Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 30 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1121-S1145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Ensign):
S. 432. A bill to provide for environmental restoration activities
and forest management activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to
restore and protect Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her
alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and
poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and millions of visitors from around
the world.
As a girl, I went to Lake Tahoe to ride horses through the woods,
bike around the magnificent Basin and swim in the clear blue waters.
Today, I am proud to work with representatives from different ends of
the political spectrum to restore Lake Tahoe to that pristine State.
For 14 years, we have come together to Keep Tahoe Blue.
That is why today I am reintroducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act
of 2011, which is cosponsored by Senators Harry Reid, John Ensign and
Barbara Boxer.
It would authorize $415 million over 10 years to improve water
clarity, reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore the
environment.
Specifically, it would provide $248 million over 10 years for the
highest priority restoration projects, as established using scientific
data. The legislation authorizes at least $72 million for stormwater
management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined
to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity.
This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental
restoration projects and authorizes $136 million for State and local
agencies to implement these projects.

[[Page S1122]]

Now, and this is an important point, this legislation would direct
investment to where it is needed most.
For example, today we know the major sources of stormwater runoff
that send sedimentation into the lake, degrading water clarity.
So the monies would go to specific projects addressing California
state roads, source of 23 percent of urban particle loads; the city of
South Lake Tahoe, Calif., 22 percent; Washoe County, Nevada, 17
percent; and so forth.
In this bill, these stormwater projects are targeted to the areas of
greatest concern. Priority projects will improve water quality, forest
health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe. In
addition, projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods are
encouraged.
The bill authorizes $136 million over 10 years to reduce the threat
of wildfire around Lake Tahoe. This would finance hazardous fuels
reduction projects, at $17 million per year, including grants to local
fire agencies.
It provides the Forest Service up to $10 million for fuels projects
that have multiple environmental benefits, with an emphasis in
restoring Stream Environment Zones.
This is critical because, again, these streams feed into the lake and
form a critical link in the ecosystem. We need to pay attention to
these stream zones if we hope to restore water clarity.
The bill protects Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and
other invasive aquatic species. Quagga mussels pose a very serious
threat to Lake Tahoe, a threat made more intractable because these
mussels have been shown to survive in cold waters. A few years ago
University of California scientists reported that they found up to
3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and
Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put
sharp shells and rotting algae on the Lake's beaches and contribute to
the spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels.
The bill would authorize $20.5 million for watercraft inspections and
removal of existing invasive species. It would require all watercraft
to be inspected and decontaminated.
One quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This
means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's
biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy.
The damage that could be inflicted at Lake Tahoe by a quagga
infestation has been estimated at tens of millions of dollars annually.
The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. There were no quagga
mussels in Lake Mead 4 years ago. Today there are more than 3 trillion.
The infestation is probably irreversible.
But there is some good news. Last summer, scientists placed long
rubber mats across the bottom of Lake Tahoe to cut off the oxygen to
the Asian clams. Early research suggests these mats were very effective
at killing the clams. And scientists have also discovered how to
decontaminate boats and kill quagga mussels.
We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and
imagination--and the help authorized within this bill.
The bill supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The
legislation authorizes $20 million over 10 years for the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an
iconic species that has an important legacy in Lake Tahoe.
When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of
1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid
Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River
and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the
entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they
used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs.
But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout.
Lake Tahoe is one of 11 historic lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to
recover the species.
The bills funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30
million over 10 years for scientific programs and research which will
produce information on long-term trends in the Basin and inform the
most cost-effective projects.
The bill prohibiting mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. The
legislation would prohibit new mining operations in the Basin, ensuring
that the fragile watershed, and Lake Tahoe's water clarity, are not
threatened by pollution from mining operations.
The bill increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded
by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine
the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for
future projects.
The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to
work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and
Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual
report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken,
including project scope, budget and justification and overall
expenditures and accomplishments.
This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of
environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe.
The bill provides for public outreach and education. The Forest
Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and
education programs including: encouraging Basin residents and visitors
to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for
water quality, and preventing the introduction and proliferation of
invasive species.
In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed
projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts.
The bill allows for increased efficiency in the management of public
land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased
flexibility to exchange land with state agencies which will allow for
more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a
checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the Basin.
Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with
the California Tahoe Conservancy of approximately equal value without
going through a lengthy process to assess the land.
For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that
surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy land, the Tahoe
Conservancy could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it
can be managed more efficiently.
This legislation is needed because the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in
big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe--and lose it
with stunning speed--as climate change increases in severity.
The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe are already visible. It
is making the basin dry and tinder-hot, increasing the risks of
catastrophic wildfire. Daily air temperatures have increased 4 degrees
since 1911. Snowfall has declined from an average of 52 percent of
overall precipitation in 1910 to just 34 percent in recent years.
Climate change has raised Lake Tahoe's water temperature 1.5 degrees
in 38 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's
waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt
Lake Tahoe's ecosystem.
Anyone doubting that climate change poses a considerable threat to
Lake Tahoe should read an alarming recent report by the UC Davis Tahoe
Environmental Research Center.
It was written for the U.S. Forest Service by scientists who have
devoted their professional careers to studying Lake Tahoe. And it
paints a distinctly bleak picture of the future for the ``Jewel of the
Sierra.''
Among its findings: The Tahoe Basin's regional snowpack could decline
by as much as 60 percent in the next century, with increased floods
likely by 2050 and prolonged droughts by 2100.
Even ``under the most optimistic projections,'' average snowpack in
the Sierra Nevada around Tahoe will decline by 40 to 60 percent by
2100, according to the report.
This would bankrupt Tahoe's ski industry, threaten the water supply
of Reno and other communities, and degrade the lake's fabled water
clarity. It would be devastating.

[[Page S1123]]

Pollution and sedimentation have threatened Lake Tahoe's water
clarity for years. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists measured
clarity, the lake had an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined
over the next 3 decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997.
There has been some improvement this decade. This year scientists
recorded average clarity at 69.6 feet--roughly within the range of the
past eight years. But it is a fragile gain.
The University of California Davis report has determined that an all-
out attack on pollution and sedimentation is the lake's last hope.
Geoff Schladow, director of the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research
Center and one of the report's authors, has highlighted the need to
restore short-term water quality in Lake Tahoe--while there's still
time to do it.
According to the report, ``reducing the load of external nutrients
entering the lake in the coming decades may be the only possible
mitigation measure to reduce the impact of climate change on lake
clarity.'' In other words, the sediment and runoff entering the lake
could fuel algal growth, creating a downward spiral in water quality
and clarity.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 would directly fund efforts to
address water clarity issues and impacts from climate change.
Last year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2010 passed the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously, but there was not
enough time for a floor vote. It is my hope that this legislation can
be passed early in the legislative session.
A lot of good work has been done. But there's a lot more work to do,
and time is running out.
Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world
affords.'' We must not be the generation who lets this picture fall
into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve
this ``noble sheet of water.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 432

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Lake Tahoe Restoration Act
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 114
Stat. 2351) is amended by striking section 2 and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) Lake Tahoe--
``(A) is 1 of the largest, deepest, and clearest lakes in
the world;
``(B) has a cobalt blue color, a biologically diverse
alpine setting, and remarkable water clarity; and
``(C) is recognized nationally and worldwide as a natural
resource of special significance;
``(2) in addition to being a scenic and ecological
treasure, the Lake Tahoe Basin is 1 of the outstanding
recreational resources of the United States, which--
``(A) offers skiing, water sports, biking, camping, and
hiking to millions of visitors each year; and
``(B) contributes significantly to the economies of
California, Nevada, and the United States;
``(3) the economy in the Lake Tahoe Basin is dependent on
the protection and restoration of the natural beauty and
recreation opportunities in the area;
``(4) the Lake Tahoe Basin continues to be threatened by
the impacts of land use and transportation patterns developed
in the last century that damage the fragile watershed of the
Basin;
``(5) the water clarity of Lake Tahoe declined from a
visibility level of 105 feet in 1967 to only 70 feet in 2008;
``(6) the rate of decline in water clarity of Lake Tahoe
has decreased in recent years;
``(7) a stable water clarity level for Lake Tahoe could be
achieved through feasible control measures for very fine
sediment particles and nutrients;
``(8) fine sediments that cloud Lake Tahoe, and key
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen that support the
growth of algae and invasive plants, continue to flow into
the lake from stormwater runoff from developed areas, roads,
turf, other disturbed land, and streams;
``(9) the destruction and alteration of wetland, wet
meadows, and stream zone habitat have compromised the natural
capacity of the watershed to filter sediment, nutrients, and
pollutants before reaching Lake Tahoe;
``(10) approximately 25 percent of the trees in the Lake
Tahoe Basin are either dead or dying;
``(11) forests in the Tahoe Basin suffer from over a
century of fire suppression and periodic drought, which have
resulted in--
``(A) high tree density and mortality;
``(B) the loss of biological diversity; and
``(C) a large quantity of combustible forest fuels, which
significantly increases the threat of catastrophic fire and
insect infestation;
``(12) the establishment of several aquatic and terrestrial
invasive species (including bass, milfoil, and Asian clam)
threatens the ecosystem of the Lake Tahoe Basin;
``(13) there is an ongoing threat to the Lake Tahoe Basin
of the introduction and establishment of other invasive
species (such as the zebra mussel, New Zealand mud snail, and
quagga mussel);
``(14) the report prepared by the University of California,
Davis, entitled the `State of the Lake Report', found that
conditions in the Lake Tahoe Basin had changed, including--
``(A) the average surface water temperature of Lake Tahoe
has risen by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 37
years; and
``(B) since 1910, the percent of precipitation that has
fallen as snow in the Lake Tahoe Basin decreased from 52
percent to 34 percent;
``(15) 75 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin is
owned by the Federal Government, which makes it a Federal
responsibility to restore environmental health to the Basin;
``(16) the Federal Government has a long history of
environmental preservation at Lake Tahoe, including--
``(A) congressional consent to the establishment of the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency with--
``(i) the enactment in 1969 of Public Law 91-148 (83 Stat.
360); and
``(ii) the enactment in 1980 of Public Law 96-551 (94 Stat.
3233);
``(B) the establishment of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit in 1973;
``(C) the enactment of Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3381) in
1980 to provide for the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive land and erosion control grants in the Lake Tahoe
Basin;
``(D) the enactment of sections 341 and 342 of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-108; 117 Stat.
1317), which amended the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-263; 112 Stat. 2346)
to provide payments for the environmental restoration
projects under this Act; and
``(E) the enactment of section 382 of the Tax Relief and
Health Care Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432; 120 Stat. 3045),
which amended the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-263; 112 Stat. 2346) to authorize
development and implementation of a comprehensive 10-year
hazardous fuels and fire prevention plan for the Lake Tahoe
Basin;
``(17) the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
was an original signatory in 1997 to the Agreement of Federal
Departments on Protection of the Environment and Economic
Health of the Lake Tahoe Basin;
``(18) the Chief of Engineers, under direction from the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, has
continued to be a significant contributor to Lake Tahoe Basin
restoration, including--
``(A) stream and wetland restoration;
``(B) urban stormwater conveyance and treatment; and
``(C) programmatic technical assistance;
``(19) at the Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum in 1997, the
President renewed the commitment of the Federal Government to
Lake Tahoe by--
``(A) committing to increased Federal resources for
environmental restoration at Lake Tahoe; and
``(B) establishing the Federal Interagency Partnership and
Federal Advisory Committee to consult on natural resources
issues concerning the Lake Tahoe Basin;
``(20) at the 2008 and 2009 Lake Tahoe Forums, Senator
Reid, Senator Feinstein, Senator Ensign, and Governor
Gibbons--
``(A) renewed their commitment to Lake Tahoe; and
``(B) expressed their desire to fund the Federal share of
the Environmental Improvement Program through 2018;
``(21) since 1997, the Federal Government, the States of
California and Nevada, units of local government, and the
private sector have contributed more than $1,430,000,000 to
the Lake Tahoe Basin, including--
``(A) $424,000,000 from the Federal Government;
``(B) $612,000,000 from the State of California;
``(C) $87,000,000 from the State of Nevada;
``(D) $59,000,000 from units of local government; and
``(E) $249,000,000 from private interests;
``(22) significant additional investment from Federal,
State, local, and private sources is necessary--
``(A) to restore and sustain the environmental health of
the Lake Tahoe Basin;
``(B) to adapt to the impacts of changing climatic
conditions; and
``(C) to protect the Lake Tahoe Basin from the introduction
and establishment of invasive species; and
``(23) the Secretary has indicated that the Lake Tahoe
Basin Management Unit has the capacity for at least
$10,000,000 and up to

[[Page S1124]]

$20,000,000 annually for the Fire Risk Reduction and Forest
Management Program.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
``(1) to enable the Chief of the Forest Service, the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
cooperation with the Planning Agency and the States of
California and Nevada, to fund, plan, and implement
significant new environmental restoration activities and
forest management activities to address in the Lake Tahoe
Basin the issues described in paragraphs (4) through (14) of
subsection (a);
``(2) to ensure that Federal, State, local, regional,
tribal, and private entities continue to work together to
manage land in the Lake Tahoe Basin and to coordinate on
other activities in a manner that supports achievement and
maintenance of--
``(A) the environmental threshold carrying capacities for
the region; and
``(B) other applicable environmental standards and
objectives;
``(3) to support local governments in efforts related to
environmental restoration, stormwater pollution control, fire
risk reduction, and forest management activities; and
``(4) to ensure that agency and science community
representatives in the Lake Tahoe Basin work together--
``(A) to develop and implement a plan for integrated
monitoring, assessment, and applied research to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Environmental Improvement Program; and
``(B) to provide objective information as a basis for
ongoing decisionmaking, with an emphasis on decisionmaking
relating to public and private land use and resource
management in the Basin.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 114
Stat. 2351) is amended by striking section 3 and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

``In this Act:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(2) Assistant secretary.--The term `Assistant Secretary'
means the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
``(3) Chair.--The term `Chair' means the Chair of the
Federal Partnership.
``(4) Compact.--The term `Compact' means the Tahoe Regional
Planning Compact included in the first section of Public Law
96-551 (94 Stat. 3233).
``(5) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
``(6) Environmental improvement program.--The term
`Environmental Improvement Program' means--
``(A) the Environmental Improvement Program adopted by the
Planning Agency; and
``(B) any amendments to the Program.
``(7) Environmental threshold carrying capacity.--The term
`environmental threshold carrying capacity' has the meaning
given the term in article II of the compact.
``(8) Federal partnership.--The term `Federal Partnership'
means the Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership
established by Executive Order 13957 (62 Fed. Reg. 41249) (or
a successor Executive order).
``(9) Forest management activity.--The term `forest
management activity' includes--
``(A) prescribed burning for ecosystem health and hazardous
fuels reduction;
``(B) mechanical and minimum tool treatment;
``(C) road decommissioning or reconstruction;
``(D) stream environment zone restoration and other
watershed and wildlife habitat enhancements;
``(E) nonnative invasive species management; and
``(F) other activities consistent with Forest Service
practices, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(10) National wildland fire code.--The term `national
wildland fire code' means--
``(A) the most recent publication of the National Fire
Protection Association codes numbered 1141, 1142, 1143, and
1144;
``(B) the most recent publication of the International
Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code
Council; or
``(C) any other code that the Secretary determines provides
the same, or better, standards for protection against
wildland fire as a code described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(11) Planning agency.--The term `Planning Agency' means
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency established under Public
Law 91-148 (83 Stat. 360) and Public Law 96-551 (94 Stat.
3233).
``(12) Priority list.--The term `Priority List' means the
environmental restoration priority list developed under
section 8.
``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
``(14) Total maximum daily load.--The term `total maximum
daily load' means the total maximum daily load allocations
adopted under section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)).
``(15) Stream environment zone.--The term `Stream
Environment Zone' means an area that generally owes the
biological and physical characteristics of the area to the
presence of surface water or groundwater.
``(16) Watercraft.--The term `watercraft' means motorized
and non-motorized watercraft, including boats, personal
watercraft, kayaks, and canoes.''.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT
UNIT.

