[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5998-6005]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Paula 
Xinis, of Maryland, to be United States District Judge for the District 
of Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes for debate only on the nomination, with the time equally 
divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the Zika 
virus. We will have a vote on this tomorrow.
  Tonight I wish to speak about the need for us to move forward with 
emergency funding with regard to this virus. We need to combat it. It 
is spreading. It poses a threat to the safety of women, children, and 
the elderly. It is particularly important that we keep it from 
spreading because there is no known Zika vaccine or treatment.
  A lot of my constituents have asked me about this back home. This is 
a virus that has spread from Africa, to Asia, to Latin America, and now 
it is coming into our own country. It is spreading so quickly because 
it is insidious. It is difficult to test for it because it is usually 
confused with other viruses, like dengue. It can only be detected in a 
few days after you get it in the blood. Many of its symptoms in older 
adults are similar to other viruses, such as influenza, so it is tough 
to know whether you have it. It is typically contracted simply by being 
bitten by a mosquito, and two kinds of mosquitoes--both of which are in 
the United States--are the problem. We now know that it can also be 
transmitted by sexual activity. We are told that men may be able to 
sexually transmit the virus for months after the initial infection 
based on some experiences.
  So, again, this is a difficult issue. Some people may not even know 
they have it; yet they might be spreading it. The spread of the virus 
is accelerating. It took 60 years for Zika to make it out of Africa to 
the Pacific. Just 8 years after that, it reached the Western Hemisphere 
in Latin America.
  Today it has infected people in 62 countries, including the United 
States and 34 other countries in the Americas, so pretty much every 
country in the Americas is now infected with it. Hundreds of Americans 
have been infected. We know of nearly 500, including 48 pregnant women 
and 12 people in my home State of Ohio, in fact. Thus far, it looks as 
though all of the Americans who have become infected did so by 
traveling overseas, being infected by the mosquito or by sexual contact 
with someone who had Zika.
  The World Health Organization calls it ``a threat of alarming 
proportions'' because it is spreading so quickly and because it has 
serious consequences for the most vulnerable in our society, 
particularly the elderly--an older gentleman in Puerto Rico recently 
died of

[[Page 5999]]

Zika--children, babies in the womb, which we will talk about in a 
second, and pregnant women.
  As Zika has spread, health officials have reported an increased 
incidence of babies born with a horrible birth defect where a baby's 
head and brain are abnormally small. The consequences of this birth 
defect are absolutely tragic. These kids have seizures, slow 
development, intellectual disabilities, and often loss of hearing and 
vision. The consequences last a lifetime. There is no known cure for 
this disease. We don't want any child to have to suffer through that. 
It is in all of our interests to protect more babies from this 
syndrome.
  In Brazil, there have been more than 900 confirmed cases since Zika 
arrived, with another 4,000 suspected cases. These are conservative 
estimates, and they are rising. That is up from around an average of 
150 each year--a 600-percent increase from year to year.
  Officials also tell us that Zika can cause what is called Guillain-
Barre syndrome, which causes the body's immune system to attack its own 
nerves. It is a cruel syndrome, and in bad cases it can cause total 
paralysis and loss of sensation. This can happen to anyone, not just 
newborns but adults as well. These are just two of the neurological 
side effects that can result, and, like Zika, they are thought to be 
incurable.
  For most adults, Zika is not fatal, but to the most vulnerable, like 
the elderly and the unborn, it could be a lifetime of suffering, 
disability, or even death. I mentioned the man in Puerto Rico who died 
last week after being infected by Zika, a fellow American. His immune 
system began to attack the platelets in his blood, so they couldn't 
clot, and that was the effect for him.
  As Zika spreads, it becomes clearer than ever that our response has 
to be very aggressive, both domestically and internationally. It has to 
be aggressive, and therefore it has to be funded. That is why I think 
it is important that we deal with emergency funding before it is truly 
an emergency.
  I thank my colleagues for the steps they have already taken to 
improve our response. In March, this body passed and President Obama 
signed into law bipartisan legislation which I cosponsored with my 
friend Senator Franken that will give accelerated priority review at 
the Food and Drug Administration for new drugs and vaccines to treat 
Zika. This is very important, and I applaud the Senate for moving 
quickly and the administration for moving on that. It is a critical 
step. Right now, there is no cure and no treatment. President Obama has 
signed it into law.
  I am also grateful to the administration for redirecting more than 
$500 million of residual Ebola funds that were originally appropriated 
by Congress to deal with Ebola and were not necessary. They stopped 
using those funds for Ebola and shipped those funds over to Zika to 
stop it from spreading. I applaud them for that as well.
  Again, we have more work to do, and it is my view that we ought to 
move forward with emergency funding. There was a proposal--I believe it 
was finalized just last week, Thursday or Friday--from Senator Blunt 
and Senator Murray that goes a long way toward dealing with this issue.
  The majority of the funding is right here in the United States, while 
the rest will go to international immigration purposes so we can keep 
Zika from crossing our borders again. A lot of this funding goes to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--the majority of it--to 
enhance mosquito control programs, improve infrastructure for testing 
for Zika, and expand the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, 
all of which are important. This is emergency funding, and I think it 
is necessary. Some funding also helps provide health services for 
pregnant women in Puerto Rico and invests in scientific research for a 
treatment or a vaccine. This is perhaps the most important thing we can 
do. These are critical priorities.
  I would also note that I am pleased that we have maintained the Hyde 
protections in this proposal, and I believe this is consistent with the 
goal of protecting innocent life, protecting these innocent babies from 
birth defects. We want this funding to be used to help preserve life 
and to help the vulnerable.
  We need to ensure adequate funding. We have to recognize the tools 
already at our disposal and use them. I have remained in contact with 
the Secretary of the Air Force as this virus has spread to make clear 
that in Ohio we have reservists at Youngstown Air Reserve Station who 
are ready to help. This Air Reserve Station in Youngstown, OH, is the 
home of the 910th Airlift Wing, which is the only fixed-wing aerial 
spray unit in the United States. It has been used by the military all 
over the United States. They have played key roles in other public 
health emergencies, including spraying millions of acres in Louisiana 
and Texas for mosquito abatement after Hurricane Katrina. I believe 
they could play that same role now. They are ready to do it, but 
frankly they need an upgrade in their equipment to be able to do it.
  As RADM Stephen Redd of the CDC told me in the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, ``there could be a role for that 
airwing in locations that do not have [finely honed mosquito control 
enterprises].'' He said that a lot of counties in this country do not 
have that. He said: ``One of the things that we think is really 
important that the Zika virus outbreak is pointing out is the need to 
really revitalize those mosquito control efforts.'' I couldn't agree 
with him more.
  We need to revitalize these efforts to be sure we have them and use 
the tools that are at our disposal right now. If Zika were to spread 
around the country, it is incredibly important that we have this 
control effort.
  I hope we move forward on this in the next couple of days, send this 
legislation to the President for his signature, and get moving on 
dealing with the Zika emergency we have before us. People all over Ohio 
ask me about it because they are worried. We need to keep our 
constituents safe, and we need to give them peace of mind.
  Adopting the amendment I think we are going to have before us in the 
next couple of days is the best action we can take right now to achieve 
these goals, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
strongly support emergency funding for this purpose.
  Thank you.
  I yield back my time.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been 5 weeks since the Senate last 
confirmed a judicial nominee. In that time, judicial vacancies have 
continued to increase. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has 
repeatedly objected to unanimous consent motions made to overcome the 
obstruction of 20 judicial nominees. These are nominees who were voted 
out unanimously by committee and are awaiting a confirmation vote.
  The majority leader claims that President Obama's nominees have been 
treated fairly, but anyone paying attention to the Senate over the past 
7 years knows that is not the case. It has been almost 2 months since 
Chief Judge Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to fill a 
vacancy on the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Garland is widely respected, 
and prior to his nomination, he had repeatedly received praise from the 
very Republicans who now refuse to allow him to appear for a 
confirmation hearing. These same Republicans refuse to do their jobs as 
Senators while outside groups pour millions of dollars into television 
ads that seek to discredit Chief Judge Garland's record. Before there 
was even a Supreme Court nominee, one Republican aide promised 
conservatives were ``going to light this person up.'' Sadly, it appears 
they are making good on their threat while simultaneously refusing to 
allow him a public hearing where he could respond.
  Meanwhile, lower court nominees have stalled. Paula Xinis, whom we 
will vote on today, was nominated more than a year ago to fill an 
emergency vacancy--not just a regular vacancy but an emergency vacancy 
in Maryland. Since 2011, she has practiced as a criminal defense 
attorney at a law firm. Prior to that, she served in the

