[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5991-5997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               ZIKA VIRUS

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 3 months ago President Barack Obama

[[Page 5992]]

asked this Congress for funding to address a public health emergency: 
combating the Zika Virus. I am pleased that this week, 14 weeks after 
his request, we are going to respond. We are not responding in full. 
The President asked for $1.9 billion to address this serious public 
health challenge. We are not responding without some theatrics and 
posturing first, but we are going to vote on some amendments this week, 
and it is about time.
  It has been 14 weeks since representatives from the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health 
testified at the Senate Appropriations Committee on the dire need for 
immediate action to combat the Zika virus.
  I visited the Centers for Disease Control about 14 weeks ago. By 
then, they had been able to verify that the tissue samples from 
miscarriages and other serious health problems coming in from Brazil 
were linked to the Zika Virus. So there was no question that these 
mosquitoes carrying this virus had serious public health consequences--
so serious that the Centers for Disease Control dedicated 1,000 
staffers to deal with this issue. That was about 12 or 14 weeks ago.
  The President used his authority to come to Congress and say: We have 
a public health emergency; treat it like it is an emergency. Here we 
are 14 weeks later getting around to discussing it.
  When I think back in times of American history when Congress has been 
called on to respond to an emergency, there have been amazing examples 
where partisanship was set aside and people said: In the interest of 
America, we need to act and act now. Whether we are talking about 
mobilizing for a war, whether we are talking about responding to 
terrorism, we have done it. We can do it. This time we have failed. We 
have failed for 14 weeks. In that period of time, 1,200 Americans in 44 
States, Washington, DC, and 3 U.S. territories, including over 110 
pregnant women, have contracted Zika. Six more have contracted 
Guillain-Barre, an autoimmune disorder that can cause paralysis and 
death. Recently, the first Zika-caused death and the first Zika-related 
microcephaly cases were reported in Puerto Rico. In my State of 
Illinois, 16 people have tested positive for Zika, including at least 3 
pregnant women.
  Over the past few months, we have learned more about Zika and how 
dangerous it can be. We now know it is carried by two types of 
mosquitoes. We now know it is linked to serious neurological damage and 
birth defects in children. We now know it can be sexually transmitted. 
We also know that the mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus thrive in the 
warm summer months, which is why this action should have been taken 
long ago and must be taken this week.
  The best way to fight a public health threat such as Zika is to have 
a strong, stable public health infrastructure in place. That is what 
the President asked for. That means reliable and stable funding year 
after year.
  Our public health agencies have to be viewed as the first line of 
defense, just as we view the Pentagon as the first line of defense when 
it comes to military and terrorist threats. Our public health agencies 
are the first line of defense when we are speaking of Ebola, the Zika 
virus, and a variety of other challenges that could literally threaten 
the health and lives of innocent Americans.
  We must ensure robust and stable funding for agencies like the 
Centers for Disease Control. These invasive problems can pop up at any 
time. We can't rally to each and every occurrence after it happens; we 
have to be prepared. The Centers for Disease Control is not only the 
best, it is the best in the world, but it cannot operate without 
adequate funding.
  The National Institutes of Health is working on a vaccine right now 
to protect all of us from the Zika virus. That is the answer, but it 
takes time--a year. We should have been moving on it sooner.
  We must provide critical resources to the Food and Drug 
Administration. Their reviewers are responsible for ensuring that any 
Zika treatments or vaccines are safe and effective, and in order to 
ensure the safety of those vaccines and treatments, they have to be 
clinically tested.
  For years we have heard congressional Republicans rail against 
Federal spending and even embrace the notion of a sequester--a blind 
across-the-board cut. Case in point: Over the past few months, we have 
heard Republicans protest, stall, and push back on providing funding to 
help combat the Zika virus. There have been a variety of excuses for 
their delay, but the outcome has always been the same: We have lost 
time in responding to this public health emergency.
  For years, those of us on this side of the aisle have been arguing 
that this approach--one of starving funding and endless delays--is 
shortsighted and irresponsible. Yes, we must be good stewards of the 
taxpayers' dollars, but I would argue that there is no better use of 
the taxpayers' dollars than investments in public health--investments 
in the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, 
and the Food and Drug Administration. These are investments that 
prepare our Nation for the unforeseen, such as Zika or Ebola, but they 
are also investments that help us prepare for the foreseen situations 
that Americans face every day, such as Alzheimer's, cancer, 
Parkinson's, and diabetes. That is why I introduced the American Cures 
Act--legislation that would provide our Federal health research 
agencies reliable and robust funding increases every year into the 
future.
  We are not going to win a war against Zika, Ebola, Alzheimer's, or 
cancer if our response is tepid, delayed, watered down, or subject to 
the whims of political fate. Big budget cuts make a good talking point 
in a speech somewhere, but the results can be devastating.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to find a path forward to address the funding 
of these critical Federal health agencies. There is more to do, and we 
must do it together. If we don't do it together, we will pay a heavy 
price.
  This week we will take up the issue. We will be voting on three Zika-
related amendments this week. The first, offered by Senator Nelson of 
Florida, is one that I fully support. It would fulfill the President's 
request by providing the $1.9 billion in needed funding to ensure an 
immediate and comprehensive response to Zika. We need to treat this 
public health emergency like a public health emergency. Senator 
Nelson's amendment would ensure that the CDC has the money they need to 
support States in conducting surveillance, vector control, emergency 
communications, and research. It would ensure that the National 
Institutes of Health has the money to develop this vaccine, and it 
would ensure that USAID has the money they need to build up a global 
health response to Zika.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Nelson amendment. It would 
provide the United States, as well as pregnant women in many affected 
countries, with the very best chance of minimizing the damage done by 
the Zika virus. Let's not be penny wise and pound foolish. Cutting back 
on this money for pregnant women and running the risk that a baby is 
born with a lifetime of medical challenges and expenses is not a way to 
save money; it is a disaster for the family and a disaster for our 
budget.
  Then comes the second amendment, offered by Senator Cornyn of Texas. 
This is a misguided amendment. I urge my colleagues to defeat it. 
Senator Cornyn's amendment would provide a portion of the funding 
needed to adequately respond to the Zika virus. He picked the number 
$1.1 billion and said: Let's take the money out of the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund for America--money that is currently being invested 
to deal with other health challenges around our country. In order to 
deal with the Zika virus, Senator Cornyn would take money away from 
other efforts to keep Americans healthy.
  The prevention fund accounts for 12 percent--nearly $900 million--of 
the Centers for Disease Control's core public health efforts, such as 
lead poisoning prevention, breast and cervical

