Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 39 (Monday, March 18, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 39 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1894-S1908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 584. A bill for the relief of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Olivia
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, Jr. 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
20 years old, Matias, now 3 years old, a daughter Tania Rojas, now age
18, and a granddaughter, Mina Rojas, who is 3 years old.
The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the
United 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, where he worked 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 volunteers with the People Acting in
Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent
crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.
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 four children. Three of the Rojas
children, Alexis, Tanya, and Matias are American citizens. Jorge Rojas,
Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler.
For Alexis, Tanya, Matias and Jorge Jr., 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 24 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his
daughter, Mina. Jorge Jr. graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007.
Alexis, age 20, 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 18, recently graduated
from Del Mar High School and is in her first year at West Valley
College. 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 this private bill legislation 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. 584

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

[[Page S1895]]

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. 585. 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 and a part-time cook at a restaurant in San Francisco. They
have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their
oldest child Adilene, age 24, 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, graduated from Leadership
High School and is now studying at California State University,
Dominguez Hills. 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. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services; however, he cannot apply for permanent residency
because of his immigration history.
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.
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. Adilene 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. 585

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. 586. 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

[[Page S1896]]

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
Plascencia's 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.
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 recently completed school to become a Licensed
Vocational Nurse, and is scheduled to take the Nursing Board
Examination.
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
daughters, Christina and Erika, 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 22 years old,
working and taking classes at Chabot College. She would like to be a
paralegal. Erika, age 18, graduated from high school and is currently
taking classes at Skyline College. 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
16, Daisy, age 11, and Juan-Pablo, age 6.
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 that 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 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. 586

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 Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 587. 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 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
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 3-old son, Arthur, left Armenia soon
thereafter

[[Page S1897]]

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 manager at a car wash in Fresno. He
previously worked as a truck driver for a California trucking company
that described him 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 Armenian School on Saturdays at the church.
I would particularly like to highlight the achievements of 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 22 years old, graduated from the University
of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry. He maintained excellent
grades and was on the Dean's Merit List.
Arthur's brother, Arsen, is 16 years old and a United States citizen.
He currently attends Bullard High School in Fresno, where he does well
in his classes, maintaining a 4.3 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, CA.
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. 587

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. 588. 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, CA, 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 21 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

[[Page S1898]]

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

S. 588

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 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. 589. 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, CA.
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 14, Rebecca, age 13, Rafael,
age 12, and Veronica, age 7. Jessica, Rebecca, and Rafael attend school
in California and maintain good grades. Veronica is attending second
grade 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 opened his own accounting
firm.
Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, 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. 589

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.

[[Page S1899]]

(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. 590. 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
was faced with 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.'' As a result, the lawyer resigned from the Bar and is
currently ineligible to practice law in California.
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 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. 590

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. 591. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria
Elna Cobian 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.
Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20
years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 27, and Cindy, age 22,
also stand to benefit from this legislation.
The other three Arreola children, Robert, age 21, Daniel, age 17, and
Saray, age 16, 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

[[Page S1900]]

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.
Mr. Arreola 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 Special Agricultural Workers or 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 and now has a newborn son.
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, a 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 three-year-
old daughter. Both Nayely and Cindy are barred from adjusting 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. Mrs. Arreola has three
brothers who are American citizens, and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is
an American citizen. 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 mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker,
but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His
business has been successful enough to 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. 591

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. 592. A bill for the relief of 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 Alicia Aranda de Buendia and her daughter, Ana Laura
Buendia Aranda. I believe this family merits Congress' special
consideration.
Mrs. Buendia works season after season in California's labor-
intensive agriculture industry. She currently works for a fruit packing
company in Reedley, California. Mrs. Buendia and her husband have
raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 23, and Alex, age 21,
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 recently graduated with a major in Chicano
Studies and Art.
Remarkably, the Buendias should have been able to correct their
immigration status years ago. 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

[[Page S1901]]

have a strong connection to their local community, as active members of
the Parent Teachers Association and their 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.
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. 592

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 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), 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 Alicia Aranda De Buendia or
Ana Laura Buendia Aranda enter the United States before the
filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 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 Alicia Aranda
De Buendia and Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, the Secretary of
State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2,
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 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
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. 593. A bill for the relief of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been
living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 19
years.
The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the
early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration
against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own
government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several
years later learned that she had contracted HIV.
Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were
able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr.
Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms.
Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being
diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children,
Melody, age 14, and Emmanuel, age 10.
Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated
themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They are
active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.
Mr. Tape is employed as a security guard and unfortunately, in 2002,
he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. While his doctor states that the
cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life-long
surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease.
In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a
certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care
Specialist at a nursing home in San Pablo, California. Ms. Toto
continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her
doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory
monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the
U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately
denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to
imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been
afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with
former President Laurent Gbagbo. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly
believes that his family will be targeted if they return to the Ivory
Coast.
One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to
remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have
on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United
States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that
if the family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will
be forced to enter the army.
This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United
States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they may face
persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would
be devastating to the family. I have received approximately 30 letters
from the church community in support of this family.
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. 593