[[Page 6000]]

Federal Public Defender's Office for the District of Maryland for 13 
years, from 1998 to 2011. Ms. Xinis has extensive trial experience, 
representing hundreds of clients as a public defender and trying 16 
cases to completion over the course of her career. The ABA Standing 
Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Xinis ``well 
qualified'' to serve in the district court. They gave Paula Xinis their 
highest rating. She is strongly supported by both Senators from 
Maryland, and her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote 8 months ago. All the Republicans on the 
Judiciary Committee approved her nomination from the Committee by 
unanimous voice vote.
  Senator Sessions came to the floor today to oppose Ms. Xinis's 
nomination based on her experience as an examiner of complaints against 
police officers in the District of Columbia. From 1995 to 2011, Ms. 
Xinis served as a complaint examiner in six cases where she made 
determinations on complaints brought against Metropolitan Police 
Department officers. At her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator 
Sessions questioned Ms. Xinis about her experience and expressed 
concern that, in the six cases Ms. Xinis served as a complaint 
examiner, she sustained rulings against police officers in all of them. 
Senator Sessions questions Ms. Xinis's fairness to police officers 
based on her determinations in these six cases.
  However, as Senator Sessions said on the floor today, he does not 
question her personal qualifications or her integrity to be a Federal 
judge. And he also did not question her testimony before the Judiciary 
Committee in which she committed to being a fair and impartial judge, 
should she be confirmed. Furthermore, Ms. Xinis's record as a complaint 
examiner shows that each one of her six determinations was sustained by 
the chief of police; none of them was overturned. Her decisions could 
have been appealed and overturned if they were incorrect, but they were 
not.
  Paula Xinis has earned the express support of law enforcement and has 
defended police officers as an attorney on a number of occasions. For 
instance, in one case, she provided legal counsel to a Baltimore police 
officer unfairly accused of criminal wrongdoing. That officer wrote a 
letter of support for Ms. Xinis, where he said: ``Throughout the entire 
ordeal, I spent countless hours with Paula and her team. They worked 
diligently seeking the evidence needed to exonerate me. Although it was 
an extremely dark time for me, she always made me feel confident that 
she `had my back' and that she was dedicated to seeing that I was 
vindicated. Thankfully, as a result of her tireless efforts on my 
behalf, all of the charges brought against me were dismissed earlier 
this year.'' This does not sound like a person who holds any biases 
against law enforcement. In addition to this officer, several other 
members of the law enforcement community have written in support of Ms. 
Xinis's nomination.
  After we actually vote on Paula Xinis's nomination today, there will 
still be 19 judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar waiting 
for a confirmation vote. Every single one of these nominees was voted 
out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. Instead of 
allowing a vote on these nominees on a regular basis, the Republican 
leadership objects to the Senate being able to do our jobs.
  After today's vote, the next in line for consideration is a district 
court nominee from New Jersey and then a district court nominee from 
Nebraska. I know the Senators from New Jersey are pushing for a vote on 
the nominee to serve in their State. I hope the Republican Senators 
from Nebraska are urging their leadership to schedule the confirmation 
of Robert Rossiter, who was approved by unanimous voice vote in 
committee. That vacancy has been pending for over a year and a half. 
There is no good reason for votes on these nominees to be further 
delayed.
  Senator Grassley has indicated that Republicans will shut down the 
judicial nominations process in July, even though vacancies have risen 
from 43 to 81 since Republicans took over the majority. They have 
allowed vacancies to rise dramatically and now want to shut it down 
even though the judicial nominees pending are not controversial and we 
have numerous vacancies that need to be filled. This is wrong. Contrast 
this to the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration, when 
Democrats were in control. At this same point in the Bush Presidency, 
Democrats had reduced vacancies to just 46.
  Because of Republican obstruction, our independent judiciary is 
struggling to perform its role under the Constitution. The Marshall 
Project recently interviewed several sitting judges to examine the 
impact judicial vacancies are having on our courts. Chief Judge Ron 
Clark of the Eastern District of Texas, which currently has three 
judicial emergency vacancies, said: ``We're managing the best we can--
but if they don't get us another judge soon, you could start to see 
some more draconian kinds of delays.'' There is a nominee to this court 
pending in the Judiciary Committee, but the Texas Senators, who both 
are members of the committee, have not returned their blue slips to 
allow that nominee to even receive a hearing. I hope the Texas Senators 
heed the call of Chief Judge Clark and get moving on their nominee.
  And I hope the Senate majority allows this body to return to regular 
order when it comes to processing judicial nominees. We have a 
constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the 
President's nominees. The Constitution has not changed, but once 
President Obama took office, this body's normal practice for treating 
nominees turned for the worse. Deference to home State Senators was no 
longer the norm, and procedural delay after procedural delay quickly 
became the standard practice of the Republican caucus, whether they 
were in the minority or now in the majority. In a New York Times op-ed 
a week ago, former Judge Shira Sheindlin of the Southern District of 
New York warned that the Republicans' obstruction to district court 
nominees ``undermines public trust in the impartiality and legitimacy 
of the judiciary.''
  I was heartened to hear the majority leader last week make the point 
that an election year is ``not an excuse not to do our work.'' I could 
not agree more. That is why in the last 2 years of the George W. Bush 
administration, when I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
we confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees. That is compared 
to a handful of President Obama's nominees that the Republicans have 
allowed. We confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees, and we 
confirmed right up to the time we went out for the elections in 
September, not in June or July or May.
  We have also confirmed more than a dozen Supreme Court Justices in 
Presidential election years, and many in this Senate served at the 
time. The last one we had, of course, was during President Reagan's 
final year in office. We did so because we knew the Supreme Court 
should not be held hostage to election-year politics; yet we are being 
held hostage to election-year politics because we are not doing our 
jobs. And the Supreme Court issued a couple more 4-to-4 opinions today.
  I urge the majority leader to heed his own advice and to schedule a 
confirmation vote for the pending lower court nominees, and I urge the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee to follow suit by scheduling 
confirmation hearings for Chief Judge Garland so that we can do our 
jobs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Judge Sheindlin's op-ed 
and the Marshall Project review be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Marshall Project, April 26, 2016]