Section 4 of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law
106-506; 114 Stat. 2353) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``basin'' and
inserting ``Basin''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Transit.--
``(1) In general.--The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
shall, consistent with the regional transportation plan
adopted by the Planning Agency, manage vehicular parking and
traffic in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, with
priority given--
``(A) to improving public access to the Lake Tahoe Basin,
including the prioritization of alternatives to the private
automobile, consistent with the requirements of the Compact;
``(B) to coordinating with the Nevada Department of
Transportation, Caltrans, State parks, and other entities
along Nevada Highway 28 and California Highway 89; and
``(C) to providing support and assistance to local public
transit systems in the management and operations of
activities under this subsection.
``(2) National forest transit program.--Consistent with the
support and assistance provided under paragraph (1)(C), the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, may enter into a contract, cooperative
agreement, interagency agreement, or other agreement with the
Department of Transportation to secure operating and capital
funds from the National Forest Transit Program.
``(d) Forest Management Activities.--
``(1) Coordination.--
``(A) In general.--In conducting forest management
activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, the
Secretary shall, as appropriate, coordinate with the
Administrator and State and local agencies and organizations,
including local fire departments and volunteer groups.
``(B) Goals.--The coordination of activities under
subparagraph (A) should aim to increase efficiencies and
maximize the compatibility of management practices across
public property boundaries.
``(2) Multiple benefits.--
``(A) In general.--In conducting forest management
activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, the
Secretary shall conduct the activities in a manner that--
``(i) except as provided in subparagraph (B), attains
multiple ecosystem benefits, including--

``(I) reducing forest fuels;
``(II) maintaining or restoring biological diversity;
``(III) improving wetland and water quality, including in
Stream Environment Zones; and
``(IV) increasing resilience to changing climatic
conditions; and

``(ii) helps achieve and maintain the environmental
threshold carrying capacities established by the Planning
Agency.
``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding clause (A)(i), the
attainment of multiple ecosystem benefits shall not be
required if the Secretary determines that management for
multiple ecosystem benefits would excessively increase the
cost of a project in relation to the additional ecosystem
benefits gained from the management activity.
``(3) Ground disturbance.--Consistent with applicable
Federal law and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit land and
resource management plan direction, the Secretary shall--
``(A) establish post-project ground condition criteria for
ground disturbance caused by forest management activities;
and
``(B) provide for monitoring to ascertain the attainment of
the post-project conditions.
``(e) Withdrawal of Federal Land.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and
paragraphs (2) and (3), the Federal land located in the Lake
Tahoe Basin Management Unit is withdrawn from--
``(A) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
``(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
``(C) disposition under all laws relating to mineral and
geothermal leasing.
``(2) Determination.--
``(A) In general.--The withdrawal under paragraph (1) shall
be in effect until the date on which the Secretary, after
conducting a review of all Federal land in the Lake Tahoe
Basin Management Unit and receiving public input, has made a
determination on which parcels of Federal land should remain
withdrawn.
``(B) Requirements.--The determination of the Secretary
under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall be effective beginning on the date on which the
determination is issued;
``(ii) may be altered by the Secretary as the Secretary
determines to be necessary; and
``(iii) shall not be subject to administrative renewal.
``(3) Exceptions.--A land exchange shall be exempt from
withdrawal under this subsection if carried out under--
``(A) the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506;
114 Stat. 2351); or
``(B) the Santini-Burton Act (Public Law 96-586; 94 Stat.
3381).

[[Page S1125]]

``(f) Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacity.--The Lake
Tahoe Basin Management Unit shall support the attainment of
the environmental threshold carrying capacities.
``(g) Cooperative Authorities.--
``(1) In general.--During the 4 fiscal years following the
date of enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011,
the Secretary, in conjunction with land adjustment projects
or programs, may enter into contracts and cooperative
agreements with States, units of local government, and other
public and private entities to provide for fuel reduction,
erosion control, reforestation, Stream Environment Zone
restoration, and similar management activities on Federal
land and non-Federal land within the projects or programs.
``(2) Report on land status.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report regarding the
management of land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Urban Lots Program, including--
``(i) a description of future plans and recent actions for
land consolidation and adjustment; and
``(ii) the identification of any obstacles to desired
conveyances or interchanges.
``(B) Inclusions.--The report submitted under subparagraph
(A) may contain recommendations for additional legislative
authority.
``(C) Effect.--Nothing in this paragraph delays the
conveyance of parcels under--
``(i) the authority of this Act; or
``(ii) any other authority available to the Secretary.
``(3) Supplemental authority.--The authority of this
subsection is supplemental to all other cooperative
authorities of the Secretary.''.

SEC. 5. CONSULTATION.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 114
Stat. 2351) is amended by striking section 5 and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 5. CONSULTATION.

``In carrying out this Act, the Secretary, the
Administrator, and the Director shall, as appropriate and in
a timely manner, consult with the heads of the Washoe Tribe,
applicable Federal, State, regional, and local governmental
agencies, and the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee.''.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 114
Stat. 2351) is amended by striking section 6 and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, the Director, and the
Administrator, in coordination with the Planning Agency and
the States of California and Nevada, may carry out or provide
financial assistance to any project or program described in
subsection (c) or included in the Priority List under section
8 to further the purposes of the Environmental Improvement
Program if the project has been subject to environmental
review and approval, respectively, as required under Federal
law, article 7 of the Compact, and State law, as applicable.
The Administrator shall use no more than 3 percent of the
funds provided for administering the projects or programs
described in subsection (c) (1) and (2).
``(b) Monitoring and Assessment.--All projects authorized
under subsection (c) and section 8 shall--
``(1) include funds for monitoring and assessment of the
results and effectiveness at the project and program level
consistent with the program developed under section 11; and
``(2) use the integrated multiagency performance measures
established under that section.
``(c) Description of Activities.--
``(1) Stormwater management, erosion control, and total
maximum daily load implementation.--Of the amounts made
available under section 18(a), $40,000,000 shall be made
available for grants by the Administrator for the Federal
share of the following projects:
``(A) Bijou Stormwater Improvement Project in the City of
South Lake Tahoe, California.
``(B) Christmas Valley Stormwater Improvement Project in El
Dorado County, California.
``(C) Kings Beach Watershed Improvement Project in Placer
County, California.
``(D) Lake Forest Stormwater and Watershed Improvement
Project in Placer County, California.
``(E) Crystal Bay Stormwater Improvement Project in Washoe
County, Nevada.
``(F) Washoe County Stormwater Improvement Projects 4, 5,
and 6 in Washoe County, Nevada.
``(G) Upper and Lower Kingsbury Project in Douglas County,
Nevada.
``(H) Lake Village Drive-Phase II Stormwater Improvement in
Douglas County, Nevada.
``(I) State Route 28 Spooner to Sand Harbor Stormwater
Improvement, Washoe County, Nevada.
``(J) State Route 431 Stormwater Improvement, Washoe
County, Nevada.
``(2) Stream environment zone and watershed restoration.--
Of the amounts made available under section 18(a),
$32,000,000 shall be made available for grants by the
Administrator for the Federal share of the following
projects:
``(A) Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project.
``(B) Upper Truckee River Mosher, Reaches 1 & 2.
``(C) Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables.
``(D) Lower Blackwood Creek Restoration Project.
``(E) Ward Creek.
``(F) Third Creek/Incline Creek Watershed Restoration.
``(G) Rosewood Creek Restoration Project.
``(3) Fire risk reduction and forest management.--
``(A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under
section 18(a), $136,000,000 shall be made available for
assistance by the Secretary for the following projects:
``(i) Projects identified as part of the Lake Tahoe Basin
Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention
Strategy 10-Year Plan.
``(ii) Competitive grants for fuels work to be awarded by
the Secretary to communities that have adopted national
wildland fire codes to implement the applicable portion of
the 10-year plan described in clause (i).
``(iii) Biomass projects, including feasibility assessments
and transportation of materials.
``(iv) Angora Fire Restoration projects under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
``(v) Washoe Tribe projects on tribal lands within the Lake
Tahoe Basin.
``(B) Multiple benefit fuels projects.--Consistent with the
requirements of section 4(d)(2), not more than $10,000,000 of
the amounts made available to carry out subparagraph (A)
shall be available to the Secretary for the planning and
implementation of multiple benefit fuels projects with an
emphasis on restoration projects in Stream Environment Zones.
``(C) Minimum allocation.--Of the amounts made available to
carry out subparagraph (A), at least $80,000,000 shall be
made available to the Secretary for projects under
subparagraph (A)(i).
``(D) Priority.--Units of local government that have
dedicated funding for inspections and enforcement of
defensible space regulations shall be given priority for
amounts provided under this paragraph.
``(E) Cost-sharing requirements.--
``(i) In general.--As a condition on the receipt of funds,
communities or local fire districts that receive funds under
this paragraph shall provide a 25 percent match.
``(ii) Form of non-federal share.--

``(I) In general.--The non-Federal share required under
clause (i) may be in the form of cash contributions or in-
kind contributions, including providing labor, equipment,
supplies, space, and other operational needs.
``(II) Credit for certain dedicated funding.--There shall
be credited toward the non-Federal share required under
clause (i) any dedicated funding of the communities or local
fire districts for a fuels reduction management program,
defensible space inspections, or dooryard chipping.
``(III) Documentation.--Communities and local fire
districts shall--

``(aa) maintain a record of in-kind contributions that
describes--
``(AA) the monetary value of the in-kind contributions; and
``(BB) the manner in which the in-kind contributions assist
in accomplishing project goals and objectives; and
``(bb) document in all requests for Federal funding, and
include in the total project budget, evidence of the
commitment to provide the non-Federal share through in-kind
contributions.
``(4) Invasive species management.--Of the amounts to be
made available under section 18(a), $20,500,000 shall be made
available to the Director for the Aquatic Invasive Species
Program and the watercraft inspections described in section
9.
``(5) Special status species management.--Of the amounts to
be made available under section 18(a), $20,000,000 shall be
made available to the Director for the Lahontan Cutthroat
Trout Recovery Program.
``(6) Lake tahoe basin program.--Of the amounts to be made
available under section 18(a), $30,000,000 shall be used to
develop and implement the Lake Tahoe Basin Program developed
under section 11.
``(d) Use of Remaining Funds.--Any amounts made available
under section 18(a) that remain available after projects
described in subsection (c) have been funded shall be made
available for projects included in the Priority List under
section 8.''.

SEC. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PRIORITY LIST.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 114
Stat. 2351) is amended--
(1) by striking sections 8 and 9;
(2) by redesignating sections 10, 11, and 12 as sections
16, 17, and 18, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after section 7 the following:

``SEC. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PRIORITY LIST.

``(a) Funding.--Subject to section 6(d), of the amounts to
be made available under section 18(a), at least $136,000,000
shall be made available for projects identified on the
Priority List.
``(b) Deadline.--Not later than February 15 of the year
after the date of enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act
of 2011, the Chair, in consultation with the Secretary, the
Administrator, the Director, the Planning Agency, the States
of California and Nevada, the Federal Partnership, the Washoe

[[Page S1126]]

Tribe, the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee, and the
Tahoe Science Consortium shall submit to Congress a
prioritized list of all Environmental Improvement Program
projects for the Lake Tahoe Basin, regardless of program
category.
``(c) Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The priority of projects included in the
Priority List shall be based on the best available science
and the following criteria:
``(A) The 5-year threshold carrying capacity evaluation.
``(B) The ability to measure progress or success of the
project.
``(C) The potential to significantly contribute to the
achievement and maintenance of the environmental threshold
carrying capacities identified in the Compact for--
``(i) air quality;
``(ii) fisheries;
``(iii) noise;
``(iv) recreation;
``(v) scenic resources;
``(vi) soil conservation;
``(vii) forest health;
``(viii) water quality; and
``(ix) wildlife.
``(D) The ability of a project to provide multiple
benefits.
``(E) The ability of a project to leverage non-Federal
contributions.
``(F) Stakeholder support for the project.
``(G) The justification of Federal interest.
``(H) Agency priority.
``(I) Agency capacity.
``(J) Cost-effectiveness.
``(K) Federal funding history.
``(2) Secondary factors.--In addition to the criteria under
paragraph (1), the Chair shall, as the Chair determines to be
appropriate, give preference to projects in the Priority List
that benefit existing neighborhoods in the Basin that are at
or below regional median income levels, based on the most
recent census data available.
``(3) Erosion control projects.--For purposes of the
Priority List and section 6(c)(1), erosion control projects
shall be considered part of the stormwater management and
total maximum daily load program of the Environmental
Improvement Program. The Administrator shall coordinate with
the Secretary on such projects.
``(d) Revisions.--
``(1) In general.--The Priority List submitted under
subsection (b) shall be revised--
``(A) every 4 years; or
``(B) on a finding of compelling need under paragraph (2).
``(2) Finding of compelling need.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary, the Administrator, or
the Director makes a finding of compelling need justifying a
priority shift and the finding is approved by the Secretary,
the Executive Director of the Planning Agency, the California
Natural Resources Secretary, and the Director of the Nevada
Department of Conservation, the Priority List shall be
revised in accordance with this subsection.
``(B) Inclusions.--A finding of compelling need includes--
``(i) major scientific findings;
``(ii) results from the threshold evaluation of the
Planning Agency;
``(iii) emerging environmental threats; and
``(iv) rare opportunities for land acquisition.