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 GUY PRIVAT TAPE AND
LOU NAZIE RAYMONDE TOTO.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto 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 Guy Privat Tape or Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto enters the United States before the filing
deadline specified in subsection (c), Guy Privat Tape or Lou
Nazie Raymonde Toto, 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 residence to Guy Privat Tape and
Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto, 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 Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality

[[Page S1902]]

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 Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto 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. 594. 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 19, Ashley, age 15, and Nancy, age 9.
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 23 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
Maintenance Engineer at Full Bloom Baking Company in San Mateo,
California, where he has been an employee for over 19 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 to 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. Ashley, and Nancy
are still in school in California, and Bryan is currently serving in
the U.S. Marine Corps.
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 also works
as a certified health promoter at the Tiburcio 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 the Feed the Hunger Foundation, 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. 594

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 S1903]]

(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. 595. A bill for the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for
the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina
national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 16-
year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of
Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.
I believe Ms. Tan 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. She
faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her
family and jeopardize her safety.
Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she
left to come to the United States. When she 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, Ms. Tan 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.
Ms. Tan'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. She
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, Ms. Tan 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 Ms. Tan 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 Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has
expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try to
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.
Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica
and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic
Church, volunteering at 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 Ms. Tan
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. 595

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 Mr. LEAHY:
S. 597. A bill to ensure the effective administration of criminal
justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, the Supreme Court
issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. That case
affirmed a fundamental principle of our democratic society, that no
person, regardless of economic status, should face prosecution without
the assistance of a lawyer. It is worth pausing today to celebrate
Gideon and the extraordinary idea that in a free society the government
which seeks to convict someone must also assume the cost of providing
an effective defense.
In the last 50 years, we have come a long way in ensuring equal
justice for all Americans and there is much about our criminal justice
system in which to take pride. But we must also be honest and recognize
that in too many courtrooms it is better to be rich and guilty than
poor and innocent. The rich will have competent counsel, but those who
have little often find their lives placed in the hands of underpaid
court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, overworked, inept,
uninterested, or worse.
The bottom line is that the promise made in Gideon remains
unfulfilled. At

[[Page S1904]]

the core of this problem is the fact that too many States still lack
adequate programs for providing effective representation. That failure
results in miscarriages of justice, including wrongful convictions, in
violation of our constitutional obligation to provide effective
assistance of counsel. In his column yesterday in The New York Times,
Lincoln Caplan noted, ``by well-informed estimates, at least 80 percent
of state criminal defendants cannot afford to pay for lawyers and have
to depend on court-appointed counsel.'' A recent article on the front
page of USA Today correctly calls the problem a ``national crisis,''
highlighting one public defender's office in Pennsylvania that has four
investigators to handle its 4,000 cases a year and where some lawyers
have no desk or phone. A similar AP article which ran in the Washington
Post cites additional examples of this ongoing failure of our criminal
justice system, including one public defender in Indianapolis who was
asked to represent 300 clients at a time. I know what it takes to work
a case effectively from my time as a prosecutor, and no lawyer can
provide effective counsel to 300 defendants at once.
We can no longer ignore the disturbing examples discussed in these
articles. We are on notice that a constitutional right is consistently
being violated and, if we are to call ourselves a country of laws, it
is our obligation as a nation, and particularly as the Congress, to
take action and make a change. That is why today, I am introducing the
Gideon's Promise Act of 2013. This legislation takes important new
steps to breathe life into Gideon and ensure the fairness of our
criminal justice system for all participants.
I first introduced this legislation last Congress, as part of the
reauthorization of the Justice For All Act. That law, passed in 2004,
was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation.
It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to
improve the quality of justice in this country and to improve public
confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. I plan to
reintroduce the reauthorization of the Justice for All Act, again,
later this spring and it will include this critical provision to ensure
that our criminal justice system operates effectively and consistent
with our constitutional obligations.
The Gideon's Promise Act takes several important new steps to improve
the quality of the criminal justice system. First, it seeks to
encourage States to adopt a comprehensive approach in using the Federal
funds received through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant, JAG, Program. This will help to ensure that their criminal
justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of
the system work together and receive the resources they need.
Specifically, the bill reinstates a previous requirement of the Byrne
JAG Program that States develop, and update annually, a strategic plan
detailing how grants received under the program will be used to improve
the administration of the criminal justice system. The requirement was
removed from the Byrne JAG grant application several years ago, but
groups representing States and victims have requested that it be
reinstated in order to improve the efficient and effective use of
criminal justice resources. The plan must be formulated in consultation
with local governments and all segments of the criminal justice system.
The Attorney General will also be required to provide technical
assistance to help States formulate their strategic plans.
This legislation also takes important new steps to ensure that all
criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer,
receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the
Department of Justice to assist States that want help developing an
effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes
a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when States are
systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the
Constitution.
This is a reasonable measure that gives the States assistance and
time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive
for States to do so. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the
men and women of law enforcement, and I know that the vast majority of
the time our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively.
I also know that the system only works as it should when each side is
well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. That
realization was reflected in the testimony of District Attorney
Patricia Lykos of Houston that competent defense attorneys are critical
to a prosecutor's job. Our system requires good lawyers on both sides.
Incompetent counsel can result not only in needless and time-consuming
appeals but, far more importantly, can lead to wrongful convictions and
overall distrust in the criminal process.
In working on this legislation, I have also learned that the most
effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most
expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save
States money.
I remain committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system
operates as effectively and fairly as possible. Unfortunately, we are
not there yet. Too often the quality of justice a defendant receives in
our system depends on how much he or she can pay for an attorney. The
Constitution requires that we do better. Americans need and deserve a
criminal justice system that keeps us safe, ensures fairness and
accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our Constitution for all people.
This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal
and I urge all Senators to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
three articles be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 597