[[Page 5993]]

cancer screening, and tobacco prevention and control. Think about that 
for a second. Senator Cornyn of Texas wants to take the money out of 
those areas--legitimate public health concerns--and put it in Zika. He 
is going to move some of the pieces around on the chessboard in the 
hope of moving the right one. Sadly, it will endanger innocent people.
  There is something else to be considered. His amount is $1.1 billion, 
and the President asked for $1.9 billion. For some reason, Senator 
Cornyn believes that we can reduce the threat of the Zika virus by 40 
percent on the floor of the Senate. I don't buy it. This is a public 
health emergency. Reducing the funding for it from what the President 
requested by 40 percent is playing Russian roulette with innocent lives 
across America and around the world. Senator Cornyn's amendment cuts 
base funding that would ordinarily be provided to the Centers for 
Disease Control.
  We are also dealing with lead poisoning issues across America, which 
was yesterday's front-page story in the Chicago Tribune. All of the 
lead testing around my State of Illinois finds that areas you wouldn't 
dream of--the suburbs of Chicago, including some of the wealthier 
suburbs of Chicago--sadly have too much lead in the water. We know that 
after what happened in Flint, we have to take it seriously. The impact 
on innocent children is obvious. Cutting back on funding for that to 
pay for the Zika virus is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Lastly, we have an amendment that will be offered by Senator Blunt. 
It is like Senator Cornyn's approach in that it would only provide $1.1 
billion, and I take exception to that number. As I said, it is 40 
percent less than what the President believes is needed for this 
emergency, but it would not cut the money out of the prevention fund, 
so that is a positive thing to say about the Blunt amendment over the 
Cornyn amendment. This amendment is an improvement, but still, it is 
important for us to adequately fund public health defense for innocent 
Americans.
  When Dr. Frieden of the CDC tells us how much the CDC needs to fight 
Zika, I trust the doctor. I do not believe we should second-guess his 
approach, and I don't believe we should provide the Centers for Disease 
Control with less money than what Dr. Frieden says is needed.
  That said, I appreciate that Senator Blunt is trying.
  I hope the initial amendment by Senator Nelson passes. That is the 
responsible amendment to deal with the public health emergency.
  We have seen Zika coming for months. We had the administration's 
detailed, comprehensive plan of action sitting up here for over 3 
months. The time to act is way overdue.
  It is my hope that the Senate will finally approve Zika funding this 
week and that House Republicans will stop their stalling as well and 
get to work and do the same. We have lost enough time already.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some remarks and ask 
unanimous consent that I be allowed such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Durbin's comments, 
and I believe there is clear bipartisan support for dealing with the 
Zika virus. And something will be done on that, but make no mistake--
there is a disagreement, and our colleagues on the Democratic side, as 
they always do, just want to add whatever new expense comes up during 
the year to the deficit of the United States of America.
  There are many ways we can save money to pay for new expenditures, 
and that is what Senator Cornyn is talking about. He wants to have it 
paid-for so we don't add more debt.
  You say: How can that be?
  Well, we are already in debt. This year we borrowed approximately 
$540 billion to fund the government. We spent $4 trillion and we 
borrowed $540 billion of that. That is a very large number. It is 
unsustainable, and it is getting worse.
  We have to start paying for things that we want to do around here and 
make some choices and set some priorities. That is the entire dispute 
about this matter, if you want to know the truth about it. There is no 
way we can't find the money to fund this Zika challenge--sufficient 
funds to do that--within the spending we already have.


