[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3011-3035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Ensign):
  S. 432. A bill to provide for environmental restoration activities 
and forest management activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to 
restore and protect Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Her 
alpine beauty has drawn and inspired people for centuries: artists and 
poets, John Muir and Mark Twain, and millions of visitors from around 
the world.
  As a girl, I went to Lake Tahoe to ride horses through the woods, 
bike around the magnificent Basin and swim in the clear blue waters.
  Today, I am proud to work with representatives from different ends of 
the political spectrum to restore Lake Tahoe to that pristine State. 
For 14 years, we have come together to Keep Tahoe Blue.
  That is why today I am reintroducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 
of 2011, which is cosponsored by Senators Harry Reid, John Ensign and 
Barbara Boxer.
  It would authorize $415 million over 10 years to improve water 
clarity, reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore the 
environment.
  Specifically, it would provide $248 million over 10 years for the 
highest priority restoration projects, as established using scientific 
data. The legislation authorizes at least $72 million for stormwater 
management and watershed restoration projects scientifically determined 
to be the most effective ways to improve water clarity.
  This bill also requires prioritized ranking of environmental 
restoration projects and authorizes $136 million for State and local 
agencies to implement these projects.
  Now, and this is an important point, this legislation would direct 
investment to where it is needed most.
  For example, today we know the major sources of stormwater runoff 
that send sedimentation into the lake, degrading water clarity.
  So the monies would go to specific projects addressing California 
state roads, source of 23 percent of urban particle loads; the city of 
South Lake Tahoe, Calif., 22 percent; Washoe County, Nevada, 17 
percent; and so forth.
  In this bill, these stormwater projects are targeted to the areas of 
greatest concern. Priority projects will improve water quality, forest 
health, air quality and fish and wildlife habitat around Lake Tahoe. In 
addition, projects that benefit low-income neighborhoods are 
encouraged.
  The bill authorizes $136 million over 10 years to reduce the threat 
of wildfire around Lake Tahoe. This would finance hazardous fuels 
reduction projects, at $17 million per year, including grants to local 
fire agencies.
  It provides the Forest Service up to $10 million for fuels projects 
that have multiple environmental benefits, with an emphasis in 
restoring Stream Environment Zones.
  This is critical because, again, these streams feed into the lake and 
form a critical link in the ecosystem. We need to pay attention to 
these stream zones if we hope to restore water clarity.
  The bill protects Lake Tahoe from the threat of quagga mussels and 
other invasive aquatic species. Quagga mussels pose a very serious 
threat to Lake Tahoe, a threat made more intractable because these 
mussels have been shown to survive in cold waters. A few years ago 
University of California scientists reported that they found up to 
3,000 Asian clams per square meter at spots between Zephyr Point and 
Elk Point in Lake Tahoe. The spreading Asian clam population could put 
sharp shells and rotting algae on the Lake's beaches and contribute to 
the spread other invasive species such as quagga mussels.
  The bill would authorize $20.5 million for watercraft inspections and 
removal of existing invasive species. It would require all watercraft 
to be inspected and decontaminated.
  One quagga or zebra mussel can lay 1 million eggs in a year. This 
means that a single boat carrying quagga could devastate the lake's 
biology, local infrastructure, and the local economy.

[[Page 3012]]

  The damage that could be inflicted at Lake Tahoe by a quagga 
infestation has been estimated at tens of millions of dollars annually. 
The threat to Lake Tahoe cannot be overstated. There were no quagga 
mussels in Lake Mead 4 years ago. Today there are more than 3 trillion. 
The infestation is probably irreversible.
  But there is some good news. Last summer, scientists placed long 
rubber mats across the bottom of Lake Tahoe to cut off the oxygen to 
the Asian clams. Early research suggests these mats were very effective 
at killing the clams. And scientists have also discovered how to 
decontaminate boats and kill quagga mussels.
  We can fight off these invaders. But it will require drive and 
imagination--and the help authorized within this bill.
  The bill supports reintroduction of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The 
legislation authorizes $20 million over 10 years for the Lahontan 
Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout is an 
iconic species that has an important legacy in Lake Tahoe.
  When John C. Fremont first explored the Truckee River in January of 
1844, he called it the Salmon Trout River because he found the Pyramid 
Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The trout relied on the Truckee River 
and its tributaries for their spawning runs in spring, traveling up the 
entire river's length as far as Lake Tahoe and Donner Lake, where they 
used the cool, pristine waters and clean gravel beds to lay their eggs. 
But dams, pollution and overfishing caused the demise of the Lahontan 
Cutthroat Trout.
  Lake Tahoe is one of 11 historic lakes where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 
flourished in the past, and it's a critical part of the strategy to 
recover the species.
  The bills funds scientific research. The legislation authorizes $30 
million over 10 years for scientific programs and research which will 
produce information on long-term trends in the Basin and inform the 
most cost-effective projects.
  The bill prohibiting mining operations in the Tahoe Basin. The 
legislation would prohibit new mining operations in the Basin, ensuring 
that the fragile watershed, and Lake Tahoe's water clarity, are not 
threatened by pollution from mining operations.
  The bill increases accountability and oversight. Every project funded 
by this legislation will have monitoring and assessment to determine 
the most cost-effective projects and best management practices for 
future projects.
  The legislation also requires the Chair of the Federal Partnership to 
work with the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and 
Wildlife Service and regional and state agencies, to prepare an annual 
report to Congress detailing the status of all projects undertaken, 
including project scope, budget and justification and overall 
expenditures and accomplishments.
  This will ensure that Congress can have oversight on the progress of 
environmental restoration in Lake Tahoe.
  The bill provides for public outreach and education. The Forest 
Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and 
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will implement new public outreach and 
education programs including: encouraging Basin residents and visitors 
to implement defensible space, conducting best management practices for 
water quality, and preventing the introduction and proliferation of 
invasive species.
  In addition, the legislation requires signage on federally financed 
projects to improve public awareness of restoration efforts.
  The bill allows for increased efficiency in the management of public 
land. Under this legislation, the Forest Service would have increased 
flexibility to exchange land with state agencies which will allow for 
more cost-efficient management of public land. There is currently a 
checkerboard pattern of ownership in some areas of the Basin.
  Under this new authority, the Forest Service could exchange land with 
the California Tahoe Conservancy of approximately equal value without 
going through a lengthy process to assess the land.
  For example, if there are several plots of Forest Service land that 
surround or are adjacent to Tahoe Conservancy land, the Tahoe 
Conservancy could transfer that land to the Forest Service so that it 
can be managed more efficiently.
  This legislation is needed because the ``Jewel of the Sierra'' is in 
big trouble. If we don't act now, we could lose Lake Tahoe--and lose it 
with stunning speed--as climate change increases in severity.
  The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe are already visible. It 
is making the basin dry and tinder-hot, increasing the risks of 
catastrophic wildfire. Daily air temperatures have increased 4 degrees 
since 1911. Snowfall has declined from an average of 52 percent of 
overall precipitation in 1910 to just 34 percent in recent years.
  Climate change has raised Lake Tahoe's water temperature 1.5 degrees 
in 38 years. That means the cyclical deep-water mixing of the lake's 
waters will occur less frequently, and this could significantly disrupt 
Lake Tahoe's ecosystem.
  Anyone doubting that climate change poses a considerable threat to 
Lake Tahoe should read an alarming recent report by the UC Davis Tahoe 
Environmental Research Center.
  It was written for the U.S. Forest Service by scientists who have 
devoted their professional careers to studying Lake Tahoe. And it 
paints a distinctly bleak picture of the future for the ``Jewel of the 
Sierra.''
  Among its findings: The Tahoe Basin's regional snowpack could decline 
by as much as 60 percent in the next century, with increased floods 
likely by 2050 and prolonged droughts by 2100.
  Even ``under the most optimistic projections,'' average snowpack in 
the Sierra Nevada around Tahoe will decline by 40 to 60 percent by 
2100, according to the report.
  This would bankrupt Tahoe's ski industry, threaten the water supply 
of Reno and other communities, and degrade the lake's fabled water 
clarity. It would be devastating.
  Pollution and sedimentation have threatened Lake Tahoe's water 
clarity for years. In 1968, the first year UC Davis scientists measured 
clarity, the lake had an average depth of 102.4 feet. Clarity declined 
over the next 3 decades, hitting a low of 64 feet in 1997.
  There has been some improvement this decade. This year scientists 
recorded average clarity at 69.6 feet--roughly within the range of the 
past eight years. But it is a fragile gain.
  The University of California Davis report has determined that an all-
out attack on pollution and sedimentation is the lake's last hope.
  Geoff Schladow, director of the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research 
Center and one of the report's authors, has highlighted the need to 
restore short-term water quality in Lake Tahoe--while there's still 
time to do it.
  According to the report, ``reducing the load of external nutrients 
entering the lake in the coming decades may be the only possible 
mitigation measure to reduce the impact of climate change on lake 
clarity.'' In other words, the sediment and runoff entering the lake 
could fuel algal growth, creating a downward spiral in water quality 
and clarity.
  The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 would directly fund efforts to 
address water clarity issues and impacts from climate change.
  Last year, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2010 passed the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously, but there was not 
enough time for a floor vote. It is my hope that this legislation can 
be passed early in the legislative session.
  A lot of good work has been done. But there's a lot more work to do, 
and time is running out.
  Mark Twain called Lake Tahoe ``the fairest picture the whole world 
affords.'' We must not be the generation who lets this picture fall 
into ruin. We must rise to the challenge, and do all we can to preserve 
this ``noble sheet of water.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 3013]]