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 ``Gideon's Promise Act''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

(a) Strategic Planning.--Section 502 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3752) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``To request
a grant''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) A comprehensive State-wide plan detailing how grants
received under this section will be used to improve the
administration of the criminal justice system, which shall--
``(A) be designed in consultation with local governments,
and all segments of the criminal justice system, including
judges, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, corrections
personnel, and providers of indigent defense services, victim
services, juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs,
community corrections, and reentry services;
``(B) include a description of how the State will allocate
funding within and among each of the uses described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
``(C) describe the process used by the State for gathering
evidence-based data and developing and using evidence-based
and evidence-gathering approaches in support of funding
decisions; and
``(D) be updated every 5 years, with annual progress
reports that--
``(i) address changing circumstances in the State, if any;
``(ii) describe how the State plans to adjust funding
within and among each of the uses described in subparagraphs
(A) through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
``(iii) provide an ongoing assessment of need;
``(iv) discuss the accomplishment of goals identified in
any plan previously prepared under this paragraph; and
``(v) reflect how the plan influenced funding decisions in
the previous year.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) Strategic planning.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General
shall begin to provide technical assistance to States and
local governments requesting support to develop and implement
the strategic plan required under subsection (a)(6).
``(2) Protection of constitutional rights.--Not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Attorney General shall begin to provide technical assistance
to States and local governments, including any agent thereof
with responsibility for administration of justice, requesting
support to meet the obligations established by the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
shall include--
``(A) public dissemination of practices, structures, or
models for the administration of justice consistent with the
requirements of the Sixth Amendment; and
``(B) assistance with adopting and implementing a system
for the administration of justice consistent with the
requirements of the Sixth Amendment.

[[Page S1905]]

``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014
through 2018 to carry out this subsection.''.
(b) Protection of Constitutional Rights.--
(1) Unlawful conduct.--It shall be unlawful for any
governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person
acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct by officials or employees of
any governmental agency with responsibility for the
administration of justice, including the administration of
programs or services that provide appointed counsel to
indigent defendants, that deprives persons of their rights to
assistance of counsel as protected under the Sixth Amendment
and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
(2) Civil action by attorney general.--Whenever the
Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney
General, for or in the name of the United States, may, in a
civil action, obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
(3) Effective date.--Paragraph (2) shall take effect 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act.
____

[From the New York Times, Mar. 9, 2013]

The Right to Counsel: Badly
Battered at 50

(By Lincoln Caplan)