       What Happens When There Aren't Enough Judges to Go Around?

                             (By Eli Hager)

       The ninth seat on the Supreme Court has been vacant for two 
     months.
       But Antonin Scalia's chair is not the only empty one in the 
     vast federal judiciary, where several judgeships have 
     remained unfilled for 30 months or more. Around the country, 
     there are 84 of these vacancies,

[[Page 6001]]

     largely as a result of the Senate's historically low rate of 
     confirming President Barack Obama's nominees. And since the 
     beginning of last year, the number of unfilled seats and 
     pending nominations have been steadily rising.
       Down in the gears of the justice system, all those absent 
     judges have taken a toll.
       Because courts are obligated to find ways to meet speedy-
     trial rules, at least in criminal cases, the vacancies have 
     not caused across-the-board delays. But by all accounts, the 
     unconfirmed nominees--combined with what advocates say is an 
     insufficient number of judgeships overall--have forced the 
     system to find sometimes extraordinary ways to make do with 
     the few judges available.
       Some judges, for example, are having to drive hundreds of 
     miles to cover the empty seats. Less-qualified magistrate 
     judges, senior judges who are supposed to be entering 
     retirement, and visiting judges who fly in from other states, 
     have all had to pitch in. And many of the remaining judges 
     say that it's hard, with such a lack of personnel, to give 
     every case the attention it deserves.
       In the worst-hit districts, including all four districts of 
     Texas, some areas of Florida and California, Middle Alabama, 
     and elsewhere, the situation is now considered an 
     ``emergency.''
       Ron Clark, chief judge of the Eastern District of Texas, 
     which has three judicial emergencies out of only eight total 
     judgeships, says that ``we're managing the best we can--but 
     if they don't get us another judge soon, you could start to 
     see some more draconian kinds of delays.''