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

                                 S. 432

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

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

     ``SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

[[Page 3014]]

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) helps achieve and maintain the environmental 
     threshold carrying capacities established by the Planning 
     Agency.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding clause (A)(i), the 
     attainment of multiple ecosystem benefits shall not be 
     required if the Secretary determines that management for 
     multiple ecosystem benefits would excessively increase the 
     cost of a project in relation to the additional ecosystem 
     benefits gained from the management activity.
       ``(3) Ground disturbance.--Consistent with applicable 
     Federal law and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit land and 
     resource management plan direction, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish post-project ground condition criteria for 
     ground disturbance caused by forest management activities; 
     and
       ``(B) provide for monitoring to ascertain the attainment of 
     the post-project conditions.
       ``(e) Withdrawal of Federal Land.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     paragraphs (2) and (3), the Federal land located in the Lake 
     Tahoe Basin Management Unit is withdrawn from--
       ``(A) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       ``(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; 
     and
       ``(C) disposition under all laws relating to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing.
       ``(2) Determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--The withdrawal under paragraph (1) shall 
     be in effect until the date on which the Secretary, after 
     conducting a review of all Federal land in the Lake Tahoe 
     Basin Management Unit and receiving public input, has made a 
     determination on which parcels of Federal land should remain 
     withdrawn.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The determination of the Secretary 
     under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall be effective beginning on the date on which the 
     determination is issued;
       ``(ii) may be altered by the Secretary as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary; and
       ``(iii) shall not be subject to administrative renewal.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--A land exchange shall be exempt from 
     withdrawal under this subsection if carried out under--
       ``(A) the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (Public Law 106-506; 
     114 Stat. 2351); or
       ``(B) the Santini-Burton Act (Public Law 96-586; 94 Stat. 
     3381).
       ``(f) Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacity.--The Lake 
     Tahoe Basin Management Unit shall support the attainment of 
     the environmental threshold carrying capacities.
       ``(g) Cooperative Authorities.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 4 fiscal years following the 
     date of enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011, 
     the Secretary, in conjunction with land adjustment projects 
     or programs, may enter into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements with States, units of local government, and other 
     public and private entities to provide for fuel reduction, 
     erosion control, reforestation, Stream Environment Zone 
     restoration, and similar management activities on Federal 
     land and non-Federal land within the projects or programs.
       ``(2) Report on land status.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report regarding the 
     management of land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 
     Urban Lots Program, including--
       ``(i) a description of future plans and recent actions for 
     land consolidation and adjustment; and
       ``(ii) the identification of any obstacles to desired 
     conveyances or interchanges.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) may contain recommendations for additional legislative 
     authority.
       ``(C) Effect.--Nothing in this paragraph delays the 
     conveyance of parcels under--
       ``(i) the authority of this Act; or
       ``(ii) any other authority available to the Secretary.
       ``(3) Supplemental authority.--The authority of this 
     subsection is supplemental to

[[Page 3015]]

     all other cooperative authorities of the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 5. CONSULTATION.

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

     ``SEC. 5. CONSULTATION.

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

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

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

     ``SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PRIORITY LIST.

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

     ``SEC. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PRIORITY LIST.

       ``(a) Funding.--Subject to section 6(d), of the amounts to 
     be made available under section 18(a), at least $136,000,000 
     shall be made available for projects identified on the 
     Priority List.
       ``(b) Deadline.--Not later than February 15 of the year 
     after the date of enactment of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act 
     of 2011, the Chair, in consultation with the Secretary, the 
     Administrator, the Director, the Planning Agency, the States 
     of California and Nevada, the Federal Partnership, the Washoe 
     Tribe, the Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee, and the 
     Tahoe Science Consortium shall submit to Congress a 
     prioritized list of all Environmental Improvement Program 
     projects for the Lake Tahoe Basin, regardless of program 
     category.
       ``(c) Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The priority of projects included in the 
     Priority List shall be based on the best available science 
     and the following criteria:
       ``(A) The 5-year threshold carrying capacity evaluation.
       ``(B) The ability to measure progress or success of the 
     project.
       ``(C) The potential to significantly contribute to the 
     achievement and maintenance of the environmental threshold 
     carrying capacities identified in the Compact for--
       ``(i) air quality;
       ``(ii) fisheries;
       ``(iii) noise;
       ``(iv) recreation;
       ``(v) scenic resources;
       ``(vi) soil conservation;
       ``(vii) forest health;
       ``(viii) water quality; and
       ``(ix) wildlife.
       ``(D) The ability of a project to provide multiple 
     benefits.
       ``(E) The ability of a project to leverage non-Federal 
     contributions.
       ``(F) Stakeholder support for the project.
       ``(G) The justification of Federal interest.

[[Page 3016]]

       ``(H) Agency priority.
       ``(I) Agency capacity.
       ``(J) Cost-effectiveness.
       ``(K) Federal funding history.
       ``(2) Secondary factors.--In addition to the criteria under 
     paragraph (1), the Chair shall, as the Chair determines to be 
     appropriate, give preference to projects in the Priority List 
     that benefit existing neighborhoods in the Basin that are at 
     or below regional median income levels, based on the most 
     recent census data available.
       ``(3) Erosion control projects.--For purposes of the 
     Priority List and section 6(c)(1), erosion control projects 
     shall be considered part of the stormwater management and 
     total maximum daily load program of the Environmental 
     Improvement Program. The Administrator shall coordinate with 
     the Secretary on such projects.
       ``(d) Revisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Priority List submitted under 
     subsection (b) shall be revised--
       ``(A) every 4 years; or
       ``(B) on a finding of compelling need under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Finding of compelling need.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary, the Administrator, or 
     the Director makes a finding of compelling need justifying a 
     priority shift and the finding is approved by the Secretary, 
     the Executive Director of the Planning Agency, the California 
     Natural Resources Secretary, and the Director of the Nevada 
     Department of Conservation, the Priority List shall be 
     revised in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--A finding of compelling need includes--
       ``(i) major scientific findings;
       ``(ii) results from the threshold evaluation of the 
     Planning Agency;
       ``(iii) emerging environmental threats; and
       ``(iv) rare opportunities for land acquisition.

     ``SEC. 9. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION.

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 11. LAKE TAHOE BASIN PROGRAM.

