[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.

                          ____________________