                       NOMINATION OF PAULA XINIS

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Paula Xinis to the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Maryland. By all accounts, she is a nice person and has a number of 
admirers. I don't question her integrity. I had an exchange with her at 
the Judiciary Committee hearing when she came before the committee. I 
think this nominee has perhaps the most hostile record toward police of 
any I have seen in a long time. Her background is troubling to me, and 
I believe it justifies us not allowing her to have a lifetime 
appointment where she is unaccountable to anyone as she conducts her 
daily duties involving, on a very frequent basis, the appearance of 
police before her in criminal cases of all kinds. She would even hear 
cases against police officers for misconduct that may come before her 
over her career.
  I was a prosecutor for almost 15 years in Federal court before 
Federal judges. I was blessed to appear before Federal judges of high 
quality who gave the prosecutor a fair trial and gave the defendant a 
fair trial, and that is what we are looking for. I am aware of a lot of 
Federal judges who have a clear bias against law enforcement and have 
made the communities less safe, made prosecuting a nightmare, and I 
don't believe it is good for the legal system. There is nothing you can 
do about it. A judge can declare that the evidence is insufficient to 
convict on his or her own motion which nobody can appeal. That is the 
final word even though a jury, had they been able to hear the case, 
might have found otherwise.
  Yesterday was Peace Officers Memorial Day, and this week is Police 
Week. We take special occasion each year to remember the service and 
sacrifice of law enforcement officers and their indispensable role in 
ensuring law and order in our cities and towns throughout the country.
  Too often when something goes wrong on the streets today, the media 
is quick to point their fingers at the police, and that is why we have 
an impartial justice system--so that the facts can come out in open 
court. In my experience, when those facts do come out--and I have had 
the duty of prosecuting police officers--many more times than not, we 
learn that the police did everything they could according to the 
procedures and that the complaints we heard about in the media and 
through others are not accurate. That is what the facts show us time 
and time again.
  It is critical that we have judges who respect the rights of the 
accused but also respect the role of law enforcement and the dangers 
they face on a daily basis.
  We have a nominee for the Federal court in Maryland before us, and 
every police officer in the country needs to know where she stands and 
how she approaches the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of 
the police and how she approaches law enforcement. Will she give them a 
fair hearing? Aren't they entitled to that?
  Ms. Paula Xinis worked as a Federal public defender for the District 
of Maryland for 13 years; that is, she was on a paid defender's staff 
who defended the criminals who were being prosecuted in Federal court, 
those accused for a whole lot of crimes. There is nothing wrong with 
that. It is a perfectly honorable profession, and I certainly want to 
emphasize that. For 6 of those 13 years, she simultaneously served as a 
complaint examiner in the Office of Police Complaints for the District 
of Columbia here in DC. During the course of her work there, she heard 
complaints against police officers for conduct as part of their duties. 
She heard six complaints, and in every one of those cases, every single 
one, she found against the police officers.
  It troubled me, and I asked her some questions about it. In one of 
the cases, an officer arrested a man who was loitering amidst a group 
of individuals