       ``The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary, the 
     Planning Agency, the States of California and Nevada, and the 
     Tahoe Science Consortium, shall develop and implement the 
     Lake Tahoe Basin Program that--
       ``(1) develops and regularly updates an integrated 
     multiagency programmatic assessment and monitoring plan--
       ``(A) to evaluate the effectiveness of the Environmental 
     Improvement Program;
       ``(B) to evaluate the status and trends of indicators 
     related to environmental threshold carrying capacities; and
       ``(C) to assess the impacts and risks of changing climatic 
     conditions and invasive species;
       ``(2) develops a comprehensive set of performance measures 
     for Environmental Improvement Program assessment;
       ``(3) coordinates the development of the annual report 
     described in section 13;
       ``(4) produces and synthesizes scientific information 
     necessary for--
       ``(A) the identification and refinement of environmental 
     indicators for the Lake Tahoe Basin; and
       ``(B) the evaluation of standards and benchmarks;
       ``(5) conducts applied research, programmatic technical 
     assessments, scientific data management, analysis, and 
     reporting related to key management questions;
       ``(6) develops new tools and information to support 
     objective assessments of land use and resource conditions;
       ``(7) provides scientific and technical support to the 
     Federal Government and State and local governments in--
       ``(A) reducing stormwater runoff, air deposition, and other 
     pollutants that contribute to the loss of lake clarity; and
       ``(B) the development and implementation of an integrated 
     stormwater monitoring and assessment program;
       ``(8) establishes and maintains independent peer review 
     processes--
       ``(A) to evaluate the Environmental Improvement Program; 
     and
       ``(B) to assess the technical adequacy and scientific 
     consistency of central environmental documents, such as the 
     5-year threshold review; and

[[Page 3017]]

       ``(9) provides scientific and technical support for the 
     development of appropriate management strategies to 
     accommodate changing climatic conditions in the Lake Tahoe 
     Basin.

     ``SEC. 12. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION.

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

     ``SEC. 13. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

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

     ``SEC. 14. ANNUAL BUDGET PLAN.

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

     ``SEC. 15. GRANT FOR WATERSHED STRATEGY.

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

     SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

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

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

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

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

       ``(ii) reserve a conservation easement to ensure that the 
     land conveyed is managed in

[[Page 3018]]

     accordance with subclauses (I) through (IV) of clause (i).
       ``(F) Delegation of monitoring and enforcement by transfer 
     of conservation easement.--
       ``(i) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subparagraph, 
     the term `eligible entity' means--

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

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

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

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

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I join Senator Feinstein in 
introducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 along with Senator 
Ensign and Senator Boxer. Our bill protects Lake Tahoe by helping 
federal agencies work more collaboratively with local governments to 
manage federal lands, preventing catastrophic wildfires, keeping 
invasive species out of the lake, using sound science to prioritize 
projects, and leveraging state and local funding. Senator Feinstein has 
done a lot of work to improve this legislation while maintaining a 
broad coalition of support and I want to thank her for her good work.
  Lake Tahoe is a place of incredible beauty. When Mark Twain first saw 
Lake Tahoe in 1861, he described it as ``a noble sheet of blue water 
lifted 6,300 feet above the level of the sea, and walled in by a rim of 
snow-clad mountain peaks that towered aloft full three thousand feet 
higher still!'' He went on to proclaim the view in front of him as 
surely ``the fairest picture the whole earth affords.'' I could not 
agree more.
  But for all its beauty, Lake Tahoe Basin is in peril. The famed 
clarity of the lake declined by over a third during the last 50 years; 
it is estimated that 25 percent of the trees in the basin are dead or 
dying; the prized Lahontan cutthroat trout sport fish that once grew to 
more than 40 pounds are no longer present; and many of the basin's 
natural marshes and wetlands have been altered or drained. This 
perilous decline jeopardizes the 23,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in annual 
revenues that Lake Tahoe contributes to the Nevada and California 
economies.
  It became clear to me in the 1990s that a major commitment and 
coordinated efforts were necessary to turn things around for the health 
and future of Lake Tahoe and the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 1996, I called 
then-President Clinton and Vice President Gore and asked if they would 
come to Lake Tahoe with me so that they could see both the incredible 
beauty of the place and many threats facing it. When we convened in 
July 1997, the President and Vice President brought four cabinet 
secretaries with them and we had a multi-day session on the future of 
Lake Tahoe. President Clinton promised to make Lake Tahoe a priority--
for the people of Nevada, for the people of California, and for the 
whole country. An executive order and the subsequent Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act of 2000 were the result of that commitment.
  It would have been difficult to imagine at that first summit how much 
progress we would be able to make in the last 14 years. The clarity of 
the lake now appears to have stabilized, thousands of acres of forest 
lands have been restored, roads and highways across the basin have been 
improved to limit runoff, and the natural function of many miles of 
stream zones and riparian areas has been restored. But there is a great 
deal yet to be done. We offer the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 as 
the next step.
  Our bill focuses federal attention on the areas where we can be most 
effective and it builds on the lessons we have learned since 1997. The 
basic summary of the bill is that it authorizes $415 million over 10 
years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of fire, and restore 
the environment.
  I would like to make a very important point about the federal role in 
protecting Lake Tahoe. The U.S. Forest Service manages 75 percent of 
the land surrounding the lake and it is impossible to make real 
progress in the Lake Tahoe Basin without providing the Forest Service 
with the tools they need to manage that land. With that in mind, we 
call on the Forest Service to support the thresholds put forth by the 
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, we provide encouragement and funding to 
work on the restoration of stream environment zones, and we withdraw 
all Forest Service in the Basin lands from mineral entry in order to 
minimize soil disturbance. The Forest Service is also granted increased 
flexibility to exchange land with the states of Nevada and California 
which will allow for more cost-efficient management of the over 8,000 
publicly owned urban parcels spread throughout the Basin. Currently, 
the Forest Service owns over 3,280 of these urban parcels and there are 
questions about whether it is in the public interest for the Forest 
Service to manage these urban lands or whether it would be better to 
pass them to other responsible entities that could provide more 
efficient management. We have asked the Forest Service to report to 
Congress on their plans for improving this part of their program, 
including any suggestions for how Congress might be able to help. Along 
with these new authorities and direction for forest management, the 
bill authorizes $136 million to reduce the threat of wildfire. This 
includes work on Forest Service lands as well as work done by local 
fire agencies. Local communities and fire districts that receive grants 
from this generous program will provide a 25 percent cash match.
  Lake Tahoe is uniquely beautiful and it's worth fighting to protect 
it. It is my sincere hope that my grandchildren will see the day when 
the lake's clarity is restored to 100 feet or more, when Tahoe's giant 
native trout are once again plentiful, and when nearby forests are 
diverse and healthy. Mark Twain saw something amazing when he crested 
into the Lake Tahoe Basin. We owe it to ourselves and to subsequent 
generations to restore as much of that splendor as we can. This bill is 
the next step in that journey.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 434. A bill to improve and expand geographic literacy among 
kindergarten through grade 12 students in the United States by 
improving professional development programs for kindergarten through 
grade 12 teachers offered through institutions of higher education; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teaching 
Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined as a cosponsor 
by

[[Page 3019]]