A half-century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone
too poor to hire a lawyer must be provided one free in any
criminal case involving a felony charge. The holding in
Gideon v. Wainwright enlarged the Constitution's safeguards
of liberty and equality, finding the right to counsel
``fundamental.'' The goal was ``fair trials before impartial
tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the
law.''
This principle has been expanded to cover other
circumstances as well: misdemeanor cases where the defendant
could be jailed, a defendant's first appeal from a conviction
and proceedings against a juvenile for delinquency.
While the constitutional commitment is generally met in
federal courts, it is a different story in state courts,
which handle about 95 percent of America's criminal cases.
This matters because, by well-informed estimates, at least 80
percent of state criminal defendants cannot afford to pay for
lawyers and have to depend on court-appointed counsel.
Even the best-run state programs lack enough money to
provide competent lawyers for all indigent defendants who
need them. Florida set up public defender offices when Gideon
was decided, and the Miami office was a standout. But as
demand has outpaced financing, caseloads for Miami defenders
have grown to 500 felonies a year, though the American Bar
Association guidelines say caseloads should not exceed 150
felonies.
Only 24 states have statewide public defender systems.
Others flout their constitutional obligations by pushing the
problem onto cash-strapped counties or local judicial
districts.
Lack of financing isn't the only problem, either. Contempt
for poor defendants is too often the norm. In Kentucky, 68
percent of poor people accused of misdemeanors appear in
court hearings without lawyers. In 21 counties in Florida in
2010, 70 percent of misdemeanor defendants pleaded guilty or
no contest--at arraignments that averaged less than three
minutes.
The Supreme Court has said that poor people are entitled
to counsel ``within a reasonable time'' after a case is
initiated. But defendants, after their arrest, can spend
weeks or even months in jail without a lawyer's help. In a
Mississippi case, a woman charged with shoplifting sat in
jail for 11 months before a lawyer was appointed.
The powerlessness of poor defendants is becoming even more
evident under harsh sentencing schemes created in the past
few decades. They give prosecutors, who have huge discretion,
a strong threat to use, and have led to almost 94 percent of
all state criminal cases being settled in plea bargains--
often because of weak defense lawyers who fail to push back.
The competency of lawyers is, of course, most critical in
death penalty cases. In dozens of states, capital cases are
routinely handled by poorly paid, inexperienced lawyers. And
yet, only very rarely are inmates ever granted a new trial
because of incompetent counsel.
In a Georgia death penalty case last year, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that even
though the main defense lawyer drank a quart of vodka each
night of the trial, there was no need for a retrial. The
lawyer was himself preparing to be criminally prosecuted for
stealing client funds, and presented very little evidence
about the defendant's intellectual disability. But the court
said the defendant had a fair trial because proof that he
killed a sheriff's deputy outweighed any weakness in his
legal representation.
In an infamous 1996 Texas death-penalty case, the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a defendant's death sentence
even though his lead counsel slept during the trial.
The Supreme Court has made it possible for courts to
uphold such indefensible lawyering. In 1984, in Strickland v.
Washington, the court said that for a defendant to be
entitled to a new trial, he must show both that his lawyer's
advice was deficient and that the deficiency deprived him of
a fair trial--a very high hurdle. And the court's majority
defined competency as requiring only that the lawyer's
judgment be ``reasonable under prevailing professional
norms.''
Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing in dissent, said the
result of this empty standard ``is covertly to legitimate
convictions and sentences obtained on the basis of
incompetent conduct by defense counsel.'' That is exactly
what has happened in the past three decades. In fact,
incompetent counsel for poor defendants is so widespread that
under this standard the prevailing professional norm has been
reduced to mediocrity.
After 50 years, the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright is
mocked more often than fulfilled. In a forthcoming issue of
The Yale Law Journal, Stephen Bright, president of the
Southern Center for Human Rights in Georgia, and Sia Sanneh,
a lawyer with the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama,
recommend that all states have statewide public defender
systems that train and supervise their lawyers, limit their
workloads and have specialized teams in, for example, death-
penalty cases.
There is no shortage of lawyers to do this work. What
stands in the way is an undemocratic, deep-seated lack of
political will.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 2013]

50 Years After Landmark Ruling, Lawyer's Help is Legal Fiction for Many
Accused of Crime

(By Associated Press)

Washington.--It is not the happiest of birthdays for the
landmark Supreme Court decision that, a half-century ago,
guaranteed a lawyer for criminal defendants who are too poor
to afford one.
A unanimous high court issued its decision in Gideon v.
Wainwright on March 18, 1963, declaring that states have an
obligation to provide defendants with ``the guiding hand of
counsel'' to ensure a fair trial for the accused.
But in many states today, taxpayer-funded public defenders
face crushing caseloads, the quality of legal representation
varies from county to county and people stand before judges
having seen a lawyer only briefly, if at all.
``There is no denying that much, much needs to be done,''
Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday at a Justice
Department event to commemorate the anniversary.
Clarence Earl Gideon had been in and out of jail in his
nearly 51 years when he was arrested on suspicion of stealing
wine and some money from vending machines at a Panama City,
Fla., pool hall in 1961. Gideon asked the judge for a lawyer
before his trial, but was turned down. At the time, Florida
only provided lawyers for indigent defendants in capital
cases.
A jury soon convicted Gideon and the state Supreme Court
upheld the verdict on appeal. Then, from his Florida prison
cell, Gideon scratched out his Supreme Court appeal in pencil
on prison stationery. It arrived at the court early in 1962,
when the justices were looking for a good case to take on the
issue of indigent defense. The court appointed Washington
lawyer Abe Fortas, a future justice, to represent him.
Just two months after hearing arguments, Justice Hugo Black
wrote for the court that ``in our adversary system of
criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too
poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless
counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an
obvious truth.''
Five months later, Gideon got a lawyer and a new trial, and
the attorney poked holes in the prosecution's case. A jury
quickly returned its verdict: not guilty.
So that was the promise of Gideon--that a competent lawyer
for the defense would stand on an equal footing with
prosecutors, and that justice would prevail, at least in
theory.
A half-century later, there are parts of the country where
``it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and
innocent,'' said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee and a former prosecutor. Leahy
said court-appointed lawyers often are underpaid and can be
``inexperienced, inept, uninterested or worse.''
Regardless of guilt or innocence, few of those accused of
crimes are rich, while 80 percent say they are too poor to
afford a lawyer.
People who work in the criminal justice system have become
numb to the problems, creating a culture of low expectations,
said Jonathan Rapping, a veteran public defender who has
worked in Washington, D.C., Atlanta and New Orleans.
Rapping remembers walking into a courtroom in New Orleans
for the first time for a client's initial appearance before a
judge. Several defendants in jump suits were shackled
together in one part of the courtroom. The judge moved
briskly through charges against each of the men, with a
lawyer speaking up for each one.
Then he called a name and there was no lawyer present. The
defendant piped up. ``The guy said he hadn't seen a lawyer
since he was locked up 70 days ago. And no one in the
courtroom was shocked. No one was surprised,'' Rapping said.
Complaints about the quality of representation also are
difficult to sustain, under a high bar that the Supreme Court
set in a 1984 case. The relatively few cases in which a
lawyer's work is deemed so bad that it violates