                Judicial Vacancies in the Federal Courts

       In the past year, unfilled federal judgeships have been 
     rising dramatically. Similarly, the number of seats on the 
     bench considered ``emergencies''--vacant for many months with 
     a large caseload per judge--and the number of White House 
     nominations awaiting Senate confirmation have climbed.
       A 2014 study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that 
     the vacancies led to a host of negative consequences. Among 
     them were unresolved motions, habeas corpus petitions waiting 
     years to be heard (or being handled by law clerks instead of 
     judges), judges spending less time on each case, and 
     defendants pleading guilty because they believed a trial 
     would not get the timely attention it deserved.
       And in civil proceedings, where the Speedy Trial Act does 
     not apply, longer wait times for trial are becoming more 
     common.
       Morrison C. England Jr., chief judge of the Eastern 
     District of California, says that ``cases that aren't the 
     priority are going to get pushed back for years, literally.''
       In Middle Alabama, Ricky Martin, a pastor, had been 
     allowing registered sex-offenders to stay in mobile homes 
     surrounding his church--until the state legislature made it 
     illegal for him to do so. Martin filed suit in August of 
     2014, and the local D.A. responded with a ``motion to 
     dismiss'' a few months later. But a judge didn't get around 
     to weighing in--in Martin's favor--until this April, and the 
     case may not actually be resolved for two more years or 
     longer.
       The process would have taken only three to four months if 
     there were more judges available, says Randall Marshall, 
     legal director of the ACLU of Alabama.
       But sometimes, the effect is the opposite: the proceedings 
     get rushed.
       Brian McGiverin, a civil-rights lawyer in Austin, Texas, 
     says that because there are so few judges, the remaining ones 
     are all overbooked. As a result, they often ``give you a 
     cramped amount of time for trial, regardless of how many 
     witnesses you'd like to call.''
       McGiverin recently assisted in the case of a woman named 
     Abieyuwa Ikhinmwin, who claimed that she was racially 
     profiled, handled with excessive force, and wrongfully 
     arrested by police in San Antonio.
       He says the court tried to ``fast-track'' her lawsuit, 
     threatening to dismiss it within 21 days unless she paid a 
     fee and submitted additional information--which would not 
     have happened when there were enough judges.
       Clark, chief judge in the nearby Eastern District of Texas, 
     says that ``with so few of us, it's definitely harder to have 
     the flexibility that a defense lawyer might want us to. So 
     the answer sometimes has to be, `No, sorry, we can't offer 
     that time in court.'''
       Meanwhile, the consequences of too few judges are worsened 
     in the most geographically expansive districts.
       ``When there's a missing judge in a state like ours,'' 
     Clark says, ``it's not like we can walk down the hall and 
     take care of a trial for him--the trip from Beaumont to Plano 
     is five and a half hours, and that's if the traffic is 
     good.''
       He and the other judges in his district waste about two 
     days a week on the road.
       ``We're one traffic accident away from the wheels falling 
     off,'' he says.
       As an additional stop-gap measure, the worst-hit districts 
     are relying on pinch hitters.
       In Middle Alabama, less-experienced magistrate judges (who 
     are appointed directly by the district judges, rather than 
     nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate) have 
     for several years been doing work once reserved for the 
     district judges, from taking guilty pleas to overseeing 
     evidentiary hearings. The district is also getting last-
     minute help from visiting judges, who have traveled from Iowa 
     and Florida to pitch in.
       ``When there are judges who come in from elsewhere,'' says 
     Christine Freeman, executive director of the federal 
     defender's office in Montgomery, Ala., ``they are strangers 
     to us, to the prosecutor, to court officials, to the 
     probation officers, to every single person involved in a 
     case.''
       ``That makes it very hard to predict outcomes for your 
     client,'' Freeman adds.
       But the lack of judges has perhaps fallen hardest on senior 
     judges, who, because they are typically over 70 or 80 years 
     old, usually take on 50 percent or less of a full caseload.
       Instead, in Middle Alabama and elsewhere, their caseloads 
     have been 150 or even 200 percent of normal.
       ``I'm 73, and I'd like to be able to say, `Look, I'm done, 
     I want to spend more time with my family,''' says Michael 
     Schneider, one of the senior judges in Eastern Texas. ``I'm 
     encouraged that the president has nominated someone, but I 
     can't actually cut back until a nominee is approved.''
       ``I'm going to be at this for awhile,'' Schneider adds. 
     ``It's frustrating.''
       England, the chief judge in Eastern California, says that 
     senior judges are the only reason why vacancies haven't 
     become more of a crisis.
       ``We are living and dying with our senior judges,'' England 
     says. ``They're taking on cases they shouldn't have to, but 
     that's what's saving us.''
       Of course, federal courts being overburdened is the symptom 
     of more than simply a lack of nominations and confirmations.
       Since 1990, Congress has not passed major legislation 
     creating new judgeships, even as the war on drugs, and now 
     the surge in prosecution of undocumented immigrants, have 
     jammed up the system with exponentially more cases.
       As a result, by 2013, there was a 39 percent uptick in the 
     number of overall filings, while only 4 percent more judges 
     were added to handle all that extra work.
       Throw in the higher-than-normal number of vacancies, and 
     it's a recipe for an overburdened judiciary. After a three-
     year wait, for instance, the Eastern District of California 
     finally got a vacancy filled last October. But Chief Judge 
     England says the crushing burden of too few judges hasn't 
     lessened.
       ``One way or the other, Congress would need to give this 
     district more judges,'' he says. ``We need help--we have too 
     many trials. I'm booked for 2016 and 2017 already.''
                                  ____


                 [From the New York Times, May 6, 2016]

        America's Trial Court Judges: Our Front Line for Justice

                        (By Shira A. Scheindlin)

       The outcry over the Senate's failure to hold hearings on 
     Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court is 
     fully justified. But that isn't the only judiciary scandal on 
     Capitol Hill. Even as the spotlight shines on the high court, 
     the Senate has refused to confirm dozens of uncontroversial 
     nominees to fill vacancies in the federal trial courts.
       Such obstructionism has become an everyday occurrence. Just 
     last week, Senate Republicans refused to vote on 11 federal 
     district court nominees whom the Judiciary Committee had 
     already approved--even those who were supported by 
     Republicans in their home states. During President George W. 
     Bush's last two years in office, the Democratic-controlled 
     Senate confirmed about 57 district court judges. Since 
     Republicans took power in 2014, the Senate has confirmed only 
     15 of President Obama's trial court nominees.
       This is an even bigger problem than Judge Garland's stalled 
     nomination. Trial court judges do the bulk of the work in the 
     federal court system: Last year nearly 375,000 new cases were 
     filed, while the Supreme Court justices issued just under 75 
     opinions. And because most trial court decisions are never 
     appealed, they become the final word in significant disputes 
     that affect millions of Americans.
       I know this firsthand. I served as a trial judge for over 
     21 years, and stepped down from the bench last week. As I 
     walked out of a federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan on one 
     of my last days, an African-American United States marshal 
     asked me if he could have a word.
       He explained that he had grown up in New York City's public 
     housing, and thanked me for my 2013 decision in the ``stop 
     and frisk'' case. (I ruled that the New York Police 
     Department's practice in which police officers stopped 
     hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers without reasonable 
     suspicion, a vast majority of whom were innocent African-
     Americans and Latinos, was unconstitutional.)
       ``You just can't know what a difference this has made to so 
     many people in my community,'' he said. ``You can't even 
     imagine.''
       But I think I can. At the policy's peak in 2011, officers 
     stopped nearly 700,000 people. That number dropped to about 
     23,000 last year, and the policy change was not accompanied 
     by a rise in serious crime, despite dire predictions to the 
     contrary. As a result of my rulings and community outcry, the 
     Police Department agreed to reforms, which include better 
     record keeping, the use of police body cameras and the 
     abandonment of racial profiling.