my friend, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski. The 
purpose of this bill is to improve geographic literacy among K through 
12 students by supporting professional development programs for their 
teachers that are administered in institutions of higher learning. The 
bill also assists States in measuring the impact of education in 
geography.
  Ensuring geographic literacy prepares students to be good citizens of 
both our Nation and the world. John Fahey, who is Chairman and CEO of 
the National Geographic Society, once stated that, ``Geographic 
illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with 
other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' 
When students understand their own environment, they can better 
understand the differences in other places, and the people who live in 
them. Knowledge of the diverse cultures, environment, and distances 
between states and countries helps our students to understand national 
and international policies, economies, societies and political 
structures on a global scale.
  To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with other 
people around the world, we need to be able to communicate and 
understand each other. It is a fact that we have a global marketplace, 
and we need to be preparing our younger generation for competition in 
the international economy. A strong base of geography knowledge 
improves these opportunities.
  The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2010, the 
overall volume of international trade, as the sum of imports and 
exports, was over $4.3 trillion. Geographic knowledge is increasingly 
needed for U.S. businesses in international markets to understand such 
factors as physical distance, time zones, language differences and 
cultural diversity.
  Geospatial technology is an emerging career that is now available to 
people with an extensive background in geography education. 
Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in federal 
government agencies, and in the private and non-profit sectors in areas 
such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban 
planning and development. It is important to improve and expand 
geography education so that students in the United States can attain 
the necessary expertise to fill and retain the estimated 70,000 new 
jobs that are becoming available each year in the geospatial technology 
industry.
  Former Secretary of State Colin Powell once said, ``To solve most of 
the major problems facing our country today--from wiping out terrorism, 
to minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge 
of AIDS--will require every young person to learn more about other 
regions, cultures, and languages.'' It is clear to me that we need to 
do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the education of 
our students, from kindergarten through high school graduation, are 
prepared and trained to teach the skills necessary to solve these 
problems.
  Over the last 15 years, the National Geographic Society has awarded 
more than $100 million in grants to educators, universities, geography 
alliances, and others for the purposes of advancing and improving the 
teaching of geography. Their models are successful, and research shows 
that students who have benefitted from this teaching outperform other 
students. State geography alliances exist in 26 states and the District 
of Columbia endowed by grants from the Society. But, their efforts 
alone are not enough.
  In my home state of Mississippi, teachers and university professors 
are making progress to increase geography education in schools through 
additional professional training. Based at the University of 
Mississippi, hundreds of geography teachers are members of the 
Mississippi Geography Alliance. This Alliance conducts regular 
workshops for graduate and undergraduate students who are preparing to 
be certified to teach elementary and high school-level geography in our 
State. These workshops have provided opportunities for model teaching 
sessions and discussion of best practices in the classroom.
  The bill I am introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance 
the education of our teachers, focuses on geography education research, 
and develops reliable and advanced technology based classroom 
materials. I hope the Senate will consider the seriousness of the need 
to make this enhanced investment in geography.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 440. A bill for the relief of Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda 
De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia Aranda; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of the Buendias, a family who has lived in the Fresno 
area of California for more than 20 years. The beneficiaries of this 
bill include Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda de Buendia, 
and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda. I believe this family 
merits Congress' special consideration.
  I would like to start with the story of Jose Buendia, a remarkable 
father and husband who has embraced the hard work ethic of this 
country. Many years ago, Jose's father worked as an agricultural worker 
on the Bracero program.
  In 1981, he brought his son to the United States. Jose worked hard, 
providing financial support to his family in Mexico and working his way 
up through jobs in landscaping and construction.
  Today, Jose is a valuable employee with Bone Construction, Inc. He 
has worked with this California-based company for nearly 10 years, 
developing skills and experience and now serving as a lead foreman. 
Timothy Bone, the owner of the company, calls Jose a ``reliable, 
hardworking and conscientious'' worker.
  Jose is married to Alicia, who goes to work season after season in 
California's labor-intensive agriculture industry. She currently works 
for a fruit packing company in Reedley, California. Jose and Alicia 
have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 22, and Alex, age 
20, who have both always excelled in school.
  Ana Laura earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School, and was offered an 
academic scholarship at the University of California, Berkeley. 
Unfortunately, she could not accept the scholarship because of her 
undocumented status.
  Ana Laura nonetheless persisted. She enrolled at the University of 
California, Irvine and is on track to graduate this spring with a major 
in Chicano Studies and Art.
  Ana Laura's younger brother, Alex, is a United States citizen. He 
graduated high school with a 3.85 GPA and now studies engineering at 
the University of California, Merced. Last spring, he graduated with 
honors and a scholarship from Reedley College with an Associate of 
Science degree in Engineering.
  Remarkably, the Buendias should have been able to correct their 
immigration status years ago. Jose should have qualified for 
legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 
1986; however, his application was never acted upon because his 
attorney was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and 
Special Agricultural Worker applications, tainting all of his clients.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service took nearly 7 years to 
determine that Jose's application contained no fraudulent information, 
but at that point it was too late. Jose was no longer eligible for 
relief due to changes in U.S. immigration law.
  Still, the Buendia family continued to seek legal status through 
other means. In 1999, it appeared they had succeeded when an 
Immigration Judge granted the family cancellation of removal based on 
the hardship their son, Alex, would face if deported to Mexico. 
However, the decision was appealed and ultimately overturned. At this 
point, the Buendias have exhausted their options to remain together as 
a family here in the United States.
  In the more than 20 years of living in California, the Buendias have 
shown

[[Page 3020]]

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

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

                                 S. 440

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and 
     Ana Laura Buendia Aranda shall each be eligible for issuance 
     of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 
     an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
     filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia 
     Aranda De Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda enter the 
     United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De 
     Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, as appropriate, shall 
     be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in the 
     United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status 
     under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status 
     is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jose Buendia 
     Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia 
     Aranda, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 
     fiscal year--
       (1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of birth of Jose Buendia 
     Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia 
     Aranda under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
       (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
     are made available to natives of the country of birth of Jose 
     Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura 
     Buendia Aranda under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1152(e)).
       (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 441. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria 
Elna Cobain Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration 
relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to 
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola 
Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals 
living in the Fresno area of California.
  Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 
years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 25, and Cindy, age 20, 
also stand to benefit from this legislation.
  The other three Arreola children, Robert, age 19, Daniel, age 15, and 
Saray, age 14, are United States citizens. Today, Esidronio and Maria 
Elena and their two eldest children face deportation.
  The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they 
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous 
errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been 
disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it 
compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of 
Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in 
his client's immigration cases.
  Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural 
migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a 
migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent 
residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers SAW, program, had 
he known about it.
  Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became 
pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth 
because she wanted to avoid any problems with the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
  Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United 
States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of 
deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United 
States legally. However, their poor legal representation foreclosed 
this opportunity.
  One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this 
private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and 
Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American 
citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since 
they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only 
country they really know.
  Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high 
school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific 
University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition 
scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office. She 
graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business 
Administration and is working on her graduate degree. Nayely recently 
got married.
  At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals 
of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her 
full potential both through her academic endeavors and community 
service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific 
University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno 
Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become 
exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''
  In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual 
Determination, AVID, college preparatory program in which students 
commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college 
degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service 
organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced 
to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams 
and further contribute to her community and to this country.
  Nayely's sister, Cindy, also recently married and has a one-year-old 
daughter. Neither Nayely nor Cindy are eligible to adjust their status 
based on their marriages because they grew up in the United States 
undocumented.
  The Arreolas also have other family who are United States citizens or 
lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three 
brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is 
an American citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no 
immediate family in Mexico.

[[Page 3021]]

  According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any 
problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their 
taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked 
hard to support themselves.
  As I previously mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a 
farm worker, but now has his own business in California repairing 
electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to 
purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their 
church community and in their children's education.
  It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. 
Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the 
Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their 
community as well as the United States.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 441