[[Page 5994]]

outside a grocery store while talking on his cell phone. When he was 
asked to move along, he refused to do so. Then the man became 
belligerent and repeatedly swore and cursed at the police officer. The 
officer eventually arrested the man for disorderly conduct. On the 
panel, Ms. Xinis concluded that the police had harassed the man and 
found the police officer guilty of misconduct.
  When I asked her about this decision at her confirmation hearing in 
the Judiciary Committee, she said she didn't even know what 
consequences this finding might have on the career of a police officer 
as a result of having this on their record.
  In 2011, Ms. Xinis began work with her current 11-attorney law firm 
in Baltimore, where she focuses her practice emphasis on lawsuits 
against the police. According to her firm's Web site, she and two of 
her colleagues recently settled a $5 million police brutality lawsuit. 
Notably, her firm also represented the family of Freddie Gray, Jr., the 
25-year-old man who was arrested on April 12, 2015, for possessing an 
illegal switchblade and who subsequently tragically died in police 
custody, causing riots in Baltimore, if my colleagues recall. On 
September 8, 2015, the suit against the city and the police department, 
in which her firm represented the plaintiff, settled for $6.4 million.
  This may have been a totally justified settlement. I certainly 
believe that any death in the custody of a police officer by any 
accused is entitled to and requires a thorough investigation. But in a 
big city like Baltimore, when there is civil unrest and huge public 
attention, cities are under political, if not legal, pressure to reach 
some sort of financial settlement. This was a tragic case. The details 
were disputed. But it appears that some of the facts were not clear, 
certainly.
  The point is, Ms. Xinis has built a career of dealing with lawsuits 
against police and police departments and dealing with complaints 
against the police. In every complaint case she heard, she ruled 
against the police, which, frankly, makes me uneasy, as it does many 
law enforcement officers. When a lawyer sits as a complaint examiner in 
a case involving alleged police misconduct, the examiner--the judge, 
almost, in that case--should know and understand the reality of police 
work and what our people have to do every day to defend us from crime.
  I asked her about her findings that the arrest of a loud, cursing 
loiterer outside a store was police harassment. In other words, the 
cursing loiterer was OK, but the police officer was wrong.
  I would think that someone who has spent their entire professional 
career in this arena would be familiar with some of the concepts and 
procedures in policing in cities around the country today.
  For example, broken windows policing is well known. I think most 
people know what broken windows policing is. It is a short-hand way to 
describe a policy that originally grew and became predominant in New 
York City under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and many believe it saved New York 
City. Crime was surging, disorder was about, the city's financial 
status was at risk, and they started a systematic smart method of 
policing, and the murder rate is less than half of what it was in New 
York City. The entire city has been transformed.
  So here she is judging police officers about how to handle 
confrontations on the street and how to make our communities safer. 
Shouldn't she know about these things?
  Broken windows policing suggests that when law enforcement 
consistently enforces the law in cases involving minor crimes--not just 
big crimes but even minor crimes--that consistency helps to prevent 
major crimes. It is proven to work. It is a major trend. Virtually 
every city in America does it.
  Yes, we have people who are out on the streets causing trouble or 
risks, and they get their backs up and complain when anybody says 
anything to them. Police officers have to use judgment. But this police 
officer, to me, did what one would normally expect him to do. He 
certainly didn't need to be charged and convicted of harassment.
  Her statement that she did not know what ``broken windows'' was and 
was not familiar with it I think evidenced a real lack of 
understanding.
  There is concern about this appointment by people who have to deal 
with this every day. Here is a letter from the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the Baltimore City lodge, signed by Lieutenant Gene Ryan, 
President. Again, this is the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police:

       On behalf of almost 5,000 members of the Baltimore City 
     Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #3, I write this letter in 
     extreme opposition to the appointment of Paula Xinis as a 
     United States District Judge in the Federal District Court 
     system.
       While on paper, Ms. Xinis appears to be a highly qualified 
     criminal attorney, our membership is urgently concerned about 
     her obvious disdain for the law enforcement profession as 
     expressed time and again through the various court 
     appearances in which she has represented citizens claiming 
     harm caused by police personnel. In fact, her current 
     partnership in the Baltimore firm of Murphy, Falcon, & Murphy 
     itself is of concern as this is a firm well known in our area 
     for hostility toward our profession and our members and, as a 
     result, we question the ability of Ms. Xinis to remain 
     impartial in any Federal cases involving law enforcement.
       Senators, we respectfully request that you give 
     consideration to our request to deny the appointment of Paula 
     Xinis to the Federal bench at this time.