[[Page 6002]]

       Other examples abound. In 1974, Judge Jack Weinstein of the 
     Eastern District of New York found the de facto segregation 
     in a Coney Island public school to be unconstitutional, a 
     ruling affirmed on appeal. The school was ultimately 
     integrated under his supervision, and without the ``white 
     flight'' that politicians had feared would result.
       And in one of the highest-profile civil rights cases ever 
     in a trial court, Leonard about a decade later that both the 
     housing and schools in Yonkers were intentionally segregated, 
     and ordered construction of integrated housing in the city. 
     An appeals court upheld this ruling, which, despite years of 
     public protest, immensely improved the living conditions for 
     thousands of Yonkers residents.
       The influence of district judges has likewise had an effect 
     on national security. In the mid-2000s, Judge Alvin 
     Hellerstein, also from the Southern District of New York, 
     ordered the government to disclose photographs under the 
     Freedom of Information Act that depict the abuse of Abu 
     Ghraib detainees, which was affirmed by the appellate court. 
     Judge Hellerstein also effectively forced the government to 
     turn over the Department of Justice's infamous ``torture 
     memos,'' which incited a national conversation about whether 
     torture is ever appropriate.
       Not every decision by district court judges benefits the 
     public: Last week Judge Thomas Schroeder of North Carolina's 
     Middle District upheld myriad legislative changes to the 
     state's voting rules that will result in reduced voting 
     opportunities for minorities, unless reversed.
       Whether Judge Garland should be confirmed or not, there can 
     be no denying that Supreme Court nominations are inherently 
     political. So it's no surprise that they are drawn out for 
     ideological or partisan reasons. But district court 
     nominations are different. Ideology is not the issue: 
     Experience and competence are the only criteria.
       And yet the Senate majority's policy of delaying qualified 
     district-court nominations on purely political grounds 
     undermines public trust in the impartiality and legitimacy of 
     the judiciary. This is especially worrisome because the 
     public's understanding of how justice is administered is most 
     likely based on its access to and experience with lower court 
     proceedings.
       Presidential debates have focused on the Islamic State, 
     trade pacts and immigration policy; meanwhile, the next 
     president will most likely appoint 130 trial judges over the 
     next four years. The public needs to know what's at stake. 
     Trial judges must spot the issues, decide the outcomes and 
     fashion the remedies in all kinds of disputes. I cannot force 
     this Congress to do its job. But I urge voters not to forget 
     the White House's power to appoint all judges when they 
     choose the next president.

  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I rise this evening in support of the nomination of Paula Xinis to 
serve on the District Court of Maryland. I know Senator Cardin will be 
coming to the floor shortly to also comment on Ms. Xinis's nomination. 
Senator Cardin and I recommended Ms. Xinis to President Obama with the 
utmost confidence in her abilities, talent, and competence for the job. 
She is a brilliant litigator and a dedicated public servant. The 
Judiciary Committee agreed with us, because they also voted her out of 
the committee unanimously.
  I thank Senator McConnell, the majority leader, for scheduling this 
vote; Senator Grassley for moving this nomination; and I also thank my 
very good and dear friend Senator Leahy, the vice chairman of the 
committee, who has been a strong advocate not only for this nomination 
but for moving all nominations forward, as voted out by the committee 
in a prompt way.
  As I talk about Ms. Xinis, I want the Presiding Officer to know that 
I have recommended several judicial nominees for district and appellate 
courts, and I take my advise and consent responsibility very seriously. 
When I recommend to the President a position on the district court, I 
have four criteria: absolute integrity, judicial competence and 
temperament, a commitment to core constitutional principles, and a 
history of civic engagement in Maryland.
  Ms. Xinis exceeds these expectations over and beyond. She has 
dedicated her career to the rule of law, achieving equal justice under 
the law and also being an advocate for the underdog. She is truly an 
outstanding nominee with a long history of public service--14 years as 
a Federal public defender, handling everything from the most simple 
misdemeanors to very complex white-collar crimes. She has also taken on 
extra duties, training staff and being an attorney supervisor of 
research and writing, proving time and time again how committed and 
dedicated she is.
  She worked as a clerk for the distinguished and esteemed Judge Diana 
Gribbon Motz, a well-respected judge on the Fourth Circuit. She also 
has been a member of the private sector as a senior trial partner in a 
private law firm in Baltimore, taking on complex civil litigation and 
protecting those who have been harmed by lead paint or carbon monoxide 
poisoning.
  Judge Motz, in recommending Ms. Xinis to me, said she is so 
intelligent and generous in terms of working very hard, in terms of 
knowing the law and practicing the law, but she also commented on her 
work ethic, praising her skill in the courtroom and her service to the 
community.
  She has mentored children, provided legal advice to at-need 
communities in Baltimore, and served on numerous bar associations. She 
has deep appreciation for the law and everything that it means. I do 
believe she will be an outstanding judge.
  There have been criticisms raised of Ms. Xinis, and the criticisms 
have centered around her support within the law enforcement community. 
Flashing yellow lights were raised by one of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, asking whether she had an impartial attitude 
toward police officers. I have four letters here from retired police 
officers in Baltimore City all attesting to that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          City of Charlottesville,


                                            Police Department,

                             Charlottesville, VA, August 30, 2015.
     Re Letter in Support of Paula Xinis, for the position of 
         United States District Judge for the District of 
         Maryland.