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Esidronio Arreola-
     Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, 
     and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be deemed to have been lawfully 
     admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be 
     eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
     of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255).
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant 
     visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed 
     with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna 
     Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael 
     Arreola, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 4, during the current or subsequent 
     fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Marina Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely 
     Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 203(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 
     if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely 
     Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 202(e) 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(c)).
       (d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 442. A bill for the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief 
legislation for Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, ``Alice'', 
Hsu-Liang.
  I first introduced a private bill for Robert and Alice in 2003. Since 
then this family has only further demonstrated their hard work ethic 
and commitment to realizing the American dream. I continue to believe 
that Robert and Alice merit Congress' special consideration and the 
extraordinary relief provided by private legislation.
  Robert and Alice have been living in San Bruno, California, for the 
last 27 years. Robert is a national and refugee from Laos, and Alice is 
originally from Taiwan. They have three children who are all United 
States citizens. I am concerned that forcing Robert and Alice to return 
to their home countries would tear this family apart and cause immense 
and unwarranted hardship to them and their children.
  Robert and Alice have called California their home since they first 
entered the United States in 1983. They came here legally on tourist 
visas. They face deportation today because they remained in the United 
States past the terms of their visas, and because their attorney failed 
to handle their immigration case on a timely basis before federal 
immigration laws changed in 1996.
  In many ways, the Liang family represents a uniquely American success 
story. Robert was born in Laos, but fled the country as a teenager 
after his mother was killed by Communists. He witnessed many traumatic 
experiences in his youth, including the attack that killed his mother 
and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He routinely witnessed the 
brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village in Laos. In 
1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.
  Robert and his wife risked everything to come to the United States. 
Despite the challenges of their past, they built a family in California 
and established a place for themselves in the local community. They are 
homeowners. They own a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant. They 
file annual income taxes and are financially stable.
  Robert and Alice support their three children, Wesley, Bruce, and 
Eva, who are all American citizens. Wesley is now 18 years old and 
studying at City College of San Francisco. The younger children, Bruce 
and Eva, attend schools in the San Bruno area and continue to do well 
in their classes.
  There are many reasons to believe that deporting Robert and Alice 
would have a harmful impact on the children, who have all of their ties 
to the United States. Deportation would either break this family apart 
or force them to relocate to a country entirely foreign to the one they 
know to be home.
  The Immigration Judge who presided over Robert and Alice's case in 
1997 also concluded that Robert and Alice's deportation would adversely 
impact the Liang children.
  Moreover, Robert would face significant hurdles if deported, having 
fled Laos as a refugee more than 27 years ago. The emotional impact of 
the wartime violence Robert experienced at a young age was traumatic 
and continues to strain him. He battles severe clinical depression here 
in the United States. Robert fears that if he is deported and moves to 
his wife's home country, Taiwan, he will face discrimination on account 
of his nationality. Robert does not speak Taiwanese, and he worries 
about how he would pursue mental health treatment in a foreign country.
  Robert and Alice have worked since 1993 to resolve their immigration 
status. They filed for relief from deportation; however, it took nearly 
five years for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, to act 
on the case. By the time their case went through in 1997, the 
immigration laws had changed and the Liangs were no longer eligible for 
relief. I supported these changes, set forth in the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. But, I also believe 
there may be situations worthy of special consideration.
  Robert and Alice Liang represent one such example. They are long-term 
residents of the United States. Their children are all U.S. citizens. 
The Immigration Judge that presided over the appeal of this case 
determined that Robert and Alice would have qualified for relief from 
deportation, in light of these positive factors, had the INS given 
their case timely consideration. Unfortunately, their immigration case 
took nearly five years to move forward.
  A private bill is the only way for both Robert and Alice to remain in 
the United States together with their family. They have worked 
extraordinarily hard to make the United States their home. I believe 
Robert and Alice deserve the relief provided by a private bill.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill 
on behalf of the Liangs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 442

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

[[Page 3022]]



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

                                 S. 443

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas shall 
     each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
     adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence upon filing an application for 
     issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful 
     permanent resident.

[[Page 3023]]

       (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)).
       (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 444. A bill for the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill for the 
private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Shirley is a Filipina 
national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 14-
year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of 
Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.
  I believe Shirley merits Congress' special consideration for this 
extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the 
United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. 
Shirley faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her 
from her family and jeopardize her safety.
  Shirley experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she 
left to come to the United States. When Shirley was only 14 years old, 
her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the 
head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually 
prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, 
Shirley fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be 
released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a 
visitor's visa in 1989.
  Shirley's current deportation order is the result of negligent 
counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was 
pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to 
submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was 
dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley 
voluntary departure from the United States.
  Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals 
granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did 
not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. 
As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of 
voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. Shirley 
learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 
2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into 
immigration custody.
  Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Shirley was denied the 
opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings. 
Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California 
against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a 
complaint against this attorney.
  In addition to the hardship that would come to Shirley if she is 
deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two 
United States citizen children, Jashley and Joreine, who are minors.
  Jashley and Joreine are currently attending Terra Nova High School in 
Pacifica, California, where they continue to be excellent students on 
the honor roll. The children are involved in their school's music 
program, playing the clarinet and the flute. The children's teacher 
wrote a letter to me in which she described Shirley's involvement in 
Jashley and Joreine's lives, referring to Shirley as a ``model'' parent 
and describing her active role in the school community. In addition to 
caring for her two children, Shirley is the primary caregiver for her 
elderly mother-in-law.
  If Shirley were forced to leave the United States, her family has 
expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try and 
find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would 
mean that Jashley and Joreine would have to leave behind their 
education and the only home they know in the United States.
  While Shirley and Jay are legally married under California law at 
this time, Shirley cannot legally adjust her immigration status through 
the regular family-based immigration procedures.
  I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this 
family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice 
between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face 
safety concerns or other serious hardships.
  Shirley and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica 
and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic 
Church, volunteering for the church and the Mother Theresa of 
Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of 
members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of 
commitment to their community.
  Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Shirley 
today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in 
California and make positive contributions to their community.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 444

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SHIRLEY CONSTANTINO 
                   TAN.

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

[[Page 3024]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs, FEINSTEIN:
  S. 445. A bill for the relief of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva 
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private 
relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva 
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas 
family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of 
California.
  The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit 
Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  Jorge and his wife, Oliva, originally came to the United States in 
1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, 
they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered the 
United States on visitor's visas.
  The family has since expanded to include two sons, Alexis Rojas, now 
18 years old, Matias, now a year old, a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 
16, and a granddaughter, Mina Rojas, who is less than a year old.
  The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the 
United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not 
an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without 
proper legal guidance, this family did not realize at the time that 
they lacked a valid basis for asylum. The asylum claim was denied in 
2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize 
their status.
  Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the 
Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong 
commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes 
and worked hard to contribute to this country.
  Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley 
Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 16 
years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is 
well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.
  In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time 
to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his 
children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood 
association, working with his neighbors to open a library and community 
center in their community.
  Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very 
active in the local community. She works to help other immigrants 
assimilate to American life by acting as a translator and a tutor for 
immigrant children in local schools and after school programs in 
Northern California.
  Before her youngest son was born, Oliva volunteered with the People 
Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she worked to 
prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and 
schools.
  Both Jorge and Oliva are active volunteers with the Second Harvest 
Food Bank, assisting in distributing food to the needy at a community 
center.
  Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas 
family to remain in the United States is the impact that their 
deportation would have on their three children. Two of the Rojas 
children, Alexis and Tania, are American citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has 
lived in the United States since he was a toddler.
  For Alexis, Tania, and Jorge, this country is the only country they 
really know.
  Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his 
parents, recently became a father. He is now 22 years old and working 
at a job that allows him to support his daughter, Mina. Jorge graduated 
from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is taking classes at San Jose City 
College.
  Alexis, age 18, graduated from Del Mar High School and is now a 
student at West Valley College in Saratoga, California. He is 
interested in studying linguistics. Tania, age 16, still attends Del 
Mar High School and plans to graduate next year. Their teachers 
describe them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students.
  It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American 
dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to 
enhance the values we hold dear.
  When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from 
the community in Northern California in support of this family. 
Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the 
Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their 
community as well as the United States.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 445

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

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

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

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 446. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and 
Arthur Mkoyan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief 
legislation in the 112th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik 
Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family has been 
living in Fresno, California, for over 15 years. I continue to believe 
this family deserves Congress' special consideration for such an 
extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.
  The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave 
Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several 
incidents in which the family experienced vandalism and threats to 
their well-being.
  In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. 
At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which 
he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later 
learned that a co-worker had gone ahead and registered the vehicles at 
the request of the chief.

