Service Members Legal Defense Network--SLDN--which is an advocacy group that works to protect and ensure that homosexual soldiers are treated fairly in the military, as they have every right to be treated. They have a right to insist that they be treated fairly. It is important that people know about this crime. I know it is important that people understand how civilization sometimes is fragile and people lose discipline and do things they should never ever do. To highlight the problem that occurred at Fort Campbell, and to take action by an advocacy group--or by the military or any decent people, or for the Senate to take action in order to ensure that these kinds of things don't happen in future--there is no illegitimacy in that. One of the things that has troubled me in recent years in this Senate is that we feed on information that is sometimes provided by people who have an agenda. As a result of that, sometimes people are unfairly treated. Everybody deserves fair treatment. This private who was murdered did not deserve what happened to him. I also believe General Clark does not deserve some of the charges that have been made against him. A few other points; This group claims that Major General Clark failed to follow Federal law. There is no proof of that. There is no proof that he failed to provide a safe environment for soldiers--in fact, that claim has been rejected. They claim that he failed to exhibit leadership necessary for further promotion. After the inspector general's reviews were done, that proved not to be so. The allegations were that Major General Clark had allowed ``significant levels of antigay harassment under [his] command,'' and that it allowed a command climate in which ``antigay harassment flourished''; it was just not true. The Army IG found sporadic incidents of the use of derogatory or offensive cadence calls used during marching. These problems which were quickly corrected and stopped as soon as they were discovered. It was clearly established that anti-homosexual comments were not the norm at Fort Campbell. There were allegations that there was anti-gay graffiti in the public areas around Fort Campbell. The Army inspector general found one latrine at a unit level and one in a public recreation center at Fort Campbell which had anti-gay comments on them. This was clearly not a common thing on the base. I suspect you would find these comments in some of the public bathrooms in cities and gas stations around America. It is wrong, but I don't think that should be something the general would be found to be responsible for. There is simply no way that he can protect against each and every one of those incidents. It was suggested that he took no action to deal with this problem. I have one document dated November 30, 1999--not long after the incident that occurred--in which General Clark wrote his command. He sent it to everyone basically on the base. Distribution A, Subject: Respect for all soldiers. Paragraph 1: The soldiers in the Army today are the best we have ever had. I certainly agree with that. They are volunteers who merit our respect and they deserve to be treated with dignity in a climate of safety and security. He goes on to say: We can and will do more to ensure that our soldiers are treated with dignity and respect. I accordingly direct that: All soldiers be briefed on the Department of Defense homosexual conduct policy upon their formal in-processing at Fort Campbell. When they come to the base. They are to be instructed on this policy of treating people fairly and with respect. As an interim measure, every soldier at Fort Campbell will receive the briefing. In addition, he goes on to note: This instruction will also include the contents of the 25 October 1999 memorandum from the commanding general . . . And another memorandum--both of which reiterate the roles and responsibilities of commanders regarding investigations of threats against or harassment of soldiers on the basis of alleged homosexuality; Subparagraph (c): All leaders will vigorously police the contents of run and march cadences. They have always been a little bit risque over the years. But the general took aggressive action here. They will monitor the march and run cadences to ensure that they are positive and devoid of profanity or phrases demeaning to others. Subparagraph (d): All leaders will vigorously police the content of training briefings, classes, lectures, and all other instructions to ensure that they are devoid of profanity or phrases demeaning to others. Subparagraph (3) Respect for others is an Army value and a cornerstone of the discipline and esprit de corps and all soldiers will be treated with dignity and respect. Accordingly, I expect all Department of Defense, Department of Army and Fort Campbell directives, policies and regulations to be enforced by our leaders and adhered to by our soldiers. Robert C. Clark, General. This is a superb soldier who served his country well in Vietnam. He was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. He was wounded in combat and refused to be evacuated until he got others out of the line of fire. He commanded the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, that great division, during Operation Desert Storm, the last Gulf War. His proven leadership is clear. In the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ``Story of the Third Army in Desert Storm'' by Richard Swain, published in 1994, he talks about how General Clark's brigade moved rapidly to cut off the retreat of the Iraqi soldiers, facing tremendously bad weather. It was so bad that motorcycle troops were mired down, but he moved successfully anyway and seized the objective before other units were able to. He is a proven commander in combat. He is a proven commander in the peacetime Army. He has taken strong action to see that this kind of activity never happens again. I am proud of him. I am also proud to note that he obtained his master's degree at Auburn University, one of America's great universities. I had occasion to meet him and to see him testify at hearings. I thought he did a superb job. There was little doubt of his sincerity in this matter and his capability to be a great general officer. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for about 3 minutes. First, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their work on this legislation and particularly for their commitment to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This is such an important part of what we are as a people. We are a nation of explorers. This represents a commitment by the American people to explore our solar system and, as far as possible, the universe as we know it. We have had a tough year. With the shuttle disaster and seven astronauts lost, a tremendous effort has been ongoing to deal with the problem so it will not happen again as part of the return to space program. It has cost us a good bit of money. It is important to note NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe is doing a terrific job. He has served as former Secretary of the Navy, former Comptroller of the Department of Defense, chaired departments at Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, Penn State, and has dealt with governmental management. He is doing a good job. That was confirmed just 2 days ago when NASA was rated the best place to work in the Federal Government. In fact, I was particularly proud that Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL, the part of NASA where the Saturn 5 was originally set up by Werner Von Braun, is rated the best of the best in the entire U.S. Government. A lot of good things are happening despite the difficulties. One thing, though, that our leaders were not able to do: Under the pressure that was upon them, they believed it necessary to reduce the International Space Station funding by $200 million. I know there is a lot of pressure. I understand the difficulties they face. The House has not done that. I urge our colleagues as they go to conference--and I intend to support this bill--to see if we can't get back that $200 million. We don't know all of the challenges they will face, but we know we really have to do a lot of extra work on the return to space. It has drained a lot of our money. If we could keep that $200 million in and keep this space station going, I think it would maintain our progressive vision for space and continue our commitment to explore our solar system. I think it is very important. I urge my colleagues to do all they can to see if that can be worked out. I thank them for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? He has been talking about the Sixth Circuit and this chart they have been placing in the Chamber. By the way, Mr. President, what is the time on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. He has been around the Senate and the confirmation process for a long time. He said he wanted to apologize for people staying here and having to work tonight. It is unfortunate that we are here. We are here because we have a filibuster organized and sustained by the Democratic leadership against six nominees. We have more in the pipeline to be blocked, so it is not just four. I want to ask, would the Senator want to apologize for his remarks that he made in 1998 when he, Senator Leahy, in the Congressional Record, said: I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully filibustered. I do recall earlier this year the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a nomination. That was when President Clinton was in office and Chairman Hatch, a Republican, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Hatch said on the floor of the Senate and in committee and in private Republican conferences that a filibuster was not good. Senator Leahy and the Democratic leadership all said filibusters were not good. We did not have those filibusters. So it is amazing to me, now that within a year or two after making statements such as that, and taking that position, we now have those very same people leading a filibuster. I would say apologies need to come from the other side. Let me mention a few basics about confirmations under President Clinton: 377 nominees were confirmed, 1 was voted down on this floor in an up-or-down vote, not blocked by a filibuster, and no filibusters were had against those nominations. That is what happened. There were 41 left pending and unconfirmed. Many of those were nominated late, after the August recess. Some of them had FBI background problems, including drug use or other unresolved issues. So there were 41 left pending and unconfirmed; 18 nominees were withdrawn by President Clinton before the final term. So I guess that is how they get 59, 60 nominees who they say got blocked. But that is what happened. When former President Bush was President and he left office and the Democrats controlled the Senate, they left 54 of his nominations hanging. So under Senator Hatch's leadership and under Trent Lott's leadership, only 41 were left unconfirmed when President Clinton left office. They say you blocked them with holds. Holds were put on nominations, just as they are today. Senator Levin has a hold against four circuit judges for the Sixth Circuit. They say they are only holding up four; this is not truth; with the nominees being blocked by Senator Levin they are holding at least eight. In fact, there are 13 circuit judges who are being held up and blocked by the Democrats right now. It just so happens we are only in full-blown filibuster of five, one having withdrawn, making six. I will say one more thing. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just blithely and consistently and repeatedly say these nominees are extreme, extreme, extreme. ``Most extreme,'' I believe is the phrase I have heard: Most extreme possible; extreme judicial nominees. As if saying this can make it so. When we talk about judges, each judge is a human being. Each judge is entitled to a fair and decent consideration on the floor of this Senate and in committee. If they are not extreme, they ought not be called extreme. That is wrong for us to do that. I know these attack groups, People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, the National Abortion Rights League and that crowd are the extremists. They accuse and call our nominees extreme. That is for sure. These groups are not accountable. The problem is when these extreme notions are picked up by Senators. This should not happen. Senators are the ones who are elected. Senators are the ones who have taken the oath. Senators in this body have a responsibility not to call a nominee such as Priscilla Owen extreme. She got 84 percent of the vote in Texas and was given a unanimously well-qualified rating by the ABA to be a judge--she is not extreme. Judge Janice Rogers Brown from California, who got 76 percent of the vote in the State of California, not a conservative State, for justice of the supreme court in that State, is not extreme. And neither is Carolyn Kuhl, who rated the highest rating possible by the American Bar Association, who has received incredible bipartisan support from the hundred or so judges in her area where she practices as a State judge. She was editor of the Duke Law Review and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and is a brilliant nominee of the highest order. These are outstanding nominees. They are not extreme. The extremists are the groups and the people calling them extreme. These nominees teach Sunday school. They serve on the Altar Guild. They are involved in civic groups in their communities. They have held important positions in their States. They are the kind of people we ought to have on the bench. It is wrong for them to be accused of being out of the mainstream. President Bush knows what the people want in Federal judges. He has nominated that kind of Federal judge. The people will support him on that, and it is very disturbing to hear them called extremists when they are mainstream and effective judges and nominees. I now recognize the Senator from Colorado. I believe he is prepared to make some remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Colorado for his remarks. It is true, we need to treat these nominees with civility. That is the least we can do in this body. I believe we have one more Senator to speak, the Senator from Wyoming, and we have about 14 minutes.