[[Page S1906]]

his client's rights typically have an outlandish set of facts
that would be funny if the consequences weren't tragic. ``You
see too many instances of ineffective assistance of counsel,
too many instances where you think, `Was this lawyer crazy?'
'' Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said at the Justice
Department event.
She recounted a case from last term in which a lawyer
advised his client to reject a plea deal with a seven-year
prison term and go to trial The lawyer said prosecutors could
not prove a charge of intent to murder because the victim had
been shot below the waist. 'The defendant was convicted and
sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Kagan was part of the 5-4 decision in the defendant's
favor.
In some places, lawyers are overwhelmed by their caseloads.
A public defender in Indianapolis lasted less than a year in
his job after being asked to represent more than 300
defendants at a time, said Norman Lefstein, former dean of
the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
``A lawyer with an S on his chest for Superman couldn't
represent these people. He simply couldn't do it. There are
only so many hours in a day. But it's not just caseload. It's
the other support services that go along with it,'' including
investigators, said Lefstein, who has studied problems in
indigent defense for decades.
In Luzerne County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, the chief
public defender told the local court he would stop accepting
certain cases because his office had too many clients, too
few lawyers and not enough money. A judge's ruling in June
acknowledged the lack of money and manpower, but forbade the
defender's office to turn away cases. The judge's ruling was
encouraging, Leftein said, but on his last visit to Wilkes-
Bane in January he found ``the caseloads are worse than
ever.''
Eighteen states, including California, Illinois, New York
and Pennsylvania, leave the finding of indigent defense
entirely to their counties, said Rhoda Billings, a former
chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court who has
looked at the issue for the American Bar Association. Those
states ``have a significant disparity in the appointment of
counsel'' from one county to the next, Billings said.
Public defenders in those counties often report to elected
officials or their appointees, rather than independent boards
that are insulated from politics. But even programs run at
the statewide level are not free of political influence,
Billings said, citing the case of a New Mexico public
defender fired by the governor.
The lack of independence raises questions about whether
decisions are being made in the best interests of clients,
Rapping said.
The avalanche of cases and politics come together to
present a formidable obstacle to alleviating some of the
problems that afflict the system in some states. Politicians
do not like asking voters for money for indigent defense.
``Arguing for more money to defend criminals is not the
easiest way to win a close election,'' said former Vice
President Walter Mondale. As Minnesota's attorney general in
the early 1960s, Mondale recruited 21 other states to join in
a brief urging the court to rule as it did and rejected a
plea from Florida to support limits on states'
responsibilities to poor defendants.
Heralded for its powerful statement about the right to a
lawyer, the Gideon decision also left states on their own to
pay for the provision of counsel, Lefstein said. ``It came as
an unfunded mandate to 50 state governments and that problem
endures,'' he said, noting that in England, Parliament
provides money to local governments to pay for legal
representation of the poor.
``The federal government does next to nothing to support
indigent defense in the United States,'' Lefstein said.
Since becoming attorney general more than four years ago,
Holder has shown a commitment to the issue. He established an
``Access to Justice'' program and made Harvard Law School
professor Laurence Tribe its initial director. The department
also has sent a few million dollars to defense programs
across the country. He announced nearly $2 million in new
grants on Friday.
The right announced by the Supreme Court 50 years ago only
covers criminal cases. It has never been extended to civil
matters, although as Mondale pointed out, they can lead to
people losing their homes, their families, being confined in
a mental institution or being thrown out of the country.
To people in those situations, he said, the distinction
between criminal and civil law ``doesn't make much of a
difference.''
____

[From USA Today, Mar. 12, 2013]

You Have the Right to Counsel. Or Do You?

50 years after the U.S. Supreme Court enshrined the constitutional
right to a lawyer, budget realities are undermining justice in America

(By Rick Hampson)