[[Page 3025]]

  Several disturbing incidents occurred after Ruben reported the bribe 
offer to illegally register vehicles. Ruben's store was vandalized; 
after he said he would call the police, he received threatening phone 
calls telling him to keep quiet. At one point, the Mkoians suffered the 
loss of their home when a bottle of gasoline was thrown into their 
residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered 
the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days.
  Ruben, Asmik, and their three-year-old son, Arthur, left Armenia soon 
thereafter and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied 
for political asylum in 1992 on the grounds that they would be subject 
to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their 
case to be finalized, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied 
their asylum case in January 2008.
  At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to 
remain legally in the United States.
  The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in 
California. Ruben works as a truck driver for a California trucking 
company. He has been described as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' 
and an asset to the company. Asmik has completed training at a local 
community college and is now a full-time medical assistant with Fresno 
Shields Medical Group.
  The Mkoians attend St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They 
do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Asmik also 
teaches Armenian School on Saturdays at the church.
  I would particularly like to highlight the achievements of the Ruben 
and Asmik's two children, Arthur and Arsen, who were raised in 
California and have been recognized publicly for their scholastic 
achievements.
  I first introduced a private bill for this family on Arthur's high 
school graduation day. Despite being undocumented, Arthur maintained a 
4.0 grade point average in high school and was a valedictorian for the 
class of 2008. Arthur, now 20 years old, is in his third year at the 
University of California, Davis. He is studying biochemistry, maintains 
excellent grades, and was on the Dean's Merit List again this past 
quarter.
  Arthur's brother, Arsen, is 14 years old and a United States citizen. 
He is currently a freshman at Bullard High School in Fresno, where he 
does well in his classes, maintaining a 3.9 grade point average.
  I believe Arthur and Arsen are two young individuals with great 
potential here in the United States. Like their parents, they have 
demonstrated their commitment to working hard--and they are succeeding. 
They clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States.
  It has been more than 18 years since Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur left 
Armenia. This family has few family members and virtually no supporting 
contacts in Armenia. They invested their time, resources, and effort in 
order to remain in the United States legally, to no avail. A private 
relief bill is the only means to prevent them from being forced to 
return to a country that long ago became a closed chapter of their 
past.
  When I first introduced a bill on behalf of the Mkoian family in 
2008, I received written endorsements from Representatives George 
Radanovich, R-CA, and Jim Costa, D-CA, in strong support of the family. 
I also received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of 
support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive 
impact that this family has had in Fresno California.
  I believe that this case warrants our compassion and our 
extraordinary consideration. I respectfully ask my colleagues to 
support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 446

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan 
     shall each be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa 
     or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful 
     permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Ruben Mkoian, Asmik 
     Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan enters the United States before 
     the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Ruben 
     Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan, as appropriate, 
     shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in 
     the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of 
     status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status 
     is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an 
     immigrant visa or permanent resident status to Ruben Mkoian, 
     Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan, the Secretary of State 
     shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the 
     current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and 
     Arthur Mkoyan under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik 
     Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan under section 202(e) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 447. A bill for the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private 
immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident 
status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and 
their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico 
but has been living in California for twenty years. I believe they 
merit Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of 
relief.
  When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as 
a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he 
started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian 
restaurant in San Francisco.
  Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventually becoming Palio's 
sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed 
coworker, and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at 
his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.''
  He and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela works as a 
housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States 
citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, age 22, is undocumented. Adilene 
graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and attended San 
Francisco City College. She is now studying nursing at Los Medranos 
College.
  The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, is a senior at Leadership 
High School and has applied to attend several Universities in 
California. Jazmin is a United States citizen and has been diagnosed 
with asthma. According to her doctor, if the family returns to Mexico, 
the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to 
Jazmin.
  The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through 
several channels.
  In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to 
get a

[[Page 3026]]

green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from 
Mexico is long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible 
to legalize his status though his sister.
  In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their 
application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent 
application for cancellation of removal because he could not find the 
``requisite hardship'' required for this form of immigration relief. 
Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that 
Jose's culinary ability was a negative factor weighing against keeping 
the family in the United States, finding that Jose's skills indicated 
that he could find a job in Mexico.
  Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio 
D'Asti, petitioned for legal status for Jose based upon Jose's unique 
skills as a chef. Even though U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
approved Jose's work petition, there is a backlog for employment based 
visas and it may be many years before Jose can get a visa. Until then, 
he and his family remain subject to deportation.
  Jose, Micaela, and their daughter, Adilene, have no other 
administrative options to legalize their status. If they are deported, 
they will face a several-year ban from returning to the United States. 
Jose and Micaela will be separated from their American citizen-children 
and their community.
  The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in 
California. They are active in their faith community and their 
children's schools. They volunteer with community-based organizations 
and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced 
this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow 
parishioners, teachers, and members of their community.
  The Martinez family truly embraces the American dream. Jose worked 
his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an 
indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. Adelene worked hard in 
high school and is now attending college.
  I believe the Martinez family's presence in the United States allows 
them to continue making significant contributions to their community in 
California.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 447

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
     Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez shall each be 
     deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, 
     the United States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of 
     status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application 
     for such adjustment of status.
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
     Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez, the Secretary 
     of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, 
     during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total 
     number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
     of the country of the birth of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
     Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under section 
     202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1152(e) and 1153(a)), as applicable.
       (d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 448. A bill for the relief of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private 
relief bill on behalf of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li. Steve is a Peruvian 
national who lives in San Francisco, California. He was brought to the 
United States as a child and is now a student at City College of San 
Francisco hoping to become a nurse.
  I decided to introduce a private bill on Steve's behalf because I 
believe that Steve would suffer undue hardship if he were removed to 
Peru. Without this legislation, Steve would be separated from his 
family and his community, and returned to a country he does not know.
  Steve was only 12 years old when his parents brought him to the 
United States. Steve's parents are Chinese nationals who originally 
fled China to escape economic oppression and the Chinese government's 
policies on reproductive rights. From China, his parents went to Peru, 
where Steve was born.
  The family then sought asylum in the United States, which was denied. 
Steve was ordered removed to Peru, where he was born, while his parents 
were ordered removed to China, the country of their nationality. 
Steve's parents would not be able to accompany their son to Peru.
  Steve's parents never told him about the asylum denial or the removal 
orders. Steve did not know that he was in the United States illegally, 
and he went through all of his teenage years in the United States 
believing he was legally allowed to be here. He did not learn about his 
deportation order until one morning this past September when 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived at his home and took 
him into custody.
  All too often, youngsters like Steve are put in the position of being 
returned to a country they do not know. These young people did not make 
the choice to come to the United States but were brought to this 
country by their parents. Many of these young people grew up in America 
and have little or no memory of the countries they came from. They are 
hard working young people dedicated to their education. They have 
stayed out of trouble. Some are valedictorians and honor roll students. 
Many are community leaders and have an unwavering commitment to serving 
the United States.
  I hoped that the Senate would pass the DREAM Act last year to provide 
qualified young people the opportunity to contribute to this country 
and their communities. Unfortunately, the bill fell short of the 60 
votes it needed to move forward. I hope the Senate will one day pass 
the DREAM Act. The legislation I am introducing today will provide one 
of these youngsters the opportunity give back to the country he calls 
home.
  Steve attended George Washington High School in San Francisco, 
California. While there, he was enrolled in the Honor's Program and 
became very involved in his high school community. Steve was an athlete 
on the cross country and track team. He worked for the school newspaper 
as a reporter, editor, and cameraman. Demonstrating his desire to 
educate his community on health issues, Steve also provided 
presentations to other students through his high school's wellness 
program on the risks of drinking and driving and sexually transmitted 
diseases.
  Steve graduated high school in 2008 and enrolled at City College of 
San Francisco to pursue a career in nursing. City College of San 
Francisco awarded Steve the Goldman Scholarship to cover the cost of 
his tuition. Steve has continued his active involvement in his 
community, joining the Asian American Student Success Center, as well 
as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Program, which 
is a 2-year outreach and educational support program.
  Steve continued his commitment to academic achievement when he 
attended the San Francisco State University Summer Science Institute, 
which provided a year-long internship to prepare him for a career in 
health care upon his graduation from college.