  I also have a letter from the Maryland State Lodge of the Fraternal 
Order of Police, President Ismael Vincent Canales. He writes:

       As President of the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police and 
     on behalf of over twenty-thousand active and retired law 
     enforcement officers throughout the State of Maryland, I 
     respectfully request that members of the U.S. Senate vote 
     unfavorably on the appointment of Paula Xinis as a Judge to 
     the United States District Court of Maryland.
       I believe that Ms. Xinis at this time fails to have the 
     requisite temperament and ability to be fair and impartial on 
     matters that directly affect law enforcement.

  And he goes on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                                   Baltimore City Lodge No. 3,

                                      Baltimore, MD, May 16, 2016.
       To All Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of 
     the almost 5,000 members of the Baltimore City Fraternal 
     Order of Police, Lodge #3, I write this letter in extreme 
     opposition to the appointment of Paula Xinis as a United 
     States District Judge in the Federal District Court system.
       While, on paper, Ms. Xinis appears to be a highly qualified 
     criminal attorney, our membership is urgently concerned about 
     her obvious disdain for the law enforcement profession as 
     expressed time and again through the various court 
     appearances in which she has represented citizens claiming 
     harm caused by police personnel. In fact, her current 
     partnership in the Baltimore law firm of Murphy, Falcon & 
     Murphy itself is of concern as this is a firm well known in 
     our area for hostility toward our profession and our members 
     and, as a result, we question the ability of Ms. Xinis to 
     remain impartial in any Federal cases involving law 
     enforcement.
       Senators, we respectfully request that you give 
     consideration to our request to deny the appointment of Paula 
     Xinis to the Federal Bench at this time, and any time In the 
     future.
           Most sincerely,

                                                Lt. Gene Ryan,

                               President, Baltimore City Fraternal
     Order of Police, Lodge #3.
                                  ____

                                             Maryland State Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                      Baltimore, MD, May 16, 2016.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Jeff Sessions: As President of the Maryland 
     Fraternal Order of Police, and on behalf of the over twenty-
     thousand active and retired law enforcement officers 
     throughout the State of Maryland, I respectfully request that 
     the members of the United States Senate vote unfavorably on 
     the appointment of Paula Xinis as a Judge to the United 
     States District Court of Maryland.
       After careful review and consideration, I believe that Ms. 
     Xinis at this time fails to have the requisite temperament 
     and ability to be fair and impartial on matters that directly 
     affect law enforcement. Based on prior and recent experience, 
     Ms. Xinis has shown a clear bias towards law enforcement 
     which began in her position as a complaint examiner in the 
     Office of Police Complaints for the District of Columbia and 
     culminated with her involvement in the civil suit surrounding 
     the Freddie Gray Case in Baltimore

[[Page 5995]]

     City, MD. Ms. Xinis is clearly a consummate advocate which we 
     commend her for. However, at this time, I do not believe that 
     she has displayed throughout her professional career a 
     sufficient ability to equitably apply the law.
       It is for these reasons that I respectfully request that 
     the Senate vote unfavorably on the appointment of Paula Xinis 
     to the United States District Court of Maryland.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Vince Canales.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Federal judges decide cases every day 
that have a significant real world impact on our criminal justice 
system--sometimes good, sometimes bad.
  Let me point out this case. It gives an insight into the kinds of 
things I saw every day as a prosecutor, and it is happening every day 
right now in courts all over America.
  Here is the case before United States District Judge Royce C. 
Lamberth. He denied a request by the prosecutor for early release of 
two top associates of Rayful Edmond III, a notorious drug kingpin in 
Washington, DC. I think they made a movie about him or a film about 
him, one of the most notorious gang leaders around. The Washington Post 
described Judge Lamberth's astonishment when the U.S. Attorney did not 
object to the drug felon's request for early release. Quote:

       The judge rebuked the Office of acting United States 
     attorney Vincent H. Cohen Jr., of the District, saying 
     prosecutors did not give due weight to the criminal history 
     of Butler, 52, the Los Angeles-based cocaine broker and 
     partner of D.C. drug lord Rayful Edmond III, and Jones, 58, 
     one of four top armed enforcers of Edmond's violent 
     trafficking network. The group imported as much as 1,700 
     pounds of Colombian cocaine a month.