``SEC. 9. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011, the
Director, in coordination with the Planning Agency, the
California Department of Fish and Game, and the Nevada
Department of Wildlife, shall deploy strategies that meet or
exceed the criteria described in subsection (b) for
preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species into
the Lake Tahoe Basin.
``(b) Criteria.--The strategies referred to in subsection
(a) shall provide that--
``(1) combined inspection and decontamination stations be
established and operated at not less than 2 locations in the
Lake Tahoe Basin;
``(2) watercraft not be allowed to launch in waters of the
Lake Tahoe Basin if the watercraft--
``(A) has been in waters infested by quagga or zebra
mussels;
``(B) shows evidence of invasive species that the Director
has determined would be detrimental to the Lake Tahoe
ecosystem; and
``(C) cannot be reliably decontaminated in accordance with
paragraph (3);
``(3) subject to paragraph (4), all watercraft surfaces and
appurtenance (such as anchors and fenders) that contact with
water shall be reliably decontaminated, based on standards
developed by the Director using the best available science;
``(4) watercraft bearing positive verification of having
last launched within the Lake Tahoe Basin may be exempted
from decontamination under paragraph (3); and
``(5) while in the Lake Tahoe Basin, all watercraft
maintain documentation of compliance with the strategies
deployed under this section.
``(c) Certification.--The Director may certify State
agencies to perform the decontamination activities described
in subsection (b)(3) at locations outside the Lake Tahoe
Basin if standards at the sites meet or exceed standards for
similar sites in the Lake Tahoe Basin established under this
section.
``(d) Applicability.--The strategies and criteria developed
under this section shall apply to all watercraft to be
launched on water within the Lake Tahoe Basin.
``(e) Fees.--The Director may collect and spend fees for
decontamination only at a level sufficient to cover the costs
of operation of inspection and decontamination stations under
this section.
``(f) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any person that launches, attempts to
launch, or facilitates launching of watercraft not in
compliance with strategies deployed under this section shall
be liable for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$1,000 per violation.
``(2) Other authorities.--Any penalties assessed under this
subsection shall be separate from penalties assessed under
any other authority.
``(g) Limitation.--The strategies and criteria under
subsections (a) and (b), respectively, may be modified if the
Secretary of the Interior, in a nondelegable capacity and in
consultation with the Planning Agency and State governments,
issues a determination that alternative measures will be no
less effective at preventing introduction of aquatic invasive
species into Lake Tahoe than the strategies and criteria.
``(h) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section
6(c)(4), not more than $500,000 shall be made available to
the Director, in coordination with the Planning Agency and
State governments--
``(1) to evaluate the feasibility, cost, and potential
effectiveness of further efforts that could be undertaken by
the Federal Government, State and local governments, or
private entities to guard against introduction of aquatic
invasive species into Lake Tahoe, including the potential
establishment of inspection and decontamination stations on
major transitways entering the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
``(2) to evaluate and identify options for ensuring that
all waters connected to Lake Tahoe are protected from quagga
and zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species.
``(i) Supplemental Authority.--The authority under this
section is supplemental to all actions taken by non-Federal
regulatory authorities.
``(j) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed as restricting, affecting, or amending any other
law or the authority of any department, instrumentality, or
agency of the United States, or any State or political
subdivision thereof, respecting the control of invasive
species.

``SEC. 10. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS.

``(a) In General.--The Assistant Secretary may enter into
interagency agreements with non-Federal interests in the Lake
Tahoe Basin to use Lake Tahoe Partnership-Miscellaneous
General Investigations funds to provide programmatic
technical assistance for the Environmental Improvement
Program.
``(b) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--Before providing technical assistance
under this section, the Assistant Secretary shall enter into
a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to
provide for the technical assistance.
``(2) Components.--The agreement entered into under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) describe the nature of the technical assistance;
``(B) describe any legal and institutional structures
necessary to ensure the effective long-term viability of the
end products by the non-Federal interest; and
``(C) include cost-sharing provisions in accordance with
paragraph (3).
``(3) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--The Federal share of project costs under
each local cooperation agreement under this subsection shall
be 65 percent.
``(B) Form.--The Federal share may be in the form of
reimbursements of project costs.
``(C) Credit.--The non-Federal interest may receive credit
toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable costs of
related technical activities completed by the non-Federal
interest before entering into a local cooperation agreement
with the Assistant Secretary under this subsection.

``SEC. 11. LAKE TAHOE BASIN PROGRAM.

``The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary, the
Planning Agency, the States of California and Nevada, and the
Tahoe Science Consortium, shall develop and implement the
Lake Tahoe Basin Program that--
``(1) develops and regularly updates an integrated
multiagency programmatic assessment and monitoring plan--
``(A) to evaluate the effectiveness of the Environmental
Improvement Program;
``(B) to evaluate the status and trends of indicators
related to environmental threshold carrying capacities; and
``(C) to assess the impacts and risks of changing climatic
conditions and invasive species;
``(2) develops a comprehensive set of performance measures
for Environmental Improvement Program assessment;
``(3) coordinates the development of the annual report
described in section 13;
``(4) produces and synthesizes scientific information
necessary for--
``(A) the identification and refinement of environmental
indicators for the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
``(B) the evaluation of standards and benchmarks;
``(5) conducts applied research, programmatic technical
assessments, scientific data management, analysis, and
reporting related to key management questions;

[[Page S1127]]

``(6) develops new tools and information to support
objective assessments of land use and resource conditions;
``(7) provides scientific and technical support to the
Federal Government and State and local governments in--
``(A) reducing stormwater runoff, air deposition, and other
pollutants that contribute to the loss of lake clarity; and
``(B) the development and implementation of an integrated
stormwater monitoring and assessment program;
``(8) establishes and maintains independent peer review
processes--
``(A) to evaluate the Environmental Improvement Program;
and
``(B) to assess the technical adequacy and scientific
consistency of central environmental documents, such as the
5-year threshold review; and
``(9) provides scientific and technical support for the
development of appropriate management strategies to
accommodate changing climatic conditions in the Lake Tahoe
Basin.

``SEC. 12. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, Administrator, and
Director will coordinate with the Planning Agency to conduct
public education and outreach programs, including
encouraging--
``(1) owners of land and residences in the Lake Tahoe
Basin--
``(A) to implement defensible space; and
``(B) to conduct best management practices for water
quality; and
``(2) owners of land and residences in the Lake Tahoe Basin
and visitors to the Lake Tahoe Basin, to help prevent the
introduction and proliferation of invasive species as part of
the private share investment in the Environmental Improvement
Program.
``(b) Required Coordination.--Public outreach and education
programs for aquatic invasive species under this section
shall--
``(1) be coordinated with Lake Tahoe Basin tourism and
business organizations; and
``(2) include provisions for the programs to extend outside
of the Lake Tahoe Basin.

``SEC. 13. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

``Not later than February 15 of each year, the
Administrator, in cooperation with the Chair, the Secretary,
the Director, the Planning Agency, and the States of
California and Nevada, consistent with section 6(c)(6) and
section 11, shall submit to Congress a report that
describes--
``(1) the status of all Federal, State, local, and private
projects authorized under this Act, including to the maximum
extent practicable, for projects that will receive Federal
funds under this Act during the current or subsequent fiscal
year--
``(A) the project scope;
``(B) the budget for the project; and
``(C) the justification for the project, consistent with
the criteria established in section 8(c)(1);
``(2) Federal, State, local, and private expenditures in
the preceding fiscal year to implement the Environmental
Improvement Program and projects otherwise authorized under
this Act;
``(3) accomplishments in the preceding fiscal year in
implementing this Act in accordance with the performance
measures and other monitoring and assessment activities; and
``(4) public education and outreach efforts undertaken to
implement programs and projects authorized under this Act.

``SEC. 14. ANNUAL BUDGET PLAN.

``As part of the annual budget of the President, the
President shall submit information regarding each Federal
agency involved in the Environmental Improvement Program
(including the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service),
including--
``(1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays the
proposed budget for use by each Federal agency in carrying
out restoration activities relating to the Environmental
Improvement Program for the following fiscal year;
``(2) a detailed accounting of all amounts received and
obligated by Federal agencies to achieve the goals of the
Environmental Improvement Program during the preceding fiscal
year; and
``(3) a description of the Federal role in the
Environmental Improvement Program, including the specific
role of each agency involved in the restoration of the Lake
Tahoe Basin.

``SEC. 15. GRANT FOR WATERSHED STRATEGY.

``(a) In General.--Of the amounts to be made available
under section 18(a), the Administrator shall use not more
than $500,000 to provide a grant, on a competitive basis, to
States, federally recognized Indian tribes, interstate
agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies and
institutions, or institutions of higher education to develop
a Lake Tahoe Basin watershed strategy in coordination with
the Planning Agency, the States of California and Nevada, and
the Secretary.
``(b) Comment.--In developing the watershed strategy under
subsection (a), the grant recipients shall provide an
opportunity for public review and comment.
``(c) Components.--The watershed strategy developed under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) a classification system, inventory, and assessment of
stream environment zones;
``(2) comprehensive watershed characterization and
restoration priorities consistent with--
``(A) the Lake Tahoe total maximum daily load; and
``(B) the environmental threshold carrying capacities of
Lake Tahoe;
``(3) a monitoring and assessment program consistent with
section 11; and
``(4) an adaptive management system--
``(A) to measure and evaluate progress; and
``(B) to adjust the program.
``(d) Deadline.--The watershed strategy developed under
subsection (a) shall be completed by the date that is 2 years
after the date on which funds are made available to carry out
this section.''.

SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

Section 17 of The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law
106-506; 114 Stat. 2358) (as redesignated by section 7(2)) is
amended by inserting ``, Director, or Administrator'' after
``Secretary''.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 114
Stat. 2351) is amended by striking section 18 (as
redesignated by section 7(2)) and inserting the following:

``SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $415,000,000 for a
period of 10 fiscal years beginning the first fiscal year
after the date of enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act
of 2011.
``(2) Use of funds.--As of the date of enactment of the
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011, of the funds authorized
to be appropriated to be used to carry out sections 6 and 7,
the Secretary may use such sums as are necessary to implement
projects on the Priority List, to remain available until
expended.
``(b) Effect on Other Funds.--Amounts authorized under this
section and any amendments made by this Act--
``(1) shall be in addition to any other amounts made
available to the Secretary, Administrator, or Director for
expenditure in the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
``(2) shall not reduce allocations for other Regions of the
Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
``(c) Cost-sharing Requirement.--Except as provided in
subsection (d) and section 6(c)(3)(E), the States of
California and Nevada shall pay 50 percent of the aggregate
costs of restoration activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin
funded under section 6 or 8.
``(d) Relocation Costs.--Notwithstanding subsection (c),
the Secretary shall provide to local utility districts \2/3\
the costs of relocating facilities in connection with--
``(1) environmental restoration projects under sections 6
and 8; and
``(2) erosion control projects under section 2 of Public
Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3381).
``(e) Signage.--To the maximum extent practicable, a
project provided assistance under this Act shall include
appropriate signage at the project site that--
``(1) provides information to the public on--
``(A) the amount of Federal funds being provided to the
project; and
``(B) this Act; and
``(2) displays the visual identity mark of the
Environmental Improvement Program.''.

SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Administration of Acquired Land.--Section 3(b) of
Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3384) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) Lands'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Administration of Acquired Land.--
``(1) In general.--Land''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Interchange.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Chief of the
Forest Service) (referred to in this paragraph as the
`Secretary') may interchange (as defined in the first section
of Public Law 97-465 (16 U.S.C. 521c)) any land or interest
in land within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit described
in subparagraph (B) with appropriate units of State
government.
``(B) Eligible land.--The land or interest in land referred
to in subparagraph (A) is land or an interest in land that
the Secretary determines is not subject to efficient
administration by the Secretary because of the location or
size of the land.
``(C) Consideration.--In any interchange under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall accept land within the Lake
Tahoe Basin Management Unit of approximately equal value (as
defined in accordance with section 6(2) of Public Law 97-465
(16 U.S.C. 521h)).
``(D) Environmental analysis.--For the purposes of any
environmental analysis of an interchange under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall--
``(i) assume the maintenance of the environmental status
quo; and
``(ii) not be required to individually assess each parcel
that is managed under the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Urban Lots Program.
``(E) Use of land acquired by state government.--In any
interchange under this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
``(i) insert in the applicable deed such terms, covenants,
conditions, and reservations as the Secretary determines to
be necessary to ensure--

``(I) protection of the public interest, including
protection of the ecological, scenic, wildlife, and
recreational values of the National Forest System; and

[[Page S1128]]

``(II) the provision for appropriate access to, and use of,
land within the National Forest System;
``(III) that land subject to exchange is monitored for
compliance with subclauses (I) and (II); and
``(IV) if the land conveyed under this paragraph is used in
a manner that is inconsistent with this section, the land
shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, revert to the
United States; or

``(ii) reserve a conservation easement to ensure that the
land conveyed is managed in accordance with subclauses (I)
through (IV) of clause (i).
``(F) Delegation of monitoring and enforcement by transfer
of conservation easement.--
``(i) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subparagraph,
the term `eligible entity' means--

``(I) a conservation agency of a local government or an
Indian tribe;
``(II) the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; or
``(III) an organization that--

``(aa) is organized for, and at all times since the
formation of the organization, has been operated principally
for 1 or more of the conservation purposes specified in
clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(bb) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
that Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
of that Code;
``(cc) is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section
509(a) of that Code; or
``(dd)(AA) is described in section 509(a)(3) of that Code;
and
``(BB) is controlled by an organization described in
section 509(a)(2) of that Code.
``(ii) Delegation.--Subject to clause (iii), the Secretary
may delegate to an eligible entity any monitoring and
enforcement duties relating to a conservation easement under
this paragraph by transferring title of ownership to an
easement to an eligible entity to hold and enforce.
``(iii) Restriction.--The Secretary may delegate monitoring
or enforcement duties under clause (ii) if--

``(I) the Secretary retains the right to conduct periodic
inspections and enforce the easement;
``(II) the Secretary determines that the transfer will
promote protection of ecological, scenic, wildlife, and
recreational values;
``(III) the eligible entity assumes the costs incurred in
administering and enforcing the easement;
``(IV) the Secretary determines that the eligible entity
has the resources necessary to carry out monitoring and
enforcement activities; and
``(V) all delegated monitoring and enforcement duties
revert to the Secretary if the eligible entity cannot perform
the delegated duties, at the discretion of the Secretary.