[[Page 3027]]

  Educators working with Steve highlight his potential for giving back 
to the United States, while Steve's friends and other community members 
have contacted me about the impact his compassion and helpfulness has 
had on the community. Steve's teachers call him a ``great student,'' 
``hard working,'' ``an exceptional student,'' and ``goal directed.''
  This private bill is an opportunity for Steve to finish his education 
and remain in the country he considers his only home. If he were forced 
to relocate to Peru, his education would be cut short, and Steve would 
be sent to a place where he knows no one. I believe that, by staying in 
California, Steve will only continue to serve his community and serve 
this country as a health care professional.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 448

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any order, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li shall be--
       (1) deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained 
     in, the United States; and
       (2) eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
     adjustment of status under section 245 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255).
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the applications for issuance of an immigrant 
     visa or for adjustment of status are filed, with appropriate 
     fees, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa to Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li, the Secretary 
     of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
     during the current or next following fiscal year, the total 
     number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
     of the country of the birth of Shing Ma ``Steve'' Li under--
       (1) section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
       (2) section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)), if 
     applicable.
       (d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 449. A bill for the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing private 
relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple 
living with their family in Camarillo, California.
  Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country 
over twelve years ago after being targeted for their religious 
involvement in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became 
involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and 
project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as 
the church's training director in human resources.
  Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and 
abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the 
church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her 
cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. 
When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by 
a member of a different religious organization against raising her 
child in a non-Muslim faith.
  Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally seeking refuge in 
November 1998. They immediately notified authorities of their intent to 
seek protection in the United States, filing for political asylum in 
May 1999.
  However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty 
communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and one year later 
their asylum application was denied because they could not adequately 
establish that they were victims of persecution. Joseph and Sharon 
pursued the appropriate means for appealing this decision, to no avail.
  It should be noted that sometime later Sharon's brother applied for 
asylum in the United States. He, too, applied on the basis of 
persecution he and his family faced in Egypt, but his application was 
approved and he was granted this status in the United States.
  There are no other avenues for Joseph and Sharon to pursue relief 
here in the United States. If they are deported, they will be forced 
back to a country where they sincerely fear for their safety.
  Since arriving in the United States more than twelve years ago, 
Joseph and Sharon have built a family here, including four children who 
are United States citizens: Jessica, age 12, Rebecca, age 11, Rafael, 
age 10, and Veronica, age 6. Jessica, Rebecca, and Rafael attend school 
in California and maintain good grades. Veronica is attending 
kindergarten at Camarillo Heights Elementary School.
  Joseph and Sharon worked hard to achieve financial security for their 
children, and they created a meaningful place for their family in 
California. Both earned college degrees in Egypt. Joseph, who has his 
Certified Public Accountant license, has been working in the accounting 
department for a technology company in California.
  Joseph also volunteers for his son's Boy Scout Troop, and has 
expressed interest in pursuing opportunities as an Arabic language 
expert here in the United States. Joseph and Sharon carry strong 
support from friends, co-workers, members of their local church, and 
other Californians who attest to their good character and community 
contributions.
  I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and 
unwarranted hardships if forced to relocate to Egypt. For Jessica, 
Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United 
States. It is quite possible these four American children would face 
discrimination or worse in Egypt on account of their religion, as was 
the experience of many of their family members.
  Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United 
States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their 
children and making a healthy and productive place for them to grow up 
in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill 
on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 449

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

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

[[Page 3028]]

     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
     reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects 
     of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing 
     in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 
     Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 
     submitted prior to the vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 450. A bill for the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to reintroduce 
private relief legislation on behalf of Jacqueline Coats, a widow 
living in the San Francisco Bay Area. I rise today to ask my colleagues 
to support this legislation in the 112th Congress, which would provide 
Jacqueline with the extraordinary relief I believe she deserves.
  Jacqueline came to the United States from Kenya in 2001 on a student 
visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. In 
January 2002, based on the advice she received from a college advisor, 
Jacqueline attempted to transfer to City College of San Francisco, 
which required her to file for reinstatement. However, the request for 
reinstatement was denied in October 2002, and Jacqueline's immigration 
status lapsed the following year.
  Jacqueline married Marlin Coats, an American citizen, on April 17, 
2006, at San Francisco City Hall. But not even a month after the 
marriage, on May 13, 2006, Jacqueline's husband died while heroically 
attempting to save two boys from drowning at Ocean Beach in San 
Francisco. The two children survived with the help of a rescue crew, 
but Mr. Coats was caught in a riptide and died. The sudden and 
unexpected loss of her husband devastated Jacqueline.
  Unfortunately, a loophole in U.S. immigration laws meant that 
Jacqueline's status in the United States was suddenly in jeopardy due 
to the death of her husband. Jacqueline and her husband had prepared 
and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office 
just four days before Mr. Coats died. However, the petition did not get 
filed until after his death, meaning it could no longer be considered 
valid.
  Jacqueline very likely would have received permanent residence in the 
United States were it not for the abrupt death of Mr. Coats. At the 
time, Jacqueline received a medal honoring her husband's heroic 
actions. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco 
Police Department, and the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP all 
passed resolutions in support of her remaining in the United States.
  In 2009, I co-sponsored legislation known as the Fairness to 
Surviving Spouses Act to address this hole in U.S. immigration laws 
that creates unnecessary hardship for foreign-born men and women--like 
Jacqueline--whose immigration status is at risk when the sponsoring 
U.S. citizen spouse dies. I do not believe our immigration system 
should penalize individuals whose earnest efforts to become permanent 
legal residents of this country are cut short when their sponsoring 
spouse dies.
  I was pleased that the President signed the Fairness to Surviving 
Spouses Act into law as part of a Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill on October 28, 2009. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services is now implementing this law, which allows widows 
of American citizens to continue to petition for permanent residency as 
long as they can prove that they entered into their marriage in good 
faith. Jacqueline may be eligible for this form of relief; however, I 
believe that a private bill remains necessary until this process can be 
finalized.
  Jacqueline has been a hard-working employee for a transit company in 
Oakland, California, since 2004. She is taking three classes at St. 
Mary's College, and she remains close with the family of her late 
husband. For Jacqueline, the Coats family here in the United States has 
become her own.
  Ramona Burton, one of Mr. Coats' siblings, wrote in a letter to me: 
``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American 
Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her 
there. She needs to be there.'' Another concerned California 
constituent wrote to me that common fairness, morality and decency'' 
should be the standards by which we view this case. I agree. Despite 
the tragedy of losing her husband, Jacqueline continues to work hard, 
take classes, and integrate herself within her community.
  Without some form of relief, Jacqueline will be deported to Kenya, a 
country she has not lived in since she was 21 years old. This is never 
what her late husband, a citizen of the United States, intended.
  I believe Congress should honor this family by granting Jacqueline 
permanent residency in the United States. I urge my colleagues to give 
consideration to Jacqueline and to support this private relief 
immigration bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 450

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be eligible for issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jacqueline W. Coats enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be considered to 
     have entered and remained lawfully in the United States and 
     shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jacqueline W. 
     Coats, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent 
     fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Jacqueline W. Coats under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under 
     section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 451. A bill for the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
reintroduce private relief legislation for Claudia Marquez Rico. I 
first introduced a private bill for Claudia back in 2006. This young 
woman has lived in California for most of her life. She suffered 
tremendous hardship after the sudden death of her parents more than ten 
years ago. I believe she deserves the special relief granted by a 
private bill.
  Claudia was born in Jalisco, Mexico. She was only 6 years old when 
her parents brought her, and her two younger brothers, to the United 
States.
  Ten years ago, tragedy struck this family. Early in the morning on 
October 4, 2000, while driving to work, Claudia's parents were killed 
in a horrific car accident when their vehicle collided with a truck on 
a rural road.
  Suddenly orphaned, Claudia and her siblings were fortunate enough to 
have a place to go. They were welcomed into the loving home of their 
aunt, Hortencia, and uncle, Patricio, who are both United States 
citizens. Hortencia and Patricio are active at Buen Pastor

[[Page 3029]]