  That is almost a ton a month. That is the largest amount I have ever 
seen. I thought the biggest case I had ever seen was 600 pounds flown 
in on about 20 plane loads over several months. This is 1,700 pounds a 
month.

       Edmond's organization enabled drug addiction on a scale 
     that until then ``was unprecedented and largely 
     unimaginable'' in Washington, Lamberth wrote, and the harm 
     the defendants caused ``is immeasurable and in many cases 
     irreversible.''
       ``To put it bluntly, the court is surprised and 
     disappointed by the United States Attorney's decision to not 
     oppose the present motions,'' Lamberth said.

  Quote:

       ``The court struggles to understand how the government 
     could condone the release of Butler and Jones, each convicted 
     of high-level, sophisticated and violent drug trafficking 
     offenses.''

  So that is a Federal judge doing their duty. I am not sure where Ms. 
Xinis would be on this.
  Contrast that with many courts across the country that are currently 
rubberstamping motions for early release for Federal drug trafficking 
felons under the Sentencing Commission's reductions to the sentencing 
guidelines that have already occurred and that are impacting the prison 
population significantly, as we will see. That is according to an 
October 2015 article in the Los Angeles Times entitled ``The face of 
the federal prison release: A heavy dose of meth, crack, and cocaine.''
  This is what the article says:

       A federal analysis of the expected impact of the first wave 
     of those approved for early release shows 663 prisoners from 
     California had filed for shorter sentences as of late July. 
     Federal judges denied 92 of them.

  It looks as though six out of seven were granted.
  According to an October 2015 article regarding offenders released in 
the Pittsburgh area, the U.S. Attorney's Office there ``erred on the 
side of granting'' the motions.
  So the U.S. attorney's office is not defending the legitimate, 
original sentence that was imposed. They walk in and just don't--if 
there is any doubt about it, they just go along with the prisoner's 
request.
  According to a November 2015 article entitled ``Upstate NY gang 
members on secret list of 6,000 freed early from prison,'' it is 
happening in New York too.
  Quote:

       In the Northern District of New York, the [Court, 
     prosecutors, and defense attorneys] agreed on the eligibility 
     of almost all of the inmates, and disagreed on only five 
     cases that became subject to litigation. . . . Of those five 
     cases, a judge ordered early release for three and rejected 
     one. A fifth case is pending.

  So out of all the cases, only one was rejected.
  Judges have a duty to make sure that they--they don't have to take 
everything the prosecutor says. The prosecutor sometimes asks for a 
higher sentence than a judge wants to give, but a judge is equally 
required to reject a prosecutor's failure to oppose unjustified 
reductions.
  This is, frankly, President Obama's policy, and the policy of the 
Attorney General, whom he has appointed--Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder 
before her--basically to cut people's sentences that have been lawfully 
imposed throughout this country. In my opinion, it is impacting public 
safety and will continue to do so in the future.
  Judges must protect the rights of the accused, absolutely, and give 
them a fair hearing, as they are required to do, but they must give the 
people, the police, and the prosecutor the right to a fair trial also. 
These kind of cases cause concern about who is protecting the public. 
Would Judge Xinis be more likely to follow the pattern of Judge Royce 
Lamberth in saying no or go along with these other cases?
  Over the past year, our law enforcement officers across the country 
have been shot at, assaulted, and murdered, too often simply because 
they wear a badge. Last year we lost 123 police officers--35 in the 
first 4 months of 2016. Violent crime and murders have increased across 
the country at alarming rates.
  Let me share with my colleagues some of the things we are seeing in 
trends in violent crime. Recently, the Major Cities Chiefs Police 
Association, a long-established group, called an emergency meeting to 
deal with the numbers I am going to share with you today. The numbers I 
will quote represent the percentage of increase in total murders in the 
first quarter of this year, 2016, over the first quarter of 2015: Las 
Vegas, 82 percent increase; Dallas, TX, 73 percent increase; Chicago, 
70 percent; Jacksonville, FL, 67 percent; Newark, NJ, 60 percent 
increase; Miami-Dade, 38 percent; Los Angeles, 33 percent; Atlanta, 20 
percent; Baltimore, 10 percent. These are substantial increases in 
crime.
  The FBI Director, Mr. Comey, a long-term experienced law officer, who 
served at the top of the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, 
recently said he believes the pushback on police officers--this trend 
of attacking and blaming police officers--has caused some drawback and 
reluctance of police officers to take on situations like the guy at the 
store standing out front that was cursing the police officer. Properly 
handled, those kinds of things reduce crime. They help violence not to 
start. Once it gets started, bad things can happen. Oftentimes, 
somebody gets killed. It is not like on television where somebody 
punches somebody and they get up and walk away and laugh about it. A 
good punch breaks teeth, jaws, and can kill. This increase in murder 
rates is significant, and we have to be aware of it. Lives are at 
stake, many innocent people. If we get off the right path, we will lose 
lives as a result of criminal conduct.
  Think about some of the cases, such as that of Kate Steinle in 
California, who was out with her father and was murdered by an illegal 
immigrant who had been deported multiple times. Judges have to know 
this isn't a game. We don't want to put anybody in jail, but if we 
don't maintain order in cities, chaos can result, innocent people will 
die, and prosperity will be reduced.
  According to the FBI statistics released just this year, the number 
of violent crimes committed across the country was up in the first half 
of 2015 compared to the same period of 2014. The number of murders, 
rapes, assaults, and robberies were up all over the first 6 months of 
2015. There was a 6.2-percent increase in murder. Violent crime across 
America rose 5.3 percent in large cities, and overall violent crime 
increased 1.7 percent, an increase that followed two consecutive years 
of decline.
  In my judgment, what I am seeing is this is a long-term trend. I 
think we will continue to see this increase. I wish it weren't so, but 
I am afraid it is. According to statistics released Friday