``(G) Transfer of land acquired by units of state
government.--Any unit of State government that receives
National Forest System land through an interchange under this
paragraph shall not convey the land to any person or entity
other than the Federal Government or a State government.''.
(b) Interagency Agreement Funding.--Section 108(g) of title
I of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2942) is amended by striking
``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$75,000,000''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I join Senator Feinstein in
introducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 along with Senator
Ensign and Senator Boxer. Our bill protects Lake Tahoe by helping
federal agencies work more collaboratively with local governments to
manage federal lands, preventing catastrophic wildfires, keeping
invasive species out of the lake, using sound science to prioritize
projects, and leveraging state and local funding. Senator Feinstein has
done a lot of work to improve this legislation while maintaining a
broad coalition of support and I want to thank her for her good work.
Lake Tahoe is a place of incredible beauty. When Mark Twain first saw
Lake Tahoe in 1861, he described it as ``a noble sheet of blue water
lifted 6,300 feet above the level of the sea, and walled in by a rim of
snow-clad mountain peaks that towered aloft full three thousand feet
higher still!'' He went on to proclaim the view in front of him as
surely ``the fairest picture the whole earth affords.'' I could not
agree more.
But for all its beauty, Lake Tahoe Basin is in peril. The famed
clarity of the lake declined by over a third during the last 50 years;
it is estimated that 25 percent of the trees in the basin are dead or
dying; the prized Lahontan cutthroat trout sport fish that once grew to
more than 40 pounds are no longer present; and many of the basin's
natural marshes and wetlands have been altered or drained. This
perilous decline jeopardizes the 23,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in annual
revenues that Lake Tahoe contributes to the Nevada and California
economies.
It became clear to me in the 1990s that a major commitment and
coordinated efforts were necessary to turn things around for the health
and future of Lake Tahoe and the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 1996, I called
then-President Clinton and Vice President Gore and asked if they would
come to Lake Tahoe with me so that they could see both the incredible
beauty of the place and many threats facing it. When we convened in
July 1997, the President and Vice President brought four cabinet
secretaries with them and we had a multi-day session on the future of
Lake Tahoe. President Clinton promised to make Lake Tahoe a priority--
for the people of Nevada, for the people of California, and for the
whole country. An executive order and the subsequent Lake Tahoe
Restoration Act of 2000 were the result of that commitment.
It would have been difficult to imagine at that first summit how much
progress we would be able to make in the last 14 years. The clarity of
the lake now appears to have stabilized, thousands of acres of forest
lands have been restored, roads and highways across the basin have been
improved to limit runoff, and the natural function of many miles of
stream zones and riparian areas has been restored. But there is a great
deal yet to be done. We offer the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 as
the next step.
Our bill focuses federal attention on the areas where we can be most
effective and it builds on the lessons we have learned since 1997. The
basic summary of the bill is that it authorizes $415 million over 10
years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of fire, and restore
the environment.
I would like to make a very important point about the federal role in
protecting Lake Tahoe. The U.S. Forest Service manages 75 percent of
the land surrounding the lake and it is impossible to make real
progress in the Lake Tahoe Basin without providing the Forest Service
with the tools they need to manage that land. With that in mind, we
call on the Forest Service to support the thresholds put forth by the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, we provide encouragement and funding to
work on the restoration of stream environment zones, and we withdraw
all Forest Service in the Basin lands from mineral entry in order to
minimize soil disturbance. The Forest Service is also granted increased
flexibility to exchange land with the states of Nevada and California
which will allow for more cost-efficient management of the over 8,000
publicly owned urban parcels spread throughout the Basin. Currently,
the Forest Service owns over 3,280 of these urban parcels and there are
questions about whether it is in the public interest for the Forest
Service to manage these urban lands or whether it would be better to
pass them to other responsible entities that could provide more
efficient management. We have asked the Forest Service to report to
Congress on their plans for improving this part of their program,
including any suggestions for how Congress might be able to help. Along
with these new authorities and direction for forest management, the
bill authorizes $136 million to reduce the threat of wildfire. This
includes work on Forest Service lands as well as work done by local
fire agencies. Local communities and fire districts that receive grants
from this generous program will provide a 25 percent cash match.
Lake Tahoe is uniquely beautiful and it's worth fighting to protect
it. It is my sincere hope that my grandchildren will see the day when
the lake's clarity is restored to 100 feet or more, when Tahoe's giant
native trout are once again plentiful, and when nearby forests are
diverse and healthy. Mark Twain saw something amazing when he crested
into the Lake Tahoe Basin. We owe it to ourselves and to subsequent
generations to restore as much of that splendor as we can. This bill is
the next step in that journey.
______

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 434. A bill to improve and expand geographic literacy among
kindergarten through grade 12 students in the United States by
improving professional development programs for kindergarten through
grade 12 teachers offered through institutions of higher education; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page S1129]]

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teaching
Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined as a cosponsor
by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.
The purpose of this bill is to improve geographic literacy among K
through 12 students by supporting professional development programs for
their teachers that are administered in institutions of higher
learning. The bill also assists States in measuring the impact of
education in geography.
Ensuring geographic literacy prepares students to be good citizens of
both our Nation and the world. John Fahey, who is Chairman and CEO of
the National Geographic Society, once stated that, ``Geographic
illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with
other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world.''
When students understand their own environment, they can better
understand the differences in other places, and the people who live in
them. Knowledge of the diverse cultures, environment, and distances
between states and countries helps our students to understand national
and international policies, economies, societies and political
structures on a global scale.
To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with other
people around the world, we need to be able to communicate and
understand each other. It is a fact that we have a global marketplace,
and we need to be preparing our younger generation for competition in
the international economy. A strong base of geography knowledge
improves these opportunities.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2010, the
overall volume of international trade, as the sum of imports and
exports, was over $4.3 trillion. Geographic knowledge is increasingly
needed for U.S. businesses in international markets to understand such
factors as physical distance, time zones, language differences and
cultural diversity.
Geospatial technology is an emerging career that is now available to
people with an extensive background in geography education.
Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in federal
government agencies, and in the private and non-profit sectors in areas
such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban
planning and development. It is important to improve and expand
geography education so that students in the United States can attain
the necessary expertise to fill and retain the estimated 70,000 new
jobs that are becoming available each year in the geospatial technology
industry.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell once said, ``To solve most of
the major problems facing our country today--from wiping out terrorism,
to minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge
of AIDS--will require every young person to learn more about other
regions, cultures, and languages.'' It is clear to me that we need to
do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the education of
our students, from kindergarten through high school graduation, are
prepared and trained to teach the skills necessary to solve these
problems.

Over the last 15 years, the National Geographic Society has awarded
more than $100 million in grants to educators, universities, geography
alliances, and others for the purposes of advancing and improving the
teaching of geography. Their models are successful, and research shows
that students who have benefitted from this teaching outperform other
students. State geography alliances exist in 26 states and the District
of Columbia endowed by grants from the Society. But, their efforts
alone are not enough.
In my home state of Mississippi, teachers and university professors
are making progress to increase geography education in schools through
additional professional training. Based at the University of
Mississippi, hundreds of geography teachers are members of the
Mississippi Geography Alliance. This Alliance conducts regular
workshops for graduate and undergraduate students who are preparing to
be certified to teach elementary and high school-level geography in our
State. These workshops have provided opportunities for model teaching
sessions and discussion of best practices in the classroom.
The bill I am introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance
the education of our teachers, focuses on geography education research,
and develops reliable and advanced technology based classroom
materials. I hope the Senate will consider the seriousness of the need
to make this enhanced investment in geography.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 440. A bill for the relief of Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda
De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia Aranda; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief
bill on behalf of the Buendias, a family who has lived in the Fresno
area of California for more than 20 years. The beneficiaries of this
bill include Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda de Buendia,
and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda. I believe this family
merits Congress' special consideration.
I would like to start with the story of Jose Buendia, a remarkable
father and husband who has embraced the hard work ethic of this
country. Many years ago, Jose's father worked as an agricultural worker
on the Bracero program.
In 1981, he brought his son to the United States. Jose worked hard,
providing financial support to his family in Mexico and working his way
up through jobs in landscaping and construction.
Today, Jose is a valuable employee with Bone Construction, Inc. He
has worked with this California-based company for nearly 10 years,
developing skills and experience and now serving as a lead foreman.
Timothy Bone, the owner of the company, calls Jose a ``reliable,
hardworking and conscientious'' worker.
Jose is married to Alicia, who goes to work season after season in
California's labor-intensive agriculture industry. She currently works
for a fruit packing company in Reedley, California. Jose and Alicia
have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 22, and Alex, age
20, who have both always excelled in school.
Ana Laura earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School, and was offered an
academic scholarship at the University of California, Berkeley.
Unfortunately, she could not accept the scholarship because of her
undocumented status.
Ana Laura nonetheless persisted. She enrolled at the University of
California, Irvine and is on track to graduate this spring with a major
in Chicano Studies and Art.
Ana Laura's younger brother, Alex, is a United States citizen. He
graduated high school with a 3.85 GPA and now studies engineering at
the University of California, Merced. Last spring, he graduated with
honors and a scholarship from Reedley College with an Associate of
Science degree in Engineering.
Remarkably, the Buendias should have been able to correct their
immigration status years ago. Jose should have qualified for
legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of
1986; however, his application was never acted upon because his
attorney was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and
Special Agricultural Worker applications, tainting all of his clients.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service took nearly 7 years to
determine that Jose's application contained no fraudulent information,
but at that point it was too late. Jose was no longer eligible for
relief due to changes in U.S. immigration law.
Still, the Buendia family continued to seek legal status through
other means. In 1999, it appeared they had succeeded when an
Immigration Judge granted the family cancellation of removal based on
the hardship their son, Alex, would face if deported to Mexico.
However, the decision was appealed and ultimately overturned. At this
point, the Buendias have exhausted their options to remain together as
a family here in the United States.
In the more than 20 years of living in California, the Buendias have
shown that they are committed to working to achieve the American dream.
They have a strong connection to their local community, as active
members of the Parent Teachers Association and their

[[Page S1130]]

church. They pay their taxes every year, paid off their mortgage, and
remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible,
maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement
accounts.
Moreover, the Buendia children are excellent students pursuing higher
education here in the United States. Without this private bill, these
young adults will be separated from their family or forced to relocate
to a country they simply do not know. I do not believe it is in the
Nation's best interest to prevent talented youth raised here in the
United States, who have good moral character and outstanding academic
records, from realizing their future.
I respectfully ask my colleagues for their support of the Buendia
family. I hope the Senate will consider this private relief legislation
in the 112th Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 440

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JOSE BUENDIA
BALDERAS, ALICIA ARANDA DE BUENDIA, AND ANA
LAURA BUENDIA ARANDA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and
Ana Laura Buendia Aranda shall each be eligible for issuance
of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia
Aranda De Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda enter the
United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De
Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, as appropriate, shall
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in the
United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of
an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status
is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jose Buendia
Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia
Aranda, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following
fiscal year--
(1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made
available to natives of the country of birth of Jose Buendia
Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia
Aranda under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
(2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that
are made available to natives of the country of birth of Jose
Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura
Buendia Aranda under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 441. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria
Elna Cobain Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration
relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola
Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals
living in the Fresno area of California.
Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20
years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 25, and Cindy, age 20,
also stand to benefit from this legislation.
The other three Arreola children, Robert, age 19, Daniel, age 15, and
Saray, age 14, are United States citizens. Today, Esidronio and Maria
Elena and their two eldest children face deportation.
The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous
errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been
disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it
compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of
Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in
his client's immigration cases.
Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural
migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a
migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent
residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers SAW, program, had
he known about it.
Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became
pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth
because she wanted to avoid any problems with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United
States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of
deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United
States legally. However, their poor legal representation foreclosed
this opportunity.
One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this
private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and
Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American
citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since
they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only
country they really know.
Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high
school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific
University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition
scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office. She
graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business
Administration and is working on her graduate degree. Nayely recently
got married.
At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals
of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her
full potential both through her academic endeavors and community
service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific
University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno
Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become
exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''
In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual
Determination, AVID, college preparatory program in which students
commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college
degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service
organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced
to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams
and further contribute to her community and to this country.
Nayely's sister, Cindy, also recently married and has a one-year-old
daughter. Neither Nayely nor Cindy are eligible to adjust their status
based on their marriages because they grew up in the United States
undocumented.
The Arreolas also have other family who are United States citizens or
lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three
brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is
an American citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no
immediate family in Mexico.
According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any
problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their
taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked
hard to support themselves.
As I previously mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a
farm worker, but now has his own business in California repairing
electronics. His business has been successful enough to

[[Page S1131]]

enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are
active in their church community and in their children's education.
It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream.
Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the
Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their
community as well as the United States.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 441

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Esidronio Arreola-
Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos,
and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be deemed to have been lawfully
admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255).
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant
visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna
Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael
Arreola, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 4, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Marina Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely
Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 203(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or,
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely
Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 202(e)
of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(c)).
(d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 442. A bill for the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief
legislation for Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, ``Alice'',
Hsu-Liang.
I first introduced a private bill for Robert and Alice in 2003. Since
then this family has only further demonstrated their hard work ethic
and commitment to realizing the American dream. I continue to believe
that Robert and Alice merit Congress' special consideration and the
extraordinary relief provided by private legislation.
Robert and Alice have been living in San Bruno, California, for the
last 27 years. Robert is a national and refugee from Laos, and Alice is
originally from Taiwan. They have three children who are all United
States citizens. I am concerned that forcing Robert and Alice to return
to their home countries would tear this family apart and cause immense
and unwarranted hardship to them and their children.
Robert and Alice have called California their home since they first
entered the United States in 1983. They came here legally on tourist
visas. They face deportation today because they remained in the United
States past the terms of their visas, and because their attorney failed
to handle their immigration case on a timely basis before federal
immigration laws changed in 1996.
In many ways, the Liang family represents a uniquely American success
story. Robert was born in Laos, but fled the country as a teenager
after his mother was killed by Communists. He witnessed many traumatic
experiences in his youth, including the attack that killed his mother
and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He routinely witnessed the
brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village in Laos. In
1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.
Robert and his wife risked everything to come to the United States.
Despite the challenges of their past, they built a family in California
and established a place for themselves in the local community. They are
homeowners. They own a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant. They
file annual income taxes and are financially stable.
Robert and Alice support their three children, Wesley, Bruce, and
Eva, who are all American citizens. Wesley is now 18 years old and
studying at City College of San Francisco. The younger children, Bruce
and Eva, attend schools in the San Bruno area and continue to do well
in their classes.
There are many reasons to believe that deporting Robert and Alice
would have a harmful impact on the children, who have all of their ties
to the United States. Deportation would either break this family apart
or force them to relocate to a country entirely foreign to the one they
know to be home.
The Immigration Judge who presided over Robert and Alice's case in
1997 also concluded that Robert and Alice's deportation would adversely
impact the Liang children.
Moreover, Robert would face significant hurdles if deported, having
fled Laos as a refugee more than 27 years ago. The emotional impact of
the wartime violence Robert experienced at a young age was traumatic
and continues to strain him. He battles severe clinical depression here
in the United States. Robert fears that if he is deported and moves to
his wife's home country, Taiwan, he will face discrimination on account
of his nationality. Robert does not speak Taiwanese, and he worries
about how he would pursue mental health treatment in a foreign country.
Robert and Alice have worked since 1993 to resolve their immigration
status. They filed for relief from deportation; however, it took nearly
five years for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, to act
on the case. By the time their case went through in 1997, the
immigration laws had changed and the Liangs were no longer eligible for
relief. I supported these changes, set forth in the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But, I also believe
there may be situations worthy of special consideration.
Robert and Alice Liang represent one such example. They are long-term
residents of the United States. Their children are all U.S. citizens.
The Immigration Judge that presided over the appeal of this case
determined that Robert and Alice would have qualified for relief from
deportation, in light of these positive factors, had the INS given
their case timely consideration. Unfortunately, their immigration case
took nearly five years to move forward.
A private bill is the only way for both Robert and Alice to remain in
the United States together with their family. They have worked
extraordinarily hard to make the United States their home. I believe
Robert and Alice deserve the relief provided by a private bill.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill
on behalf of the Liangs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 442

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Robert Liang and
Alice Liang shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted
to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible
for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255).
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant
visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas

[[Page S1132]]

to Robert Liang and Alice Liang, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the
current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Robert Liang and Alice Liang under
section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Robert Liang and Alice Liang under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.-
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 443. A bill for the relief of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria
Leticia Arenas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a private
relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas.
Javier and Leticia, originally from Mexico, are the parents of three
U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 17, Ashley, age 13, and Nancy, age 7.
This family lives in Fremont, California.
I first introduced a bill for Javier and Leticia in 2009, and I
continue to believe they deserve Congress' special consideration for
such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Javier and
Leticia are outstanding parents, volunteers, workers, and leaders in
their community. Javier and Leticia came to the United States after
each suffered the loss of a parent.
Leticia left Mexico at age 17 after her mother died from cancer.
Javier came to the United States in 1990, at age 23, several years
after the murder of his father in Michoacan, Mexico.
Javier had been living and working in the United States for over 25
years when I first learned about this case. He originally entered the
country looking for work to support his extended family. Today, Javier
is a Manager at Full Bloom Baking Company in San Mateo, California,
where he has been an employee for over 18 years. In fact, Javier was
the second employee hired at Full Bloom when the company first began.
Javier's fellow co-workers at Full Bloom have written compelling
letters to me about Javier's hard work ethic and valuable
contributions. The company owners assert that with his help, the
company grew to be one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay
Area, today employing approximately 385 people.
They write that Javier is a mentor to others and maintains a
``tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge' that can never be
replaced.'' One of his co-workers wrote, ``Without Javier at the
bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will change.''
Javier made attempts to legalize his status in the United States. At
one point, he received an approved labor certification. However, his
case could not be finalized due to poor timing and a lengthy
immigration process. It took three years, for example, for his labor
certification to be approved. By that time, Javier was already in
removal proceedings and his case is now closed.
During consideration of Javier's case, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals acknowledged the difficult situation Javier faces. The Court
wrote, ``We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely sympathetic
circumstances of this case. By all accounts, Petitioner has been an
exemplary father, employee, and member of his local community. If he
were to be deported, he would be separated from his wife, three U.S.
citizen children, and the life he has worked so hard to build over the
past 17 years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of events leading
up this juncture and Petitioner's positive contributions to society,
Petitioner may very well be deserving of prosecutorial grace.''
Unfortunately, the Court ultimately denied the case. Javier and his
wife have no additional avenues for adjusting their status. A private
bill is the only way for them to remain in the United States.
I believe it is important to consider the potentially harmful impact
on Javier and Maria Leticia's three U.S. citizen children, Bryan,
Ashley, and Nancy, should their parents be deported. Bryan, Ashley, and
Nancy are all in school in California. Javier owns their home in
Fremont. He is the sole financial provider for his wife and children,
while also providing some financial support to extended family members
in Mexico. Javier and Leticia are good parents and play active roles in
their children's lives. The Principal of Patterson Elementary School
described Javier and Leticia as ``two loving and supportive parents who
are committed to their children's success.''
All too often, deportation separates U.S. citizen children from their
parents. In 2009, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security found that, in the last ten years, at least 108,434 immigrant
parents of American citizen children were removed from this country.
Other reports show that deporting a parent causes trauma and long-
lasting harm to children.
Moreover, the deportation of Javier and Leticia would be a
significant loss to the community. Leticia is currently volunteering
and training for a job with Bay Area Women Against Rape in Oakland,
which provides services to survivors of sexual assault. She is also a
certified health promoter and volunteer at Vazquez Health Center in
Fremont.
Javier's community involvement is just as impressive. He has
volunteered with the Women's Foundation of California, Lance
Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral
Parish, the American Red Cross, and the California AIDS Ride.
Patricia W. Chang, a long-time community leader in California and
current CEO of Feed the Hunger, writes: ``Asking Mr. Urenda to leave
the United States would deprive his children of their father, an
upstanding resident of the country. It would deprive the community of
an active participant, leader, and volunteer.''
Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California,
states that Javier ``is a model participant in this society.''
Clearly, Javier and Leticia have earned the admiration of their
community here in the United States. They are the loving parents of
three American children. Javier is a valued employee at Full Bloom
Baking Company. This family shows great potential, and I believe it is
in our Nation's best interest to allow them to remain here with their
children and to continue making significant contributions to California
and the Nation as a whole.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 443

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JAVIER LOPEZ-URENDA
AND MARIA LETICIA ARENAS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas shall
each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence upon filing an application for
issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act
(8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Javier Lopez-Urenda or Maria
Leticia Arenas enter the United States before the filing
deadline specified in subsection (c), that alien shall be
considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall,
if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only to an application
for issuance of an immigrant visa or an application for
adjustment of status that is filed, with appropriate fees,
within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Javier Lopez-
Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by two, during the
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if
applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made
available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth
under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).

[[Page S1133]]

(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 444. A bill for the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill for the
private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Shirley is a Filipina
national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 14-
year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of
Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.
I believe Shirley merits Congress' special consideration for this
extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the
United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family.
Shirley faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her
from her family and jeopardize her safety.
Shirley experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she
left to come to the United States. When Shirley was only 14 years old,
her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the
head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually
prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety,
Shirley fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be
released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a
visitor's visa in 1989.
Shirley's current deportation order is the result of negligent
counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was
pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to
submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was
dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley
voluntary departure from the United States.
Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals
granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did
not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order.
As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of
voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. Shirley
learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28,
2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into
immigration custody.
Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Shirley was denied the
opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings.
Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California
against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a
complaint against this attorney.
In addition to the hardship that would come to Shirley if she is
deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two
United States citizen children, Jashley and Joreine, who are minors.
Jashley and Joreine are currently attending Terra Nova High School in
Pacifica, California, where they continue to be excellent students on
the honor roll. The children are involved in their school's music
program, playing the clarinet and the flute. The children's teacher
wrote a letter to me in which she described Shirley's involvement in
Jashley and Joreine's lives, referring to Shirley as a ``model'' parent
and describing her active role in the school community. In addition to
caring for her two children, Shirley is the primary caregiver for her
elderly mother-in-law.
If Shirley were forced to leave the United States, her family has
expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try and
find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would
mean that Jashley and Joreine would have to leave behind their
education and the only home they know in the United States.
While Shirley and Jay are legally married under California law at
this time, Shirley cannot legally adjust her immigration status through
the regular family-based immigration procedures.
I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this
family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice
between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face
safety concerns or other serious hardships.
Shirley and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica
and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic
Church, volunteering for the church and the Mother Theresa of
Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of
members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of
commitment to their community.
Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Shirley
today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in
California and make positive contributions to their community.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 444

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SHIRLEY CONSTANTINO
TAN.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Shirley Constantino Tan shall be eligible for issuance
of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Shirley Constantino Tan
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified
in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered
and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be
eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application
for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for
adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2
years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Shirley
Constantino Tan, the Secretary of State shall instruct the
proper officer to reduce by one, during the current or next
following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas
that are made available to natives of the country of the
alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of the alien's birth under section
202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs, FEINSTEIN:
S. 445. A bill for the relief of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas
family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of
California.
The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit
Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Jorge and his wife, Oliva, originally came to the United States in
1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995,
they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered the
United States on visitor's visas.
The family has since expanded to include two sons, Alexis Rojas, now
18 years old, Matias, now a year old, a daughter Tania Rojas, now age
16, and a granddaughter, Mina Rojas, who is less than a year old.
The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the
United

[[Page S1134]]

States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an
attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without
proper legal guidance, this family did not realize at the time that
they lacked a valid basis for asylum. The asylum claim was denied in
2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize
their status.
Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the
Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong
commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes
and worked hard to contribute to this country.
Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley
Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 16
years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is
well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.
In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time
to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his
children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood
association, working with his neighbors to open a library and community
center in their community.
Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very
active in the local community. She works to help other immigrants
assimilate to American life by acting as a translator and a tutor for
immigrant children in local schools and after school programs in
Northern California.
Before her youngest son was born, Oliva volunteered with the People
Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she worked to
prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and
schools.
Both Jorge and Oliva are active volunteers with the Second Harvest
Food Bank, assisting in distributing food to the needy at a community
center.
Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas
family to remain in the United States is the impact that their
deportation would have on their three children. Two of the Rojas
children, Alexis and Tania, are American citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has
lived in the United States since he was a toddler.
For Alexis, Tania, and Jorge, this country is the only country they
really know.
Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his
parents, recently became a father. He is now 22 years old and working
at a job that allows him to support his daughter, Mina. Jorge graduated
from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is taking classes at San Jose City
College.
Alexis, age 18, graduated from Del Mar High School and is now a
student at West Valley College in Saratoga, California. He is
interested in studying linguistics. Tania, age 16, still attends Del
Mar High School and plans to graduate next year. Their teachers
describe them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students.
It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American
dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to
enhance the values we hold dear.
When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from
the community in Northern California in support of this family.
Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the
Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their
community as well as the United States.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 445

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JORGE ROJAS
GUTIERREZ, OLIVA GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, AND JORGE
ROJAS GONZALEZ.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and
Jorge Rojas Gonzalez shall each be eligible for the issuance
of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva
Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge Rojas Gonzalez enters the United
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection
(c), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge
Rojas Gonzalez, as appropriate, shall be considered to have
entered and remained lawfully in the United States and shall
be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application
for the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for
adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later
than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jorge Rojas
Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez,
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to
reduce by 3, during the current or subsequent fiscal year,
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available
to natives of the country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez,
Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez under
section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez
Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez under section 202(e) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
____

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 446. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief
legislation in the 112th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family has been
living in Fresno, California, for over 15 years. I continue to believe
this family deserves Congress' special consideration for such an
extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.
The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave
Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several
incidents in which the family experienced vandalism and threats to
their well-being.
In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing.
At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which
he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later
learned that a co-worker had gone ahead and registered the vehicles at
the request of the chief.
Several disturbing incidents occurred after Ruben reported the bribe
offer to illegally register vehicles. Ruben's store was vandalized;
after he said he would call the police, he received threatening phone
calls telling him to keep quiet. At one point, the Mkoians suffered the
loss of their home when a bottle of gasoline was thrown into their
residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered
the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days.
Ruben, Asmik, and their three-year-old son, Arthur, left Armenia soon
thereafter and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied
for political asylum in 1992 on the grounds that they would be subject
to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their
case to be finalized, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
their asylum case in January 2008.
At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to
remain legally in the United States.
The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in
California. Ruben works as a truck driver for a California trucking
company. He has been described as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,''
and an asset to the company. Asmik has completed training at a local
community college and is now a full-time medical assistant with Fresno
Shields Medical Group.
The Mkoians attend St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They
do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Asmik also
teaches

[[Page S1135]]

Armenian School on Saturdays at the church.
I would particularly like to highlight the achievements of the Ruben
and Asmik's two children, Arthur and Arsen, who were raised in
California and have been recognized publicly for their scholastic
achievements.
I first introduced a private bill for this family on Arthur's high
school graduation day. Despite being undocumented, Arthur maintained a
4.0 grade point average in high school and was a valedictorian for the
class of 2008. Arthur, now 20 years old, is in his third year at the
University of California, Davis. He is studying biochemistry, maintains
excellent grades, and was on the Dean's Merit List again this past
quarter.
Arthur's brother, Arsen, is 14 years old and a United States citizen.
He is currently a freshman at Bullard High School in Fresno, where he
does well in his classes, maintaining a 3.9 grade point average.
I believe Arthur and Arsen are two young individuals with great
potential here in the United States. Like their parents, they have
demonstrated their commitment to working hard--and they are succeeding.
They clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States.
It has been more than 18 years since Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur left
Armenia. This family has few family members and virtually no supporting
contacts in Armenia. They invested their time, resources, and effort in
order to remain in the United States legally, to no avail. A private
relief bill is the only means to prevent them from being forced to
return to a country that long ago became a closed chapter of their
past.
When I first introduced a bill on behalf of the Mkoian family in
2008, I received written endorsements from Representatives George
Radanovich, R-CA, and Jim Costa, D-CA, in strong support of the family.
I also received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of
support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive
impact that this family has had in Fresno California.
I believe that this case warrants our compassion and our
extraordinary consideration. I respectfully ask my colleagues to
support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 446

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RUBEN MKOIAN, ASMIK
KARAPETIAN, AND ARTHUR MKOYAN.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan
shall each be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa
or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application
for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan enters the United States before
the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Ruben
Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan, as appropriate,
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in
the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of
status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of
an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status
is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent resident status to Ruben Mkoian,
Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan, the Secretary of State
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the
current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan under section 202(e) of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 447. A bill for the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private
immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident
status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and
their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico
but has been living in California for twenty years. I believe they
merit Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of
relief.
When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as
a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he
started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian
restaurant in San Francisco.
Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventually becoming Palio's
sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed
coworker, and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at
his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.''
He and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela works as a
housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States
citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, age 22, is undocumented. Adilene
graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and attended San
Francisco City College. She is now studying nursing at Los Medranos
College.
The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, is a senior at Leadership
High School and has applied to attend several Universities in
California. Jazmin is a United States citizen and has been diagnosed
with asthma. According to her doctor, if the family returns to Mexico,
the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to
Jazmin.
The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through
several channels.
In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to
get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings
from Mexico is long, and it will be many years before Jose will be
eligible to legalize his status though his sister.
In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their
application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent
application for cancellation of removal because he could not find the
``requisite hardship'' required for this form of immigration relief.
Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that
Jose's culinary ability was a negative factor weighing against keeping
the family in the United States, finding that Jose's skills indicated
that he could find a job in Mexico.
Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio
D'Asti, petitioned for legal status for Jose based upon Jose's unique
skills as a chef. Even though U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
approved Jose's work petition, there is a backlog for employment based
visas and it may be many years before Jose can get a visa. Until then,
he and his family remain subject to deportation.
Jose, Micaela, and their daughter, Adilene, have no other
administrative options to legalize their status. If they are deported,
they will face a several-year ban from returning to the United States.
Jose and Micaela will be separated from their American citizen-children
and their community.
The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in
California. They are active in their faith community and their
children's schools. They volunteer with community-based organizations
and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced
this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow
parishioners, teachers, and members of their community.