Wilkes-Barre, PA.--The first face visitors see when they
walk into the public defender's office here is a photo of
Clarence Gideon, the drifter, drinker, gambler and thief who
became a hero of American jurisprudence.
It was in his case, Gideon v. Wainwright, that the Supreme
Court ruled 50 years ago this month that everyone accused of
a serious crime has a constitutional right to a lawyer,
whether they can afford it or not.
When he was charged with breaking into a pool hall outside
Panama City, Fla., Gideon asked for a court-appointed lawyer.
After the judge said no, he represented himself, was found
guilty and sentenced to five years. From prison, he appealed
to the Supreme Court, which took his case and ordered a new
trial.
If he came back today, Clarence Gideon might rue the
quality of legal representation he'd receive. He might not
get any at all.
Such was the fate last year of some indigent criminal
defendants who walked in the public defender's door here and
past Gideon's gaze. They were told that, because of a
shortage of staff lawyers, the office was turning down all
but the most serious new cases. They were given a letter to
show the judge.
Al Flora, Luzerne County chief public defender, says that
ethically and legally he had no choice: His overburdened
lawyers couldn't take on new clients and do justice to those
they already had. He sued county officials--his bosses--to
let him hire more lawyers and to stop them from retaliating
against him.
The situation in Luzerne County reflects what experts say
is a national crisis in indigent legal defense that has
thwarted Gideon's promise of legal equality.
Many public defenders are overwhelmed by caseloads, and
financially pressed states and counties are levying fees and
applying means tests for granting counsel. ``We're not
calling the anniversary a celebration,'' says Edwin Burnette
of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. ``There's
nothing to celebrate.''
Flora is not the only rebel. The Florida Supreme Court is
considering a similar attempt by the Miami-Dade County public
defender's office to limit its caseload. Last year, the
Missouri Supreme Court authorized public defenders with
unmanageable caseloads to decline new cases, and the American
Bar Association urged states and counties not to fire public
defenders who do.
The problem is money. An explosion in the number of
criminal cases has overwhelmed the indigent defense system,
which represents about 80% of all accused.
The right to counsel is stronger than ever; it was expanded
by the Supreme Court during its last term. Although few in
state and county government quarrel with the principle of
Gideon, few are eager to cover the ever-growing tab for its
realization.
That worries advocates on each side of Gideon, including
Bruce Jacob, the former Florida assistant attorney general
who argued the state's case before the Supreme Court, and
former vice president Walter Mondale, who as attorney general
of Minnesota in 1963 filed a brief supporting Gideon.
``We're not close to fulfilling the promise of Gideon,''
Jacob says. Although more defendants see a lawyer than 50
years ago, he says, many advocates don't have time to give
clients ``effective representation.''
Any celebration of the anniversary should be ``subdued,''
Mondale says, because ``we've missed the mark, and we may be
going backwards.''
Others, while conceding the problem, take a more positive
view. ``For the most part, public defenders and prosecutors
get it right,'' says Scott Burns, director of the National
District Attorneys Association. ``Gideon would celebrate this
anniversary.''

`I AM ENTITLED . . . TO COUNSEL'

Clarence Gideon was jailed before he was old enough to
drive and behind bars for much of his young adulthood. By the
time he was 51, he'd been convicted of five felonies,
including thefts from a government armory and a country
store.
His biographer, Anthony Lewis, described him as a ``used-up
man'' who looked 15 years older than his age. In a letter,
Gideon admitted ``the utter folly and hopelessness'' of much
of his life.
On Aug. 4, 1961, facing trial on a charge that would send
him back to prison, Gideon told the judge, ``The United
States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by
counsel.''
The only problem: It had not, and he was not.
Beginning with Betts v. Brady (1942), the court had refused
to declare a blanket constitutional right to counsel in non-
capital state felony trials unless defendants faced ``special
circumstances,'' such as youth, illiteracy or unusually
complex issues.
Undeterred, the imprisoned Gideon mailed the court a
petition for a new trial. Handwritten in pencil on lined
prison paper, it began with anachronistic legalese: ``Comes
now the petitioner . . .''
The court received many petitions like it every week from
prisons around the country, but Gideon had two things in his
favor.
First, he had raised the constitutional issue at trial,
which meant he could use it to appeal.
Second, he didn't claim special circumstances, and--whether
Gideon knew it or not--a majority of the justices already
were inclined to jettison Betts v. Brady in favor of a flat
constitutional right to counsel.
All the court needed was a case on which to rule. And here
came Gideon.
On March 18, 1963, the court ruled unanimously that
Gideon's conviction was unconstitutional because he'd been
denied his request for counsel.
Justice Hugo Black wrote that in our adversarial justice
system, the ``noble idea (that) every defendant stands equal
before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man
charged with a crime has to face his accusers without a
lawyer.''

[[Page S1907]]

The case was sent back to Florida, which had quickly
established a network of public defenders. But Gideon
insisted on a private practitioner, Fred Turner. It was a
shrewd choice.
Turner interviewed Gideon in jail and spent several days
investigating. He checked out the pool hall. He drove to the
town where the prosecution witness had been earlier on the
night of the crime. He picked pears with the witness's mother
in her yard. He became convinced the witness was the
perpetrator.
The jury took just over an hour: Not guilty. Gideon went
out and got a hamburger.
The jailbird's name became synonymous with freedom. In
Florida alone, 976 prisoners were released because of Gideon;
an additional 500 got a new trial.
After his release, Gideon stayed out of trouble. He died of
cancer in 1972 at 61, too soon to see himself played by Henry
Fonda in the 1980 TV movie Gideon's Trumpet.
His gravestone in Hannibal, Mo., bears a message drawn from
a letter he wrote in prison. It reflects his belief that he
was part of something bigger than himself: ``I believe each
era finds an improvement in law,'' Gideon wrote. ``Each year
brings out something new for the benefit of mankind.''