     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable Senators Grassley and Leahy: My name is 
     Timothy Longo and I currently serve as the Chief of Police in 
     the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. I am a career law 
     enforcement officer having previously served as a Colonel 
     with the Baltimore City Police Department, retiring in March 
     of 2000. In addition, to my professional training and 
     experience, I am proud to have received my law degree from 
     the University of Baltimore and was admitted to the Maryland 
     Bar in December of 1993.
       For the past 25 years, I have had the honor of instructing 
     thousands of law enforcement officers and administrators on 
     matters of policy, law, and generally accepted policing 
     practices. In addition to my sworn duties and 
     responsibilities, I have served on many occasions as a police 
     practices expert assisting both plaintiff and defense counsel 
     in civil rights claims resulting from the actions of law 
     enforcement officers, and the policies and practices related 
     to those actions. It is in this capacity that I have come to 
     know and respect Paula Xinis. I have come to learn that the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee is presently considering Paula's 
     candidacy and I respectfully write in support of her 
     appointment.
       Paula and I met several years ago when I was asked to 
     assist her in the evaluation of a civil rights claim that she 
     had filed on behalf of a client related to the actions of a 
     municipal law enforcement officer and the agency and 
     municipality that employed that officer. The claim arose out 
     of a use of force incident which resulted in serious and 
     permanent injury. I firmly believe that cases such as this 
     requires not only a thorough understanding of Section 1983 
     litigation and that of municipal liability, but an equally 
     thorough understanding of police training, policy, and 
     practice.
       For more than a year, I worked closely with Paula as she 
     sought to better understand how a police officer is trained, 
     the policies, principles, and practices that guide their 
     work, as well as the manner in which police departments 
     investigate incidents that result in force. What I discovered 
     from the onset, and frankly what continued to impress me as I 
     worked with Paula on this important matter, is the thoughtful 
     and objective manner in which she approached both the facts 
     and the theory of her client's case.
       Although the complaint she had advanced on behalf of her 
     client depicted a series of

[[Page 6003]]

     facts that one may find was clearly contrary to generally 
     accepted policing practices on the face of her client's 
     complaint, she consistently endeavored to examine that 
     complaint and the facts in the support of it through the 
     lenses of a career law enforcement officer who had not only 
     worked the streets of a large metropolitan city, instructed 
     thousands in policing, but also served as a policy maker as 
     to the training of police officers and practices that guide 
     that work. She and I spoke countless times, and at great 
     length, about not only that particular case but the way that 
     police officers go about their work and the decisions that 
     they make quickly and oftentimes without much deliberation.
       Paula was amazingly careful to reserve her own judgment and 
     opinion as to the appropriateness of the officer's conduct 
     and that of the agency's policy maker and listened carefully 
     to my assessment of her claim and my opinion as to its 
     propriety in light of my specialized training and experience.
       America's law enforcement officers are facing incredibly 
     difficult challenges as we closely evaluate the manner in 
     which we go about our work, carefully consider re-shaping and 
     reforming our practices, and endeavor to strengthen the 
     necessary relationships we have with those whom we serve. 
     Undoubtedly, law enforcement officers, policy makers, and 
     municipalities will more frequently find themselves being 
     scrutinized by our trial and appellate courts, and ultimately 
     the court of public opinion. The nature of our work and 
     recent police-citizen interactions that have ended tragically 
     makes this reality most certain. Thus, it has never been more 
     critical to connect the right people to this important work; 
     not just on the front line but throughout the criminal 
     justice continuum.
       It is with a tremendous amount of pride and the utmost 
     confidence that I respectfully ask the Senate of the United 
     States to confirm the appointment of Paula Xinis to the 
     United States District Court for the District of Maryland. I 
     have absolutely no doubt that Paula will bring the competence 
     and objectivity that is necessary to discharge the duties of 
     such an important position. She has my confidence, respect, 
     and unfettered support.
       If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to 
     call upon me.
       Meanwhile, I thank you for your time and thoughtful 
     consideration.
           Respectfully Submitted,

                                      Timothy John Longo, Sr.,

                                                  Chief of Police,
     City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
                                  ____

                                                Police Department,


                                          Baltimore, Maryland,

                                                 4 September 2015.
     To: Senator Patrick Leahy.
     From: Sgt Brian Atwood.
     Subject: Recommendation for Paula Xinis to U.S. District 
         Judge for Md.
       Sir: My name is Sgt Brian Atwood; I am a twenty year 
     veteran with the Baltimore Police Department, I started my 
     career in May of 1995 in the Western District. During my 
     career I have received three Bronze Stars for Valor, two Life 
     Saving awards and have received numerous unit citations of. I 
     have held several positions of authority include: Field 
     Training Officer, Officer in Charge, Sergeant and Sergeant in 
     Charge. I have been assigned to follow district units: 
     Patrol, Flex Units, Drug Unit, and Firearm Instructor. I'm 
     currently assigned to the departments, Special Operation 
     Section. I have held tactical positions as both an officer 
     and sergeant within the elite Emergency Service Unit. My 
     current assignment is supervising sergeant of the K-9 unit.
       I am also a passed board member of Maryland's largest FOP 
     with over 5000 active and retired members. As a member of FOP 
     Lodge #3, I have held numerous positions within our lodge to 
     include. Grievance Rep, Grievance Chairman, P.A.C funds 
     Chairman, Legal Advisory Board, Contract Team Chairman, and 
     was elected to the position of Vice President for our Lodge.
       It is my understanding that the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     will be considering Ms. Paula Xinis for United States 
     District Judge. I would proudly recommend Ms Xinis to the 
     position of U.S District Judge for Maryland. Ms Xinis is a 
     person of honor, integrity, fairness and would be outstanding 
     in that position.
       In closing as a 20 year member of the law enforcement 
     community, I know first hand the need to have judges that are 
     well balanced, fair and great listeners. It is equally 
     important that our judges take the rule of law and always 
     apply it equally, with understanding and compassion in there 
     decision. That is why I proudly recommend Ms. Paula Xinis to 
     the position of U.S. District Judge.
           Respectfully,
     Sgt. Brian Atwood.
                                  ____

                                    Abingdon, MD, August 31, 2015.
     Re Letter in Support of Judicial Nomination of Paula Xinis 
         for the United States District Court for the District of 
         Maryland.