[[Page 5996]]

by the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, the number of homicides 
increased in the first months of 2016 in more than two dozen major 
cities. The Washington Post reports ``the numbers were particularly 
grim for a handful of places--Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Las 
Vegas--where the numbers of homicides increased in the first three 
months of 2016. . . .''
  The article goes on to quote FBI Director Comey. He said:

       I was very worried about it last fall, and I am in many 
     ways more worried, because the numbers are not only going up, 
     they're continuing to go up in most of those cities faster 
     than they were going up last year. Something is happening. I 
     don't know what the answer is, but holy cow, do we have a 
     problem.

  He also said before our committee that he remembered the last 
crimewave in the seventies and the sixties and how enforcement brought 
it down dramatically. He said we don't want to forget the lessons we 
learned previously. Director Comey has further suggested that possible 
explanations for this spike in violent crime included gang and drug 
violence. He has also suggested that greater scrutiny of police as they 
do their duty has possibly changed the way officers and communities 
interact, something he calls the ``viral video effect,'' which he 
believes leads to less aggressive policing. Less aggressive policing 
means more crime and more deaths.
  On Mother's Day weekend in Chicago, more than 50 people were shot 
between Friday afternoon and early Monday. During a 3\1/2\-hour period 
early Saturday, one man was killed and 14 others wounded, as the 
Chicago Tribune said, ``the equivalent of someone being shot every 14 
minutes.''
  According to the Tribune, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson ``saved 
his harshest criticism for a criminal justice system that he said isn't 
putting away the city's most dangerous offenders for long enough 
periods. `Until we have real truth in sentencing and hold these 
offenders accountable, this will be the unfortunate reality in the city 
of Chicago.'''
  According to an article in the Washington Post, April 2 of this year, 
``violence is occurring at levels unseen for years [in Chicago]. In the 
first quarter of 2016, 141 people were killed, up from 82 last year, 
according to police department data. The number of shootings surged to 
677 from 359 a year earlier. The city is on track to have more than 500 
killings this year, which would make this just the third year since 
2004 that Chicago topped that figure.''
  Some say we have too many people in prison. We have heard that. It is 
certainly our responsibility, in part, in Congress, to set sentencing 
laws that are smart, that protect the public, don't put too many people 
in jail, and strike the right balance.
  In the early to mid-1980s, Congress passed, in a bipartisan, 
overwhelming vote, mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing 
guidelines. They allowed dangerous people to be denied bail on appeal. 
They allowed people who made frivolous appeals--for the judge to assert 
that there was no substantial basis for the appeal and he could leave 
them in jail while they made their appeals because too many people were 
filing for appeals just to stay out of jail and committed crimes while 
they were out. All of these are great reforms. They are now under 
systemic attack. During that entire period of time, the crime rate in 
America went down. The murder rate in the late nineties was half what 
it was in 1980. How many good people are alive today because of this 
improvement in law enforcement? We ended the revolving door, where 
people were arrested, released, arrested. They came in another time and 
they are arrested and then they would get out and murder somebody. It 
was happening all the time. We didn't have the jail capacity to put the 
people in jail. We didn't have enough police to deal with the surging 
crime rate. When you have 20-, 30-, 40-percent increases in crime, you 
are talking about doubling the crime and murder rate in America in 2 or 
3 years, after we spent 20 years bringing it down by half.
  We have to be sure that what we are doing, colleagues, is smart, and 
we are not signing death warrants for thousands of American innocent 