[[Page S1136]]

The Martinez family truly embraces the American dream. Jose worked
his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an
indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. Adelene worked hard in
high school and is now attending college.
I believe the Martinez family's presence in the United States allows
them to continue making significant contributions to their community in
California.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 447

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez shall each be
deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in,
the United States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence under section 245 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application
for such adjustment of status.
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez, the Secretary
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3,
during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total
number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives
of the country of the birth of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under section
202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1152(e) and 1153(a)), as applicable.
(d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 448. A bill for the relief of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li. Steve is a Peruvian
national who lives in San Francisco, California. He was brought to the
United States as a child and is now a student at City College of San
Francisco hoping to become a nurse.
I decided to introduce a private bill on Steve's behalf because I
believe that Steve would suffer undue hardship if he were removed to
Peru. Without this legislation, Steve would be separated from his
family and his community, and returned to a country he does not know.
Steve was only 12 years old when his parents brought him to the
United States. Steve's parents are Chinese nationals who originally
fled China to escape economic oppression and the Chinese government's
policies on reproductive rights. From China, his parents went to Peru,
where Steve was born.
The family then sought asylum in the United States, which was denied.
Steve was ordered removed to Peru, where he was born, while his parents
were ordered removed to China, the country of their nationality.
Steve's parents would not be able to accompany their son to Peru.
Steve's parents never told him about the asylum denial or the removal
orders. Steve did not know that he was in the United States illegally,
and he went through all of his teenage years in the United States
believing he was legally allowed to be here. He did not learn about his
deportation order until one morning this past September when
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at his home and took
him into custody.
All too often, youngsters like Steve are put in the position of being
returned to a country they do not know. These young people did not make
the choice to come to the United States but were brought to this
country by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in America
and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. They are
hard working young people dedicated to their education. They have
stayed out of trouble. Some are valedictorians and honor roll students.
Many are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving
the United States.
I hoped that the Senate would pass the DREAM Act last year to provide
qualified young people the opportunity to contribute to this country
and their communities. Unfortunately, the bill fell short of the 60
votes it needed to move forward. I hope the Senate will one day pass
the DREAM Act. The legislation I am introducing today will provide one
of these youngsters the opportunity give back to the country he calls
home.
Steve attended George Washington High School in San Francisco,
California. While there, he was enrolled in the Honor's Program and
became very involved in his high school community. Steve was an athlete
on the cross country and track team. He worked for the school newspaper
as a reporter, editor, and cameraman. Demonstrating his desire to
educate his community on health issues, Steve also provided
presentations to other students through his high school's wellness
program on the risks of drinking and driving and sexually transmitted
diseases.
Steve graduated high school in 2008 and enrolled at City College of
San Francisco to pursue a career in nursing. City College of San
Francisco awarded Steve the Goldman Scholarship to cover the cost of
his tuition. Steve has continued his active involvement in his
community, joining the Asian American Student Success Center, as well
as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program, which
is a 2-year outreach and educational support program.
Steve continued his commitment to academic achievement when he
attended the San Francisco State University Summer Science Institute,
which provided a year-long internship to prepare him for a career in
health care upon his graduation from college.
Educators working with Steve highlight his potential for giving back
to the United States, while Steve's friends and other community members
have contacted me about the impact his compassion and helpfulness has
had on the community. Steve's teachers call him a ``great student,''
``hard working,'' ``an exceptional student,'' and ``goal directed.''
This private bill is an opportunity for Steve to finish his education
and remain in the country he considers his only home. If he were forced
to relocate to Peru, his education would be cut short, and Steve would
be sent to a place where he knows no one. I believe that, by staying in
California, Steve will only continue to serve his community and serve
this country as a health care professional.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 448

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SHING MA ``STEVE''
LI.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any order, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li shall be--
(1) deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained
in, the United States; and
(2) eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for
adjustment of status under section 245 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1255).
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the applications for issuance of an immigrant
visa or for adjustment of status are filed, with appropriate
fees, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa to Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li, the Secretary
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1,
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total
number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives
of the country of the birth of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li under--

[[Page S1137]]

(1) section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
(2) section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)), if
applicable.
(d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 449. A bill for the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing private
relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple
living with their family in Camarillo, California.
Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country
over twelve years ago after being targeted for their religious
involvement in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became
involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and
project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as
the church's training director in human resources.
Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and
abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the
church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her
cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed.
When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by
a member of a different religious organization against raising her
child in a non-Muslim faith.
Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally seeking refuge in
November 1998. They immediately notified authorities of their intent to
seek protection in the United States, filing for political asylum in
May 1999.
However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty
communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and one year later
their asylum application was denied because they could not adequately
establish that they were victims of persecution. Joseph and Sharon
pursued the appropriate means for appealing this decision, to no avail.
It should be noted that sometime later Sharon's brother applied for
asylum in the United States. He, too, applied on the basis of
persecution he and his family faced in Egypt, but his application was
approved and he was granted this status in the United States.
There are no other avenues for Joseph and Sharon to pursue relief
here in the United States. If they are deported, they will be forced
back to a country where they sincerely fear for their safety.
Since arriving in the United States more than twelve years ago,
Joseph and Sharon have built a family here, including four children who
are United States citizens: Jessica, age 12, Rebecca, age 11, Rafael,
age 10, and Veronica, age 6. Jessica, Rebecca, and Rafael attend school
in California and maintain good grades. Veronica is attending
kindergarten at Camarillo Heights Elementary School.
Joseph and Sharon worked hard to achieve financial security for their
children, and they created a meaningful place for their family in
California. Both earned college degrees in Egypt. Joseph, who has his
Certified Public Accountant license, has been working in the accounting
department for a technology company in California.
Joseph also volunteers for his son's Boy Scout Troop, and has
expressed interest in pursuing opportunities as an Arabic language
expert here in the United States. Joseph and Sharon carry strong
support from friends, co-workers, members of their local church, and
other Californians who attest to their good character and community
contributions.
I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and
unwarranted hardships if forced to relocate to Egypt. For Jessica,
Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United
States. It is quite possible these four American children would face
discrimination or worse in Egypt on account of their religion, as was
the experience of many of their family members.
Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United
States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their
children and making a healthy and productive place for them to grow up
in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill
on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 449

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel shall
each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and
remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an
application for such adjustment of status.
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra and Sharon
Kamel, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of Joseph
Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 203(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if
applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made
available to natives to the country of birth of Joseph Gabra
and Sharon Kamel under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C.
1152(e)).
(d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 450. A bill for the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to reintroduce
private relief legislation on behalf of Jacqueline Coats, a widow
living in the San Francisco Bay Area. I rise today to ask my colleagues
to support this legislation in the 112th Congress, which would provide
Jacqueline with the extraordinary relief I believe she deserves.
Jacqueline came to the United States from Kenya in 2001 on a student
visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. In
January 2002, based on the advice she received from a college advisor,
Jacqueline attempted to transfer to City College of San Francisco,
which required her to file for reinstatement. However, the request for
reinstatement was denied in October 2002, and Jacqueline's immigration
status lapsed the following year.
Jacqueline married Marlin Coats, an American citizen, on April 17,
2006, at San Francisco City Hall. But not even a month after the
marriage, on May 13, 2006, Jacqueline's husband died while heroically
attempting to save two boys from drowning at Ocean Beach in San
Francisco. The two children survived with the help of a rescue crew,
but Mr. Coats was caught in a riptide and died. The sudden and
unexpected loss of her husband devastated Jacqueline.
Unfortunately, a loophole in U.S. immigration laws meant that
Jacqueline's status in the United States was suddenly in jeopardy due
to the death of her husband. Jacqueline and her husband had prepared
and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office
just four days before Mr. Coats died. However, the petition did not get
filed until after his death, meaning it could no longer be considered
valid.
Jacqueline very likely would have received permanent residence in the
United States were it not for the abrupt death of Mr. Coats. At the
time, Jacqueline received a medal honoring her husband's heroic
actions. The San

[[Page S1138]]

Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Police Department,
and the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP all passed resolutions in
support of her remaining in the United States.
In 2009, I co-sponsored legislation known as the Fairness to
Surviving Spouses Act to address this hole in U.S. immigration laws
that creates unnecessary hardship for foreign-born men and women--like
Jacqueline--whose immigration status is at risk when the sponsoring
U.S. citizen spouse dies. I do not believe our immigration system
should penalize individuals whose earnest efforts to become permanent
legal residents of this country are cut short when their sponsoring
spouse dies.
I was pleased that the President signed the Fairness to Surviving
Spouses Act into law as part of a Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill on October 28, 2009. U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services is now implementing this law, which allows widows
of American citizens to continue to petition for permanent residency as
long as they can prove that they entered into their marriage in good
faith. Jacqueline may be eligible for this form of relief; however, I
believe that a private bill remains necessary until this process can be
finalized.
Jacqueline has been a hard-working employee for a transit company in
Oakland, California, since 2004. She is taking three classes at St.
Mary's College, and she remains close with the family of her late
husband. For Jacqueline, the Coats family here in the United States has
become her own.
Ramona Burton, one of Mr. Coats' siblings, wrote in a letter to me:
``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American
Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her
there. She needs to be there.'' Another concerned California
constituent wrote to me that common fairness, morality and decency''
should be the standards by which we view this case. I agree. Despite
the tragedy of losing her husband, Jacqueline continues to work hard,
take classes, and integrate herself within her community.
Without some form of relief, Jacqueline will be deported to Kenya, a
country she has not lived in since she was 21 years old. This is never
what her late husband, a citizen of the United States, intended.
I believe Congress should honor this family by granting Jacqueline
permanent residency in the United States. I urge my colleagues to give
consideration to Jacqueline and to support this private relief
immigration bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 450

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JACQUELINE W. COATS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be eligible for issuance of
an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jacqueline W. Coats enters
the United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be considered to
have entered and remained lawfully in the United States and
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jacqueline W.
Coats, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of
Jacqueline W. Coats under section 203(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 451. A bill for the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to
reintroduce private relief legislation for Claudia Marquez Rico. I
first introduced a private bill for Claudia back in 2006. This young
woman has lived in California for most of her life. She suffered
tremendous hardship after the sudden death of her parents more than ten
years ago. I believe she deserves the special relief granted by a
private bill.
Claudia was born in Jalisco, Mexico. She was only 6 years old when
her parents brought her, and her two younger brothers, to the United
States.
Ten years ago, tragedy struck this family. Early in the morning on
October 4, 2000, while driving to work, Claudia's parents were killed
in a horrific car accident when their vehicle collided with a truck on
a rural road.
Suddenly orphaned, Claudia and her siblings were fortunate enough to
have a place to go. They were welcomed into the loving home of their
aunt, Hortencia, and uncle, Patricio, who are both United States
citizens. Hortencia and Patricio are active at Buen Pastor Catholic
Church. Patricio is a youth soccer coach. This couple raised the
Marquez children as their own, counseling them through the loss of
their parents and helping them with their school work. They became the
legal guardians of the Marquez children in 2001.
Claudia likely would have resolved her immigration status, were it
not for poor legal representation. The death of the Marquez parents
meant that Claudia and her siblings should have qualified for special
immigrant juvenile status. Congress created this special immigrant
status to protect children under extraordinary circumstances and spare
them the hardship of deportation when a state court deems the children
to be dependents as a result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In
fact, Claudia's younger brother, Omar, was granted this special
immigrant juvenile status, providing him legal permanent residency.
However, the lawyer for the Marquez children failed to secure this
relief for Claudia. She has now reached the age of majority without
having resolved her immigration status, making her ineligible for this
special relief.
It is important to take note that the lawyer who handled this case
currently faces charges on numerous counts of professional incompetence
and moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases. The California
State Bar accused him of a ``despicable and far-reaching pattern of
misconduct.'' The Bar sought to disbar the attorney before he resigned
with pending charges.
Claudia deserved a fair chance at resolving her immigration status,
but her attorney's egregious behavior stripped her of this opportunity.
Claudia, nonetheless, finished school despite these adverse
circumstances. She secured a job in Redwood City, California, and she
currently lives with her younger sister, Maribel, in Menlo Park, where
they care for their grandfather. Claudia also provides financial
support to her two brothers, Jose and Omar, whenever necessary. She is
still active in the local community, attending San Clemente Catholic
Church in Hayward.
It would be an injustice to add to the Marquez family's misfortune by
tearing these siblings apart. Claudia and her siblings have come to
rely on each other in the absence of their deceased parents, and
Claudia is clearly a central support of this family. Moreover, Claudia
has never visited Mexico and has no close relatives in the country. She
was so young when her parents brought her to the United States that she
has no memories of Mexico.
I am reintroducing a private relief bill on Claudia's behalf because
I believe her removal from the United

[[Page S1139]]

States would go against our standard of fairness and would only cause
additional hardship on a family that already endured so much.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief
legislation on behalf of Claudia Marquez Rico.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 451

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA MARQUEZ
RICO.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligible for issuance of
an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Claudia Marquez Rico enters
the United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and
remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, shall be
eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Claudia
Marquez Rico, the Secretary of State shall instruct the
proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or
subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas
that are made available to natives of the country of birth of
Claudia Marquez Rico under section 203(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Claudia Marquez Rico under
section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for
Certain Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and
sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico shall not, by virtue of such
relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.).
(f) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 452. A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria
Del Refugio Plascencia; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to
provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez
and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live
in the San Bruno area of California.
I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their five children, all
United States citizens, would face extreme hardship. Their children
would either face separation from their parents or be forced to leave
the only country they know and give up on their education in the United
States.
The Plascencias have been in the United States for over 20 years.
They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal
channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities. The
Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise
communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial
immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them.
Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo and Maria
only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States
fifteen days prior to their scheduled deportation.
The Plascencias were shocked to learn of their attorney's
malfeasance, but they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to
file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine
if any other legal action could be taken.
Since arriving in the United States in 1988, Alfredo and Maria have
proven themselves a civic-minded couple who share our American values
of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community.
For over 15 years, Alfredo has been gainfully employed at Vince's
Shellfish, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled
him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the
market's entire packing operation and several employees.
The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I
received in support of Alfredo, referred to him as ``a valuable and
respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional
manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who
have written to me praising Alfredo's job performance refer to him as
``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.''
Maria has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser
Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a
maid at a local hotel, she went to school, earned her high school
equivalency degree, and improved her skills to become a medical
assistant. She is now in a program to become a Licensed Vocational
Nurse. She plans to graduate next year and start a nursing program with
Kaiser to become a registered nurse.
Several Californians who wrote to me in support of Maria describe her
as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' Kaiser
Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine wrote to say that Maria is
``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans
extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and]
involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of
the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.''
Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes to
realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up
and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits,
and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their
daughter, Christina, age 19, to college and plan to send the rest of
their children to college as well.
Allowing the Plascencias to remain in the United States would
preserve their achievements and ensure that they will be able to make
substantive contributions to the community in the future.
In addition, this bill will have a positive impact on the couple's
United States citizen children, who are dedicated to pursuing their
educations and becoming productive members of their community.
Christina is the Plascencias' oldest child. She is 20 years old,
working and taking classes at Skyline Community College and the College
of San Mateo. She would like to be a paralegal. Erika, age 16, attends
Peninsula High School in San Bruno and was recently named Student of
the Month. Erika's teachers praise her abilities and have referred to
her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom.
Alfredo and Maria also have three young children: Alfredo, Jr., age
14, Daisy, age 9, and Juan-Pablo, age 5.
Removing Alfredo and Maria from the United States would be tragic for
their children. The Plascencia children were born in America and
through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that
has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.
It would be especially tragic if Erika, Alfredo, and Daisy have to
leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they
are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their
home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them.
The Plascencia family would then be in Mexico without a means for
supporting themselves and with no place to live. The children would
have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life.
The only other option would be for Alfredo and Maria to leave their
children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no
parents should have to make.
I am reintroducing this legislation because I believe that the
Plascencias will continue to make positive contributions to their
community in California and this country. The Plascencia