     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Grassley and Leahy: Please accept this letter 
     as support for the nomination of Paula Xinis as a United 
     States District Judge for the District of Maryland. I was 
     employed as a Police Officer with the Baltimore Police 
     Department from 1987 until the time of my retirement in 
     September 2014. While assigned to the Patrol Division, I 
     handled calls for service related to violations of Maryland's 
     handgun and narcotics laws. I also actively participated in 
     shooting investigations. I also spent thirteen years assigned 
     to the Tactical Unit/Quick Response Team. During my tenure 
     with the Tactical Unit, one of the Unit's primary focus was 
     serving high risk warrants for the Homicide and Robbery 
     Units. When we weren't training, serving warrants and/or 
     responding to barricade/hostage situations, we were utilized 
     as suppression unit for illegal handguns and narcotics 
     violations. For five straight years, my partner and I 
     maintained the highest number of gun seizures/arrests and the 
     largest narcotics cases within the Baltimore City Police 
     Tactical Section. We received numerous commendations for our 
     handgun arrests. Throughout the course of my career, I was 
     called upon to testify in both the District and Circuit 
     Courts in Baltimore City and County, as well as the United 
     States District Court for the District of Maryland in 
     Baltimore.
       Unfortunately, my successful career in law enforcement was 
     derailed in 2014 when I encountered difficulties in 
     connection with a call for service. I was improperly and 
     unfairly accuse of wrongdoing which led to criminal charges. 
     This was a new experience for me as I had never even been 
     disciplined during my career. I felt vulnerable and betrayed. 
     It was clear to me and my wife that we needed legal 
     representation that would aggressively fight to vindicate me.
       My wife, whose practice is primarily the defense of civil 
     cases, had been involved in a case in Baltimore City where 
     Ms. Xinis represented the plaintiffs several years prior. 
     During the course of that case, she would often remark that 
     Ms. Xinis was a worthy advocate, yet fair and open-minded. 
     Because of her experience with Ms. Xinis, my wife contacted 
     her on a weekend to seek legal counsel and advice. From that 
     point forward, Ms. Xinis made herself available to us, even 
     if it was to simply reassure us that we were in good hands. 
     Throughout the entire ordeal, I spent countless hours with 
     Paula and her team. They worked diligently seeking the 
     evidence needed to exonerate me. Although it was an extremely 
     dark time for me, she always made me feel confident that she 
     ``had my back'' and that she was dedicated to seeing that I 
     was vindicated. Thankfully, as a result of her tireless 
     efforts on my behalf, all of the charges brought against me 
     were dismissed earlier this year.
       I can personally attest to Ms. Xinis' legal acumen and her 
     commitment to seeking justice, regardless of who the 
     defendant may be. I observed her demonstrate the ability to 
     forcefully argue her position to the court while being 
     respectful to the court and other counsel. She can be a 
     fierce advocate while maintaining a reassuring demeanor. My 
     exposure to the judicial process throughout the course of my 
     law enforcement career and as an officer who was wrongfully 
     accused, has provided me with insight as to what is required 
     to be an effective, fair and open-minded jurist. I can state 
     without a doubt that Ms. Xinis possesses all of the necessary 
     traits to be an asset to the federal bench in Maryland. The 
     Committee could not find a more qualified candidate to fill 
     the vacancy in Maryland.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas J. Schmidt, Sr.
                                  ____

                                                September 1, 2015.
     Re Support of Paula Xinis, for United States District Judge 
         for the District of Maryland.

       Dear Senator Patrick Leahy (Ranking Member) United States 
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary: My name is Gregory Eads, 
     Jr. I am a retired Baltimore City Police Officer. I served 22 
     years on the Baltimore City Police Department and retired in 
     November 2014. I was currently assigned to the Bomb Squad and 
     Emergency Services Unit where primarily I responded to 
     suspicious package calls, bomb sweeps for visiting V.I.P's 
     and stadium events. In my tenure as a police officer with the 
     department I've acquired several skills and with worked in 
     numerous specialized units. I have worked in Patrol, 
     Bike(flex) squad, Drug enforcement unit, SWAT, Organized 
     Crime Unit, Firearms Apprehension Strike Team. I am highly 
     decorated officer that was awarded several unit citations, 
     accommodations, and bronze star for valor.
       I've come to learn the senate Judiciary Committee is 
     considering Paula for a United States District Judge. I want 
     to extend my support for Paula as a candidate. Paula and I 
     met at her law firm as she was preparing to defend a co-
     worker in criminal case. She was interviewing me as a 
     character witness. During this exchange we discussed my 
     family, experiences and my background being a second 
     generation Police Officer in Baltimore City. We share some 
     similarities on life and making a difference in the world. 
     Paula has a young child, demanding career and is very well 
     known among her peers.

[[Page 6004]]

       I was most impressed with her attention to detail, due 
     diligence and preparation of the case. She is hardworking, 
     open minded, and fair. I believe she would be an asset as she 
     exemplifies the firm qualities that a United States District 
     Court Judge possesses. As a police officer we need Judges 
     that are fair, impartial and firm on the bench. With Paula 
     being confirmed by the Senate Committee you will have that 
     Judge I am referring to. I am grateful that I had the 
     pleasure of meeting and working with Paula.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gregory Eads Jr.,
                                                    (Retired) BPD.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. One letter is from someone who is a 20-year veteran, 
working in the Western District. The Western District is where they 
filmed ``The Wire.'' It is rough, tough, and hardscrabble. This former 
police sergeant said:

       In closing, as a 20-year member of the law enforcement 
     community, I know firsthand the need to have judges that are 
     well balanced, fair and great listeners. . . . That is why I 
     proudly recommend Ms. Paula Xinis to the position of U.S. 
     District Judge.