ALL WE CAN DO IS TRIAGE

After the inspirational Gideon v. Wainwright poster in the
reception area, it's all downhill in the Luzerne public
defender's office.
The walls are scuffed, the carpets stained. File folders
are stacked on the floor. ``It's a mess,'' admits Al Flora,
leading a tour. ``Half the time the secretaries can't find
the right file.'' As a result, clients sometimes aren't
notified of their court dates.
Some of the office's 21 lawyers have no desk or personal
phone. The top of a file cabinet serves as a desk for one
lawyer. A nightstand in a corner accommodates another.
The office, which handles about 4,000 cases a year in this
northeastern Pennsylvania county of 320,000, has only four
investigators and four secretaries. Lawyers often have to
type their own briefs. They have little time to take
depositions or seek discovery of prosecution evidence.
A third of Flora's lawyers have never tried a case. They're
smart and energetic, he says, but so inexperienced that if
given a full caseload, ``they'd crack. . . . All we can do is
triage cases.''
He says some public defenders ``don't want to talk about
the problem. I decided to go the other way. This has to
stop.''
Traditionally, Southern states have had the worst record of
giving poor defendants counsel. But Jonathan Rapping, founder
of the Southern Public Defender Training Center, says the
problem now is more acute in Northeastern jurisdictions with
shrunken industrial bases and chronic fiscal woes.
That describes Luzerne County, which gets no state funds
for public defenders. Last year, Flora's $2.7 million budget
was cut 7%, and later--until a judge intervened--a hiring
freeze blocked him from filling five lawyers' slots that were
budgeted.
In six months, he turned away more than 500 applicants for
legal counsel, an approach that antagonized county officials.
John Dean, a county attorney, has accused Flora of regarding
the county as ``nothing more than a checkbook'' and suggested
he handle more cases himself.
In June, a judge told Flora to resume taking all comers and
told the county to let Flora hire more lawyers. Since then,
the county has paid for a computerized case management system
and promised to find more office space.

AN EROSION OF JUSTICE

In the past 18 months, a third of the office's lawyers have
left. One was Ed Olexa, 38. He'd read Gideon in law school
but didn't bargain for what he found when he became a public
defender four years ago.
Although he was a $34,000-a-year part-timer--19 hours a
week--he usually had 150 to 170 cases, far in excess of the
maximum recommended by the American Bar Association for full-
time defenders. The cases took up 40 to 50 hours a week.
Along with his private cases, he worked up to 70 hours a
week.
He often was scheduled to appear before two or three
different judges at the same time in different places around
the county. He'd meet clients for the first time in the
courtroom--some straight from jail, still in handcuffs--and
go before the judge with only the complaint and a hurried
conversation with his client as background.
That, he says, was the worst: No time to establish rapport
with clients or get the details that can win an acquittal. No
time to do what Turner did for Gideon. Instead, he spent his
time asking judges for more time. ``It offended my sense of
justice,'' he says.
And his clients'. He won't discuss their specific
complaints but says, ``The best attorney in the world would
be incompetent under those circumstances.''
Over time, most experts say, the costs are clear. Poor
people arrested for misdemeanors plead guilty and go free
rather than wait to see a public defender, even though a
conviction on their record might hurt their chances for
employment, loans or housing. At worst, the innocent go to
jail, and the guilty go free.
The Luzerne chief public defender is a part-time post; the
county plans to make it full time. Flora has applied.
``I want to see it done right,'' he says. ``I believe
people who are impoverished and can't afford a lawyer deserve
one. If we can't provide that, then what kind of society do
we really have?''
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Nelson):
S. 598. A bill to prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my
distinguished colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Deepwater Drilling
Royalty Relief Prohibition Act.
Specifically, the bill prohibits the Interior Department from waiving
royalty payments due to American taxpayers as compensation for the oil
industry's exploitation of Federal oil and gas resources in waters
exceeding 400 meters of depth.
It is necessary because Congress has established a number of royalty-
relief programs for oil and gas production in our deepest Federal
waters.
However, as the BP Deep water Horizon catastrophe showed, encouraging
this most dangerous and often dirty form of oil drilling is not in the
public interest.
The disastrous impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion illustrate
the enormous environmental and safety risks of offshore drilling--
particularly in deep waters. 11 people died and 17 others were injured
when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. 5 million barrels of oil gushed
into the Gulf of Mexico.
It took 9,700 vessels, 127 aircraft, 47,829 people, nearly 2 million
gallons of toxic dispersants, and 89 days to plug the well and stop the
flow of oil. And the scope of the disaster was tremendous. Oil slicks
spread across the Gulf of Mexico, forcing the closing of 40 percent of
Gulf waters to all commercial and recreational fishing. Pelicans and
other wildlife struggled to free themselves from crude oil. Wildlife
responders collected 8,183 birds, 1,144 sea turtles, and 109 marine
mammals killed or negatively affected by the spill. Many more perished
and sank to the ocean depths without detection.
More than 650 miles of Gulf coastal habitats--including salt marshes,
mudflats, mangroves, and sand beaches--were oiled. Tar balls spoiled
the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, while wetlands were coated
with toxic sludge. Oyster beds could take years to recover.
The plumes of underwater oil created zones of toxicity for aquatic
life. Recent studies have determined the BP spill was ``definitely
linked'' to ``widespread signs of distress'' and the slow death of
deepwater coral within seven miles of the blowout site.
The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have
their own toxic consequences to both wildlife and the spill response
workers. A recent report asserts that the mixture of toxic dispersants
and crude oil has now weathered into tar product, and that the ``unholy
mix'' is allowing potentially carcinogenic concentrations of organic
pollutants to remain in the environment.
The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems
clear to me that this is not an area in which we should be subsidizing
development.
In 1969, off Santa Barbara, California, a natural gas blowout caused
an unprecedented oil spill.
The drilling technology 40 years ago was not able to prevent a
disaster, nor could it stop the flow of oil, which went on for more
than 11 days. Unfortunately, today's technology also cannot prevent
well-head blowouts or quickly stop the flow of oil.
The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was less than 10 years old when it
caused a devastating blow out. A similar rig that caused the 2009 spill
in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in
Australia's history--was even newer, designed and built in 2007. That
spill continued unchecked for 74 days.
The failures that led to these catastrophes were human and
technological. But they demonstrate that we are a long way from spill-
free offshore oil and gas production technology.
In deep waters, the risks are higher and the scope of the damage even
greater, because drilling in deep water presents even more challenges
than drilling in shallow water or on shore. This was demonstrated
during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized
cold ocean waters--and the likelihood