citizens.
  Well, what is the prison situation today? Is the population going up? 
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of imprisonment 
in the United States is at its lowest in a decade. The Federal prison 
population--195,914 as of May 12, 2016--is at its lowest level since 
2006. Since 2013, the Federal prison population has decreased by over 
20,000, and it is projected to continue downward. According to the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the population is projected to drop another 
10,000 this year, which will bring it to its lowest levels since 2005. 
The Bureau of Prisons, which houses prisoners, ``projects that the 
inmate population will continue to decline for the next couple of 
years, particularly as a result of retroactive changes to sentencing 
guidelines.''
  Indeed, the 46,276 Federal drug trafficking inmates made eligible for 
early release comprise 25 percent of the current prison population. 
Admissions to Federal prisons have declined every year since 2011 and 
will likely decline further due to the Obama administration's policy 
directing prosecutors not to charge certain criminal offenses.
  I don't think this Congress has a duty to confirm everyone who is 
appointed by the President. We know the President has hostility toward 
prisons. He has directed his Attorney General to reduce prison 
populations, and that is happening. He has directed the Bureau of 
Prisons to participate in this. He has directed the Attorney General 
and the Attorney General has agreed and issued policy that rejects 
Attorney General Thornburgh's policies when I was a U.S. attorney. 
Basically, the Thornburgh policy was, if a person used a gun during a 
crime, a bank robbery, or drug dealing, they were required, under the 
law, to get an additional 5 years' penalty in addition because the goal 
was to deter people from carrying guns during the criminal act, 
therefore, having fewer people killed in this country. It actually 
worked. In my opinion, it was part of the reason for the decline in the 
murder rate, clearly. You were required to charge them because the law 
said, if you carried a gun, you must get 5 years in addition to the 
other penalties. Now the Attorney General tells everybody: Well, 
prosecutors, you don't have to charge that; in fact, we don't want you 
to charge too much on these kinds of cases. As a result, the 
prosecutions are down, drug prosecutions are down 21 percent, and 
sentencing is down too.
  When I asked the Attorney General why the prosecutions of these cases 
are down so much, she said they are prosecuting bigger cases. I have to 
say that for the last 50 years, that is the excuse that prosecutors use 
for having a decline in statistics. They say: Well, we are working 
bigger cases. But regardless if you are working bigger cases, why are 
the sentencing numbers down? Presumably, she is saying: We are 
prosecuting more serious criminals, but the sentences are going down. 
We are seeing from the prosecutorial end a significant retrenchment or 
backing off of strong prosecution policy.
  A judge who gets a lifetime appointment and is no longer accountable 
to the American people--or anyone else, for that matter--is not 
entitled to confirmation if we have doubts about the ability over the 
years to treat police fairly and protect the public from serious 
criminals.
  Certainly, it does not send a positive message to police and the 
community in Baltimore, where she will hear cases if confirmed. Last 
year was the deadliest year in Baltimore's history--344 murders and 
countless crimes against persons and property.
  I believe Ms. Xinis's record demonstrates such a lack of 
understanding of the reality of law enforcement and the duty of our 
whole criminal justice system to protect the public as to disqualify 
her from the Federal bench. That is why I will oppose the nomination.
  I do not believe she lacks the personal qualities or the integrity 
needed to be a judge or be a successful person throughout her life, 
whatever job she holds. She certainly has many admirers. I am not 
questioning that, but her record, as I have discussed, indicates an 
approach to law enforcement that

[[Page 5997]]

does not justify the support of a lifetime appointment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________