  I won't go through every letter--the Record will speak for itself--
but when you have retired police officers, those who are not on duty 
now but who worked with her hands-on and who know the way she works 
with law enforcement, the way she engages with them when she was a 
public defender and so on--I think these letters speak for themselves.
  In closing, let me say this: The job of a U.S. Senator to recommend 
someone to be a judge is indeed a great honor, but it is an enormous 
responsibility. I take it very seriously, and I would only recommend 
somebody who was truly qualified to render impartial justice and bring 
the competency and the temperament to do that. I believe Ms. Xinis 
possesses competency, the judicial temperament, and a real commitment 
to equal justice under the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Mikulski, as the two 
Senators from Maryland, in strongly recommending the favorable 
consideration of Paula Xinis for the district court judgeship of 
Maryland.
  I first want to acknowledge the leadership of our senior Senator from 
Maryland in developing a process in which we screen the very most 
talented people for opportunities to serve on our Federal bench. This 
is a professional process that we have gone forward with under Senator 
Mikulski's leadership in order to try to get the very best on our 
courts.
  It is not a partisan issue at all. It is strictly looking for those 
who have the judicial temperament and experience to be able to be an 
outstanding member of the bench. We have done that on previous 
nominations that have been considered on this floor, and Paula Xinis 
follows in that tradition. I thank Senator Mikulski for the process 
that we went forward on in making this recommendation to President 
Obama.
  I might tell you, President Obama then forwarded the nomination to 
the Senate in March of last year--in March of 2015. It took 6 months 
for the Judiciary Committee to make its recommendations to the full 
floor in September of 2015. It was not a controversial nomination in 
the committee. The committee reviewed all of Ms. Xinis's background, 
record, everything that she has done, and on a very strong voice vote 
brought her forward to the full floor.
  So this is not a controversial nomination. Because of the delay, 
originally to fill the vacancy of Deborah Chasanow, who took senior 
status, it is now a judicial emergency. People of Maryland are in a 
desperate situation to have an adequate number of judges to handle the 
workload in our district. It is critical we move forward in the 
confirmation of this nominee. Senator Mikulski has pointed out how 
qualified this person is.
  I can tell you, over the last several months, I have been stopped on 
numerous occasions by attorneys and nonattorneys in Maryland saying: 
Why isn't Paula Xinis confirmed by now? She is a wonderful person. We 
have had experience with her.
  I have heard glowing comments about her dedication to our community, 
her professional competency, and her qualifications to serve on the 
U.S. district court. It is for that reason the ABA gave her the highest 
ratings in their review of her qualifications. She has been in the 
private practice of law at Murphy, Falcon & Murphy. After just 2 years, 
she was made a partner in that firm. She has been an assistant Federal 
public defender, showing her compassion to represent some of the most 
difficult cases in our criminal justice system.
  She was a law clerk for Judge Motz on the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. She has devoted her life to understanding our legal system but 
also to carrying out its major charge to make sure we have equal access 
to justice under the law. She got her JD from Yale Law School, her BA 
from the University of Virginia.
  What I really appreciated, in getting to know Paula Xinis better 
during this confirmation process, was getting to know her family 
background; that is, to represent the American story. Her father was an 
immigrant from Greece, came over with very little resources. They were 
able to take advantage of the opportunities in this country as an 
immigrant family. Now Paula Xinis has been nominated by President Obama 
to serve on the district court for Maryland.
  Quite a success story, but Paula Xinis has never forgotten her 
background. She has always been giving back to our community. She is 
known for her pro bono work for her church members in the church she 
belongs to, but as Senator Mikulski pointed out, in working with the 
House of Ruth in a mentoring program, she has taken on some of the most 
difficult challenges to affect the lives of people who are less 
fortunate. She has an 11-year-old who is like her second son whom she 
has mentored and given a real opportunity in our community.
  She has the whole package. She will make a great district judge. 
Senator Mikulski mentioned the comments that were made on the floor in 
regard to her support for law enforcement for police officers. I hope, 
if anyone has any questions about that, read the letters Senator 
Mikulski put into the Record. I know of some of these cases. I know of 
the case of Timothy John Longo, who served with the Baltimore City 
Police Department and is now the chief of police for Charlottesville, 
VA.
  He said:

       I have absolutely no doubt that Paula will bring the 
     competency and objectivity that is necessary to discharge the 
     duty of such an important position. She has my confidence, 
     respect and unfettered support.

  Then there is Thomas Schmidt, who Ms. Xinis represented when he was 
accused of wrongdoing as a police officer. She represented him in the 
most difficult challenge. Mr. Schmidt said:

       Throughout the entire ordeal, I spent countless hours with 
     Paula and her team. They worked diligently seeking the 
     evidence needed to exonerate me. Although it was an extremely 
     dark time for me, she always made me feel confident that she 
     had my back, and that she was dedicated to seeing that I was 
     vindicated. Thankfully, as a result of her tireless efforts 
     on my behalf, all the charges brought against me were 
     dismissed earlier this year.

  She has been in the forefront of defending those who were defending 
us as first responders. There are other letters that have been written 
by police officers indicating that Paula Xinis contains exactly what 
they want to see in a judge: someone who is fair and impartial and who 
will carry out the rule of law in an objective manner. So for all of 
those reasons, we bring you a nominee who is eminently qualified and 
deserves the support of this body. We would urge our colleagues to 
support this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Paula 
Xinis to be a judge for the District of Maryland. I will support that 
nomination.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor at this time to also talk about 
judges generally. I have been hearing the usual complaints from Members 
of the minority party regarding the pace of judicial nominations. I 
would urge my colleagues to step back and look at the

[[Page 6005]]

bigger picture. The relevant number to consider is the number of 
confirmations during an entire Presidency. At this point in his 
Presidency, President George W. Bush had 303 judicial nominees 
confirmed. After tonight's vote, so far in his Presidency, President 
Obama will have 325 confirmed. Those are 22 more nominees than Bush 
had.
  So as we continue to hear complaints about how many judges are being 
confirmed, we should put these complaints in context. The simple fact 
is, President Obama has had quite a few more nominees confirmed than 
President Bush did.
  Further, I would note that as chairman, after this Wednesday, I will 
have held hearings for the same number of nominees this Congress has 
had as the last chairman of the committee did to this point during the 
last 2 years of President Bush's Presidency. At this point in the 2008 
Congress--that would be the 110th Congress--the former chairman held 
hearings on 43 nominees. At the end of May of this year, we will have 
held hearings on 43 nominees thus far in the 114th Congress.
  I yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Xinis 
nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator 
from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 34, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--34

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cotton
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Johnson
     King
     Moran
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Sullivan
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________