[[Page S1140]]

children should be given the opportunity to realize their full
potential in the United States, with their family intact.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 452

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALFREDO PLASCENCIA
LOPEZ AND MARIA DEL REFUGIO PLASCENCIA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio
Plascencia shall each be eligible for the issuance of an
immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Alfredo Plascencia Lopez or
Maria Del Refugio Plascencia enter the United States before
the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Alfredo
Plascencia Lopez or Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, as
appropriate, shall be considered to have entered and remained
lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of
immigrant visas or the application for adjustment of status
are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas or permanent residence to Alfredo
Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, the
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to
reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year,
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available
to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo Plascencia
Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under section 203(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or,
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo
Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 454. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse under Medicare, Medicaid and
CHIP, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee held
a hearing to discuss the serious problems of fraud in Medicare and
Medicaid. Over the last 9 years, the Finance Committee has held more
than 20 oversight hearings dealing with Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
These hearings highlighted the flaws in how the Federal Government
administers Medicare and Medicaid. They also stress the need to create
disincentives for those who seek to defraud these vital programs.
Every dollar lost to Medicare or Medicaid fraud is a dollar that is
not available for beneficiaries. Of course, we ought to be very
cognizant of that considering the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. In
2009, the Federal Government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379
billion on Medicaid. It is estimated that between $40 billion and $70
billion was lost to fraud that year. However, officials from the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice
announced last month that their health care fraud prevention and
enforcement efforts recovered $4 billion in fraud. So compare that $4
billion with the $44 billion to $70 billion, and it means we still have
a very long way to go.
When it comes to public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it is
clear the Federal Government needs to be more effective in combating
waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Government has simply made it too
easy for bad actors to steal from each of these programs. It says a lot
when we hear that organized crime has moved into health care fraud
because it is more lucrative than organized crime. Medicare and
Medicaid also attract more criminals because the profits of fraud
greatly outweigh the consequences if you get caught. Then there are
those who don't even get caught.
Taxpayer dollars should only go to bona fide providers and medical
suppliers. But the reimbursement system is set up so that the Federal
Government pays first and asks questions later. In other words, the
system is based on a program we call the pay-and-chase system.
Over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more
authority to improve enforcement of fraud, waste, and abuse laws.
During health care reform, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan
set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Many of
these proposals are in the bill I introduced in the last Congress, S.
2964, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health
Care Act, and many were even included in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act. These provisions did not draw opposition from
either side of the aisle.
Tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas
where there is widespread agreement. But our work does not end with the
passage of legislation. Congress needs to keep the pressure on Federal
officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud.
There is also more Congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the
government's ability to fight this fraud. We need to ensure that
phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers
cannot simply bill Medicare millions of dollars in just a few months
and then get out of town scot-free. Health and Human Services and the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to use the tools already
available to them to make sure claims are legitimate before they are
paid.
But even with all of that, we must remain vigilant in our oversight
efforts, which is the constitutional responsibility of the legislative
branch of government, because tomorrow's criminals will find ways to
get around the laws and regulations we put in place today. That is why
I am introducing the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability
in Health Care Act of 2011. This bill contains the remaining proposals
from S. 2964 that are necessary to enhance the government's ability to
combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It builds on reforms we made in the
last Congress.
The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to
the public similar to other Federal spending disclosed through
www.USAspending
.gov. This Web site lists almost all Federal spending, but it doesn't
include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually
every other government program, including even some defense spending,
is more transparent, or responds to the citizens' right to know, than
spending by the Medicare Program. So that differential between defense
spending and most other government programs and what we allow the
public to know about the Medicare tax dollars being spent is too big of
a gap and one we should not tolerate anymore because a taxpayer dollar
spent on Medicare isn't any different from the public's right to know
about a taxpayer dollar spent on defense programs. Let's say even for
this Senator, with my background in farming and participating in a
family farm operation, the public can read in the newspapers of Iowa,
as they can for every State, the amount of money a certain Senator--or
I shouldn't say Senator--a certain farmer gets from the farm program.
It is all taxpayers' dollars.
In addition, this bill also goes on to create a national
clearinghouse of information so that we can better detect, prevent, and
thereby deter medical identity theft. This is about the Federal
Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the
taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system.
The bill would also change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay
providers quickly regardless of the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Under current law, the government is required to

[[Page S1141]]

make payments for what is called a clean claim within 14 to 30 days
before interest accrues on the claim. That is not enough time for the
limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if a claim is
legitimate before a payment has to be made. The result is that this
what we call prompt-payment rule requires that Medicare pay bad actors
first and ask questions later, which leads to that pay-and-chase system
I previously mentioned.
So this bill would add to the tools Congress provided to the
executive branch last year to prevent fraudulent payment on the front
end. It would extend the time payments must be made if the Secretary of
Health and Human Services determines there is a likelihood of fraud,
waste, and abuse.
In addition, the bill would expand the Health and Human Services
inspector general's authority to exclude an individual from
participating in the Federal health care program. I wish to give an
example. The inspector general would be able to exclude an individual
if the individual had ownership or control interests in an entity at
the time the entity engaged in misconduct such as health care fraud.
Now, I know that is common sense to the taxpayers of America, but it is
not something the inspector general can do today.
I still have other areas my bill addresses, and one is in the area of
illegal, unapproved drugs. Just last week, the Los Angeles Times
reported that the Food and Drug Administration is struggling to keep
unapproved drugs off the market. It reported that ``in many cases, the
agency doesn't even know what the drugs are or where they are.'' This
is another example of how the Federal reimbursement system creates an
incentive for bad actors to get around the rules.
In this case, those rules are the Food and Drug Administration
requirements for putting a drug on the market.
Medicaid pays until the Food and Drug Administration identifies a
drug or class of drugs as not approved for marketing and then takes
formal action.
Under such circumstances, the Federal Government doesn't even have
the option to chase after the previous payments.
My bill would stop such payments, unless the State Medicaid Programs
first verify with the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is
being legally marketed.
Again, that may sound like common sense, but it is something that
can't be done without a change in the law.
The changes I am proposing would go a long way to deter those who
would defraud our health care system. It also would provide greater
protections to the taxpayers.
Fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is vital to
the sustainability of each program. My bill will help add to the
reforms we passed last year. It will fix some of the blatant problems
that incentivize and reward waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 100 million
Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance.
Right now, these programs, as we all know--every Member of the Senate
knows and most of the public knows--these programs are on an
unsustainable path. My bill takes necessary steps to move these
programs toward sustainability.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help me by
cosponsoring it.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 455. A bill to promote development and opportunity with regards to
spectrum occupancy and use, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to
re-introduce comprehensive spectrum reform legislation to modernize our
nation's radio spectrum planning, management, and coordination
activities. Taking this corrective action will allow us to meet the
future telecommunications needs of all spectrum users. For consumers,
these fixes will lead to additional choices, greater innovation, lower
prices, and more reliable services.
Over the past year, there has been growing concern about a looming
radio spectrum crisis. It is not without reason--growth and innovation
within spectrum-based services have exploded over the past decade. In
particular, the cellular industry has been a prominent driver of this
expansion. Currently, there are more than 290 million wireless
subscribers in the U.S., and American consumers use more than 6.4
billion minutes of air time per day.
While the foundation for wireless services has been voice
communication, more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband through
the use of smartphones and netbooks--smartphones actually outsold
personal computers in the last quarter of 2010. According to the Pew
Research Center, 56 percent of adult Americans have accessed the
Internet via a wireless device. ABI Research forecasts there will be
150 million mobile broadband subscribers by 2014--a 2,900 percent
increase from 2007. Spectrum is so important that both the Federal
Communications Commission and the President have made it a priority to
find additional spectrum for wireless broadband so providers have the
necessary capacity to meet the growing demand of consumers and
businesses alike.
There are constraints however, spectrum is a finite resource, and we
cannot manufacture new spectrum. Making matters worse, the government's
current spectrum management framework is inefficient and has not kept
up with technological advancements. As evidence, the Government
Accountability Office, in a series of reports, concluded ``the current
structure and management of spectrum use in the U.S. does not encourage
the development and use of some spectrum efficient technologies.''
The legislation we are re-introducing today fixes the fundamental
deficiencies that exist in spectrum management and promotes efforts to
improve spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Reforming Airwaves by
Developing Incentives and Opportunistic Sharing, RADIOS, Act tasks the
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
NTIA, to conduct the fundamental first step of a comprehensive
inventory of radio spectrum and to perform much-needed spectrum
measurements to determine actual usage and occupancy rates. This data
would provide decision makers at the FCC, NTIA, and Congress a clearer,
more detailed, and up-to-date understanding of how spectrum is
currently being used and by whom--data essential to sound policy
decisions and spectrum management.
The bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis of spectrum relocation
opportunities to move certain incumbent users and services to more
efficient spectrum bands. Many legacy wireless services could employ
newer technologies to provide more efficient use of spectrum. The
legislation would also establish Wi-Fi hot-spots and allow the
installation of wireless antenna systems and base stations, such as
femtocells, in all publicly accessible Federal buildings as well as
streamline Federal rights-of-way and wireless tower sitings on Federal
buildings. Such efforts would improve wireless and broadband coverage
for Americans and also result in lower costs to taxpayers since
spectrum would be utilized more effectively by Federal agencies.
In addition, my bill requires greater collaboration between the FCC
and NTIA on spectrum policy and management related issues,
implementation of spectrum sharing and reuse programs, as well as more
market-based incentives to promote efficient spectrum use. It also sets
a deadline for the creation of the National Strategic Spectrum Plan,
which will provide a long-term vision for domestic spectrum use and
strategies to meet those needs. While the National Broadband Plan
touches on several of these areas, this legislation will provide
greater assistance in developing the 21st Century comprehensive
spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all
users.
It should be noted the RADIOS Act is intended to complement the
National Broadband Plan and the recently announced Presidential
Wireless Initiative in promoting more efficient use of spectrum and
ensuring that the proper framework is in place to meet America's future
telecommunications needs. But it also encourages greater focus on other
areas outside the Plan and the Initiative by promoting technological
innovation and more robust spectrum management.

[[Page S1142]]

Senator Kerry and I envision this legislation to be a supplement to
other legislative efforts related to spectrum. And we look forward to
working with our colleagues in the Senate and with all stakeholders to
advance comprehensive 21st Century spectrum policy necessary to meet
the future spectrum needs of all users.
Our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security demand
that we allocate the necessary attention to this policy shortcoming--it
is the only way we will be able to avert a looming spectrum crisis and
continue to realize the boundless benefits of spectrum-based services.
That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Kerry
and me in supporting this critical legislation.
______

By Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Lee, and
Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin):
S. 460. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Education from
promulgating or enforcing regulations or guidance regarding gainful
employment; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues,
Senators Coburn, DeMint, Johnson and Lee, in introducing the Education
for All Act. This important piece of legislation would preserve
educational and economic opportunities for all Americans.
The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new ``gainful
employment'' rules that would deny federal financial aid to students
who attend proprietary colleges and vocational certificate programs.
These rules would disqualify students from receiving federal education
loans if their chosen programs do not meet a complex formula comparing
student debt to future earning potential. Why should students be
discouraged from attending a school they want or a profession they
chose because of Washington bureaucrats?
The bill I am introducing today would prohibit these regulations from
going into effect.
The ``gainful employment'' rules could deny hundreds of thousands of
students access to the training and skills development they need to
secure a job in today's troubled economy. There is high demand in some
sectors for highly skilled workers and propriety schools are uniquely
qualified to meet the training needs of these employers. It is simply
irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of
students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should
be the administration's number one priority.
Further, the ``gainful employment'' rules will disproportionately
harm low-income and minority students. These students often depend more
heavily on education loans regardless of the type of institution they
attend and take longer to repay.
The rules would also significantly impact health care programs.
Nearly half of all health care workers are trained at proprietary
schools. With an aging baby boom population, demand for trained health
care providers is already critical and will only get worse. President
Obama's health care law adds to this burden as well. We ought to be
expanding educational capacity for health care workers, not enacting
regulations that threaten access.
In short, this legislation will preserve educational and economic
opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 460

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Education for All Act of
2011''.

SEC. 2. GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Education may not use any Federal funds to--
(1) implement, administer, or enforce the final regulations
on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment--New Programs''
published by the Department of Education in the Federal
Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66665 et seq.);
(2) issue a final rule or otherwise implement the proposed
rule on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment'' published
by the Department of Education on July 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg.
43616 et seq.);
(3) implement, administer, or enforce section 668.6 of
title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, (relating to gainful
employment), as amended by the final regulations published by
the Department of Education in the Federal Register on
October 29, 2010 (75 Fed Reg. 66832 et seq.); or
(4) promulgate or enforce any new regulation or rule with
respect to the definition or application of the term
``gainful employment'' under the Higher Education Act of 1965
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Brown
of Ohio):
S. 462. A bill to better protect, serve, and advance the rights of
victims of elder abuse and exploitation by establishing a program to
encourage States and other qualified entities to create jobs designed
to hold offenders accountable, enhance the capacity of the justice
system to investigate, pursue, and prosecute elder abuse cases,
identify existing resources to leverage to the extent possible, and
assure data collection, research, and evaluation to promote the
efficacy and efficiency of the activities described in this Act; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Blumenthal,
Sherrod Brown, Casey, Gillibrand, Mikulski and Bill Nelson to introduce
the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2011. This legislation creates in the
Department of Justice an Office of Elder Justice, OEJ, that will
protect America's seniors by strengthening law enforcement's response
to elder abuse. The OEJ will provide leadership, training materials and
other needed information to prosecutors, law enforcement, adult
protective services and others, in order to build a robust
infrastructure to effectively address elder abuse. Additionally, the
bill will encourage states to set up multidisciplinary teams where
information and resources are shared in order to better serve the
victims of elder abuse.
The plight of vulnerable seniors is a subject of great concern. Elder
abuse is often hidden from sight by the victims themselves. Even so,
experts conservatively estimate that as many as two million Americans
age 65 and older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated
by someone on whom they depend for care or protection.
As Federal policymakers, it is time that we step forward and tackle
this challenge with dedicated efforts and more vigorous programs that
will make fighting elder abuse as important a priority as ongoing
efforts to counter child abuse.
We need to provide assistance to our courts, which would benefit from
having access to designated staff that has particular knowledge and
expertise in elder abuse. Specialized protocols may be required where
victims are unable to testify on their own behalf, due to cognitive
impairments or poor physical health. And there is a great need for
specialized knowledge that will support successful prosecutions and
enhance the development of case law. Today, many state elder abuse
statutes lack adequate provisions to encourage wide reporting of abuse
and exploitation, more thorough investigations, and greater prosecution
of abuse cases.
For the victims of elder abuse, many of whom are physically frail and
very frightened, we must do much more. First and foremost, we must be
more responsive. Not too long ago, it was difficult to even get an
abuse case investigated. While that is starting to change, we have much
more work to do. Sometimes, for example, emergency interventions may be
needed, particularly if the older person is being harmed at the hands
of family members or trusted ``friends.'' It may be necessary to remove
the older adult from his or her home to a temporary safe haven. To do
this, we must build a much more robust infrastructure.
This legislation, strongly supported by the Elder Justice Coalition,
will go a long way toward improving the ability of law enforcement,
prosecutors and other government agencies to respond to abuse of older
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.