[[Page S1908]]

of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about
400 meters. These crystals interfere with response and containment
technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto
the gushing oil in the Gulf, which failed to stop the oil in the early
days of the spill.
When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the
``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly
replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.
In order to drill at deeper depths, many technical difficulties must
be overcome. The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column
exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and
heavier.
The water temperature decreases closer to the sea floor, but the
temperature of the ground under the ocean increases the deeper the
well--sometimes reaching temperatures in excess of 350 degrees
Fahrenheit.
The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, but the pressure
in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch.
Drills must be able to pass through tar and salts, and the well bores
must remain intact.
The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, the weight of the
cables heavier, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished
with the use of remotely operated vehicles thousands of feet below the
surface.
American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize
offshore drilling at these dangerous depths. It is not good
environmental policy, and it's not good energy policy either. We need
to move to cleaner renewable fuels.
I believe that global warming presents a serious environmental and
economic threat--and scientists agree that the biggest culprit of
global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of
fossil fuels like oil and coal.
Taxpayer-funded incentives should be utilized to develop and deploy
clean energy technologies that address this crisis, instead of
encouraging the fossil fuels at the root of the problem through oil and
gas royalty relief.
Congress has worked to move in this direction. In 2007, we passed the
Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act which will raise fuel economy standards for
passenger vehicles to 54 miles per gallon by 2025.
Over the past four years, renewable energy generation in the United
States has more than doubled--due in large part to Federal tax
incentives, financing mechanisms, and a vastly improved permitting
process. In 2012, a whopping 44 percent of new electric generating
capacity added to the grid was wind power.
The Federal government is helping the United States adopt a cleaner
energy future.
Royalty relief for dangerous oil and gas development, however, is not
advancing this goal.
Let me make one final point: oil companies--the primary recipients of
royalty relief--do not need taxpayer help. They are already reaping
record profits.
Higher gasoline prices are causing families pain at the pump, but
they are a boon to the world's five largest oil companies. BP, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined $118 billion in
profits in 2012, or an average of almost $500 for each car in America.
Moreover, the big three publicly owned U.S. oil companies--
ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid effective federal tax
rates in 2011 of 13 percent; 19 percent; and 18 percent respectively.
Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line.
This is unacceptable.
Oil reserves under Federal waters are a public resource. When a
private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers
should also benefit.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that
royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky
off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the
people's money should be spent wisely.
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. 598

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 ``Deepwater Drilling Royalty
Relief Prohibition Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ROYALTY INCENTIVES FOR DEEPWATER
DRILLING.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any oil or
gas lease sale under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) with royalty-based incentives in any
tract located in water depths of 400 meters or more on the
outer Continental Shelf.
(b) Royalty Relief for Deep Water Production.--Section 345
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15905) is
repealed.
(c) Royalty Relief.--Section 8(a)(3) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A)
through (C) or any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall not reduce or eliminate any royalty or net profit share
for any lease or unit located in water depths of 400 meters
or more on the outer Continental Shelf.''.
(d) Application.--This section and the amendments made by
this section--
(1) apply beginning with the first lease sale held on or
after the date of enactment of this Act for which a final
notice of sale has not been published as of that date; and
(2) do not apply to a lease in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act.

____________________