[[Page S1143]]

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 462

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Elder Abuse Victims Act of
2011''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the terms ``abuse'', ``elder'', ``elder justice'',
``exploitation'', and ``neglect'' have the meanings given
those terms in section 2011 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397j);
(2) the term ``elder abuse'' includes neglect and
exploitation;
(3) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office
appointed under section 3(b);
(4) the term ``Office'' means the Office of Elder Justice
established under section 3(a);
(5) the term ``State'' means each of the several States of
the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and any other territory of possession of the
United States; and
(6) the term ``task force'' means a multidisciplinary task
force on elder justice established or designated under
section 5(c)(1).

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF ELDER JUSTICE.

(a) In General.--There is established within the Department
of Justice a office to be known as the Office of Elder
Justice, which shall address issues relating to elder abuse.
(b) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director who
shall--
(1) be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, from among individuals with
experience and expertise in elder abuse; and
(2) serve as counsel to the Attorney General on elder
justice and elder abuse.
(c) Responsibilities.--The Director shall--
(1) create, compile, evaluate, and disseminate materials
and information, and provide the necessary training and
technical assistance, to assist States and units of local
government in--
(A) investigating, prosecuting, pursuing, preventing,
understanding, and mitigating the impact of--
(i) physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of elders;
(ii) exploitation of elders, including financial abuse and
scams targeting elders; and
(iii) neglect of elders; and
(B) assessing, addressing, and mitigating the physical and
psychological trauma to victims of elder abuse;
(2) collect data and perform an evidence-based evaluation
to--
(A) assure the efficacy of measures and methods intended to
prevent, detect, respond to, or redress elder abuse; and
(B) evaluate the number of victims of elder abuse in each
State and the extent to which the needs of the victims are
served by crime victim services, programs, and sources of
funding;
(3) publish a report, on an annual basis, that describes
the results of the evaluations conducted under paragraphs (1)
and (2), and submit the report to each Federal agency, each
State, and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Special
Committee on Aging of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives;
(4) evaluate training models to determine best practices,
create replication guides, create training materials, if
necessary, for law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges,
emergency responders, individuals working in victim services,
adult protective services, social services, and public
safety, medical personnel, mental health personnel, financial
services personnel, and any other individuals whose work may
bring them in contact with elder abuse regarding how to--
(A) conduct investigations in elder abuse cases;
(B) address evidentiary issues and other legal issues; and
(C) appropriately assess, respond to, and interact with
victims and witnesses in elder abuse cases, including in
administrative, civil, and criminal judicial proceedings;
(5) conduct, and update on a regular basis, a study of laws
and practices relating to elder abuse, neglect, and
exploitation, including--
(A) a comprehensive description of State laws and
practices;
(B) an analysis of the effectiveness of State laws and
practices, including--
(i) whether the State laws are enforced; and
(ii) if enforced--

(I) how the State laws are enforced; and
(II) how enforcement of the State laws has effected elder
abuse within the State;

(C) a review of State definitions of the terms ``abuse'',
``neglect'', and ``exploitation'' in the context of elder
abuse cases;
(D) a review of State laws that mandate reporting of elder
abuse, including adult protective services laws, laws that
require the reporting of nursing home deaths or suspicious
deaths of elders to coroners or medical examiners, and other
pertinent reporting laws, that analyzes--
(i) the impact and efficacy of the State laws;
(ii) whether the State laws are enforced;
(iii) the levels of compliance with the State laws; and
(iv) the response to, and actions taken as a result of,
reports made under the State laws;
(E) a review of State evidentiary, procedural, sentencing,
choice of remedies, and data retention issues relating to
elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation;
(F) a review of State fiduciary laws, including law
relating to guardianship, conservatorship, and power of
attorney;
(G) a review of State laws that permit or encourage
employees of depository institutions (as defined in section
3(c)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813(c)(1)) and State credit unions (as defined in section
101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)) to
prevent and report suspected elder abuse, neglect, and
exploitation;
(H) a review of State laws used in civil court proceedings
to prevent and address elder abuse;
(I) a review of State laws relating to fraud and related
activities in connection with mail, telemarketing, the
Internet, or health care;
(J) a review of State laws that create programs, offices,
entities, or other programs that address or respond to elder
abuse; and
(K) an analysis of any other State laws relating to elder
abuse; and
(6) carry out such other duties as the Attorney General
determines necessary in connection with enhancing the
understanding, prevention, detection, and response to elder
abuse.

SEC. 4. DATA COLLECTION.

The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, shall, on an annual basis--
(1) collect from Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies and prosecutor offices statistical data relating to
the incidence of elder abuse, including data relating to--
(A) the number of elder abuse cases referred to law
enforcement agencies, adult protective services, or any other
State entity tasked with addressing elder abuse;
(B) the number and types of cases filed in Federal, State,
and local courts; and
(C) the outcomes of the cases described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) and the reasons for such outcomes;
(2) identify common data points among Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies and prosecutor offices that
would allow for the collection of uniform national data;
(3) publish a summary of the data collected under
paragraphs (1) and (2);
(4) identify--
(A) the types of data relevant to elder abuse that should
be collected; and
(B) what entity is most capable of collecting the data
described in subparagraph (A); and
(5) develop recommendations for collecting additional data
relating to elder abuse.

SEC. 5. ELDER VICTIMS GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Director may make grants and provide
technical assistance to not more than 15 States to assist the
States in developing, establishing, and operating programs
designed to improve--
(1) the response to cases of elder abuse in a manner that
limits additional trauma to the elder victims; and
(2) the investigation and prosecution of cases of elder
abuse.
(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant
under this section if the State--
(1) has a crime victims compensation program that meets the
criteria described in section 1403(b) of the Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602(b)); and
(2) is in compliance with subsection (c).
(c) Establishment of Task Force.--
(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, a State shall establish or, subject to
paragraph (5), designate a multidisciplinary task force on
elder justice that is composed of professionals with
knowledge and experience relating to the criminal justice
system and issues of elder abuse.
(2) Membership requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (6), a task force shall include--
(A) representatives from law enforcement agencies, such as
police officers, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, detectives,
public safety officers, corrections officers, investigators
and victims' service personnel;
(B) a representative from the crime victim compensation
program of the State;
(C) judicial and legal officers, including individuals who
work on cases of elder abuse;
(D) elder justice and elder law advocates, including local
agencies on aging and local public and private agencies and
entities relating to elder abuse and other crimes against
elders;
(E) health and mental health professionals;
(F) representatives from social services agencies in the
State;
(G) representatives from adult protective services; and
(H) family members of victims of elder abuse.
(3) Review and evaluation.--A task force shall--
(A) review and evaluate the investigative, administrative,
and judicial responses to cases of elder abuse in the State;
(B) make recommendations to the State based on the review
and evaluation conducted under subparagraph (A), including
recommendations relating to--
(i) modifying the investigative, administrative, and
judicial response to cases of elder abuse, in a manner that--

(I) reduces the additional trauma to the elder victim; and

[[Page S1144]]

(II) ensures procedural fairness to the individual accused
of elder abuse; and

(ii) experimental, model, and demonstration programs for
testing innovative approaches and techniques that may improve
the rate of successful prosecution or enhance the
effectiveness of judicial and administrative action in elder
abuse cases, and which ensure procedural fairness to the
accused, including a determination of which programs are most
effective; and
(C) submit the recommendations described in subparagraph
(B) to the Office.
(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after a State receives
grant funds under this section, the State shall submit to the
Director a report that includes--
(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant
program;
(B) a list of all laws of the State relating to elder
abuse; and
(C) any other information the Director may require.
(5) Task force alternative.--If determined appropriate by
the Director, a State may designate a commission or task
force established by a State before January 1, 2011, with
membership and functions comparable to those described in
paragraphs (2) and (3), as a task force for the purposes of
this subsection.
(6) Task force membership waiver.--The Director may waive,
in part, the task force membership requirements under
paragraph (2) for a State that demonstrates a need for the
waiver.
(d) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
may be used to support--
(1) State and local prosecutor offices and courts in elder
abuse matters, including--
(A) hiring or paying salary and benefits for employees and
establishing or implementing units designated to work on
elder justice issues in State prosecutors' offices and State
courts; and
(B) hiring or paying salary and benefits for an employee to
coordinate elder justice-related cases, training, technical
assistance, and policy development for State and local
prosecutors and courts;
(2) State and local law enforcement agencies investigating
cases of elder abuse; and
(3) adult protective services.
(e) Evaluation and Report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date on which the Director makes available the final funds
awarded under a grant under this section, the Director
shall--
(1) evaluate the grant program established under this
section; and
(2) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the evaluation conducted under paragraph (1),
including recommendations on whether the grant program should
be continued.

SEC. 6. ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL.

Section 2021(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397k(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``(or the Attorney
General's designee)'' and inserting ``(or the Director of the
Office of Elder Justice)''.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2014.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr.
Brown of Ohio):
S. 464. A bill to establish a grant program to enhance training and
services to prevent abuse in later life; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Blumenthal,
Sherrod Brown, and Casey to introduce the End Abuse in Later Life Act
of 2011. This legislation improves the provisions in the existing
Violence Against Women Act dealing with abuse in later life by
enhancing direct services for victims and increasing the kinds of
experts who participate in multidisciplinary training programs.
Abuse in later life is a sad and growing problem in our society.
Experts conservatively estimate that 14.1 percent of older Americans
have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on
whom they depend for care or protection each year. This type of abuse
is especially disturbing because the victims are often physically
frail, defenseless, and very frightened.
It is time that we take action on the Federal level to protect older
Americans who fall victim to physical, financial, sexual and emotional
abuse. We can do this by training law enforcement, prosecutors,
governmental agencies, victim advocates, and relevant court officers to
recognize and address instances of abuse in later life. This
legislation also encourages cross-training of these groups and
multidisciplinary collaborative community efforts in order to better
serve victims.
By passing this legislation, we will ensure that abuse later in life
is given the serious consideration it deserves and make great strides
to protect one of the most vulnerable populations in America. I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 464

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``End Abuse in Later Life Act
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED TRAINING AND SERVICES TO END ABUSE IN LATER
LIFE.

(a) In General.--Subtitle H of the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14041 et seq.) is amended to read as
follows:

``Subtitle H--Enhanced Training and Services to End Abuse Later in Life

``SEC. 40801. ENHANCED TRAINING AND SERVICES TO END ABUSE IN
LATER LIFE.

``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
``(1) provide training, consultation, and information on
abuse in later life, including domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and
neglect;
``(2) create or enhance direct services to victims of abuse
in later life, including domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect; and
``(3) create or support coordinated community response to
abuse in later life, including domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and
neglect.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `exploitation' has the meaning given the
term in the section 2011 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397j);
``(2) the term `later life', relating to an individual,
means the individual is 50 years of age or older; and
``(3) the term `neglect' means the failure of a caregiver
or fiduciary to provide the goods or services that are
necessary to maintain the health or safety of an individual
in later life.
``(c) Grant Program.--
``(1) Grants authorized.--The Attorney General, through the
Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, may make
grants to eligible entities to carry out the activities
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Mandatory and permissible activities.--
``(A) Mandatory activities.--An eligible entity receiving a
grant under this section shall use the funds received under
the grant to--
``(i) provide training programs to assist law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, agencies of States or units of local
government, population-specific organizations, victims
service providers, victim advocates, and relevant officers in
Federal, Tribal, State, Territorial, and local courts in
recognizing and addressing instances of abuse in later life,
including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, exploitation, and neglect;
``(ii) provide or enhance services for victims of abuse in
later life, including domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect;
``(iii) establish or support multidisciplinary
collaborative community responses to victims of abuse in
later life, including domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect; and
``(iv) conduct cross-training for law enforcement agencies,
prosecutors, agencies of States or units of local government,
attorneys, health care providers, population-specific
organizations, faith-based advocates, victims service
providers, and courts to better serve victims of abuse in
later life, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect.
``(B) Permissible activities.--An eligible entity receiving
a grant under this section may use the funds received under
the grant to--
``(i) provide training programs to assist attorneys, health
care providers, faith-based leaders, or other community-based
organizations in recognizing and addressing instances of
abuse in later life, including domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and
neglect; and
``(ii) conducting outreach activities and public awareness
campaigns to ensure that victims of abuse in later life
(including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect) receive
appropriate assistance.
``(C) Limitation.--An eligible entity receiving a grant
under this section may use not more than 10 percent of the
total funds received under the grant for an activity
described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
``(3) Eligible entities.--An entity shall be eligible to
receive a grant under this section if--
``(A) the entity is--
``(i) a State;
``(ii) a unit of local government;
``(iii) an Indian Tribal government or Tribal organization;
``(iv) a population-specific organization with demonstrated
experience in assisting individuals over 50 years of age;
``(v) a victim service provider with demonstrated
experience in addressing domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking; or

[[Page S1145]]

``(vi) a State, Tribal, or Territorial domestic violence or
sexual assault coalition; and
``(B) the entity demonstrates that the entity is a part of
a multidisciplinary partnership that includes, at a minimum--
``(i) a law enforcement agency;
``(ii) a prosecutor's office;
``(iii) a victim service provider; and
``(iv) a nonprofit program or government agency with
demonstrated experience in assisting individuals in later
life.
``(4) Underserved populations.--In making grants under this
section, the Attorney General shall give priority to
proposals providing population-specific services to racial
and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--
``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2012 through 2016.
``(B) Requirement.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended and
may only be used for the activities described in this
subsection.
``(C) Allocation of funds.--
``(i) Administrative costs.--Of the amount appropriated
pursuant to subparagraph (A) in each fiscal year, the
Attorney General may use not more than 2.5 percent for
administration and monitoring of grants made under this
subsection.
``(ii) Evaluation.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to
subparagraph (A) in each fiscal year the Attorney General may
use not more than 5 percent for contracts or cooperative
agreements with entities with demonstrated expertise in
program evaluation, to evaluate programs under this
subsection.
``(d) Research.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall
conduct research to promote understanding of, prevention of,
and response to abuse in later life, including domestic
violence, sexual abuse, dating violence, stalking,
exploitation, and neglect.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)
$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 40002(a) of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (9);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as
paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the
following:
``(1) Abuse in later life.--The term `abuse in later life'
means any action against a person who is 50 years of age or
older that constitutes the willful--
``(A) infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement,
intimidation, or cruel punishment with resulting physical
harm, pain, or mental anguish; or
``(B) deprivation by a person, including a caregiver, of
goods or services with intent to cause physical harm, mental
anguish, or mental illness.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Correction.--The table of
contents in section 2 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1796)
is amended in the table of contents by inserting after the
item relating to section 40703 the following:

``Subtitle H -- Enhanced Training and Services to End Abuse Later in
Life

``Sec. 40801. Enhance training and services to end abuse later in
life.''.

____________________