Catholic Church. Patricio is a youth soccer coach. This couple raised 
the Marquez children as their own, counseling them through the loss of 
their parents and helping them with their school work. They became the 
legal guardians of the Marquez children in 2001.
  Claudia likely would have resolved her immigration status, were it 
not for poor legal representation. The death of the Marquez parents 
meant that Claudia and her siblings should have qualified for special 
immigrant juvenile status. Congress created this special immigrant 
status to protect children under extraordinary circumstances and spare 
them the hardship of deportation when a state court deems the children 
to be dependents as a result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. In 
fact, Claudia's younger brother, Omar, was granted this special 
immigrant juvenile status, providing him legal permanent residency.
  However, the lawyer for the Marquez children failed to secure this 
relief for Claudia. She has now reached the age of majority without 
having resolved her immigration status, making her ineligible for this 
special relief.
  It is important to take note that the lawyer who handled this case 
currently faces charges on numerous counts of professional incompetence 
and moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases. The California 
State Bar accused him of a ``despicable and far-reaching pattern of 
misconduct.'' The Bar sought to disbar the attorney before he resigned 
with pending charges.
  Claudia deserved a fair chance at resolving her immigration status, 
but her attorney's egregious behavior stripped her of this opportunity.
  Claudia, nonetheless, finished school despite these adverse 
circumstances. She secured a job in Redwood City, California, and she 
currently lives with her younger sister, Maribel, in Menlo Park, where 
they care for their grandfather. Claudia also provides financial 
support to her two brothers, Jose and Omar, whenever necessary. She is 
still active in the local community, attending San Clemente Catholic 
Church in Hayward.
  It would be an injustice to add to the Marquez family's misfortune by 
tearing these siblings apart. Claudia and her siblings have come to 
rely on each other in the absence of their deceased parents, and 
Claudia is clearly a central support of this family. Moreover, Claudia 
has never visited Mexico and has no close relatives in the country. She 
was so young when her parents brought her to the United States that she 
has no memories of Mexico.
  I am reintroducing a private relief bill on Claudia's behalf because 
I believe her removal from the United States would go against our 
standard of fairness and would only cause additional hardship on a 
family that already endured so much.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief 
legislation on behalf of Claudia Marquez Rico.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 451

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA MARQUEZ 
                   RICO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligible for issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Claudia Marquez Rico enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and 
     remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, shall be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Claudia 
     Marquez Rico, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
     proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or 
     subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
     that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Claudia Marquez Rico under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of birth of Claudia Marquez Rico under 
     section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for 
     Certain Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and 
     sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico shall not, by virtue of such 
     relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status 
     under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.).
       (f) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 452. A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria 
Del Refugio Plascencia; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to 
provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez 
and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live 
in the San Bruno area of California.
  I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe 
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their five children, all 
United States citizens, would face extreme hardship. Their children 
would either face separation from their parents or be forced to leave 
the only country they know and give up on their education in the United 
States.
  The Plascencias have been in the United States for over 20 years. 
They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal 
channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities. The 
Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise 
communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial 
immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. 
Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo and Maria 
only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States 
fifteen days prior to their scheduled deportation.
  The Plascencias were shocked to learn of their attorney's 
malfeasance, but they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to 
file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine 
if any other legal action could be taken.
  Since arriving in the United States in 1988, Alfredo and Maria have 
proven themselves a civic-minded couple who share our American values 
of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community.
  For over 15 years, Alfredo has been gainfully employed at Vince's 
Shellfish, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled 
him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the 
market's entire packing operation and several employees.
  The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I 
received in support of Alfredo, referred to him as ``a valuable and 
respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional 
manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who 
have written to me praising Alfredo's job performance refer to him as 
``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.''
  Maria has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser 
Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a 
maid at a local hotel, she went to school, earned her high school 
equivalency degree, and improved her skills to become a medical 
assistant. She is now in a program to become a Licensed Vocational 
Nurse. She plans to graduate next year and start a nursing program

[[Page 3030]]

with Kaiser to become a registered nurse.
  Several Californians who wrote to me in support of Maria describe her 
as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' Kaiser 
Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine wrote to say that Maria is 
``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans 
extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] 
involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of 
the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.''
  Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes to 
realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up 
and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits, 
and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their 
daughter, Christina, age 19, to college and plan to send the rest of 
their children to college as well.
  Allowing the Plascencias to remain in the United States would 
preserve their achievements and ensure that they will be able to make 
substantive contributions to the community in the future.
  In addition, this bill will have a positive impact on the couple's 
United States citizen children, who are dedicated to pursuing their 
educations and becoming productive members of their community.
  Christina is the Plascencias' oldest child. She is 20 years old, 
working and taking classes at Skyline Community College and the College 
of San Mateo. She would like to be a paralegal. Erika, age 16, attends 
Peninsula High School in San Bruno and was recently named Student of 
the Month. Erika's teachers praise her abilities and have referred to 
her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom.
  Alfredo and Maria also have three young children: Alfredo, Jr., age 
14, Daisy, age 9, and Juan-Pablo, age 5.
  Removing Alfredo and Maria from the United States would be tragic for 
their children. The Plascencia children were born in America and 
through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that 
has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.
  It would be especially tragic if Erika, Alfredo, and Daisy have to 
leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they 
are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their 
home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them.
  The Plascencia family would then be in Mexico without a means for 
supporting themselves and with no place to live. The children would 
have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life.
  The only other option would be for Alfredo and Maria to leave their 
children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no 
parents should have to make.
  I am reintroducing this legislation because I believe that the 
Plascencias will continue to make positive contributions to their 
community in California and this country. The Plascencia children 
should be given the opportunity to realize their full potential in the 
United States, with their family intact.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 452

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio 
     Plascencia shall each be eligible for the issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Alfredo Plascencia Lopez or 
     Maria Del Refugio Plascencia enter the United States before 
     the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez or Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, as 
     appropriate, shall be considered to have entered and remained 
     lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under 
     section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of 
     immigrant visas or the application for adjustment of status 
     are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas or permanent residence to Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 
     the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
     to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo Plascencia 
     Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under section 203(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 
     if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under 
     section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
     vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 454. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse under Medicare, Medicaid and 
CHIP, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee held 
a hearing to discuss the serious problems of fraud in Medicare and 
Medicaid. Over the last 9 years, the Finance Committee has held more 
than 20 oversight hearings dealing with Medicare and Medicaid fraud. 
These hearings highlighted the flaws in how the Federal Government 
administers Medicare and Medicaid. They also stress the need to create 
disincentives for those who seek to defraud these vital programs.
  Every dollar lost to Medicare or Medicaid fraud is a dollar that is 
not available for beneficiaries. Of course, we ought to be very 
cognizant of that considering the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. In 
2009, the Federal Government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379 
billion on Medicaid. It is estimated that between $40 billion and $70 
billion was lost to fraud that year. However, officials from the 
Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice 
announced last month that their health care fraud prevention and 
enforcement efforts recovered $4 billion in fraud. So compare that $4 
billion with the $44 billion to $70 billion, and it means we still have 
a very long way to go.
  When it comes to public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it is 
clear the Federal Government needs to be more effective in combating 
waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Government has simply made it too 
easy for bad actors to steal from each of these programs. It says a lot 
when we hear that organized crime has moved into health care fraud 
because it is more lucrative than organized crime. Medicare and 
Medicaid also attract more criminals because the profits of fraud 
greatly outweigh the consequences if you get caught. Then there are 
those who don't even get caught.
  Taxpayer dollars should only go to bona fide providers and medical 
suppliers. But the reimbursement system is set up so that the Federal 
Government pays first and asks questions later. In other words, the 
system is based on a program we call the pay-and-chase system.
  Over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more 
authority to improve enforcement of fraud, waste, and abuse laws. 
During health care reform, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan 
set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Many of 
these proposals are in the bill I introduced in the last Congress, S. 
2964, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health 
Care

[[Page 3031]]

Act, and many were even included in the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act. These provisions did not draw opposition from 
either side of the aisle.
  Tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas 
where there is widespread agreement. But our work does not end with the 
passage of legislation. Congress needs to keep the pressure on Federal 
officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud.
  There is also more Congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the 
government's ability to fight this fraud. We need to ensure that 
phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers 
cannot simply bill Medicare millions of dollars in just a few months 
and then get out of town scot-free. Health and Human Services and the 
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to use the tools already 
available to them to make sure claims are legitimate before they are 
paid.
  But even with all of that, we must remain vigilant in our oversight 
efforts, which is the constitutional responsibility of the legislative 
branch of government, because tomorrow's criminals will find ways to 
get around the laws and regulations we put in place today. That is why 
I am introducing the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability 
in Health Care Act of 2011. This bill contains the remaining proposals 
from S. 2964 that are necessary to enhance the government's ability to 
combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It builds on reforms we made in the 
last Congress.
  The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to 
the public similar to other Federal spending disclosed through 
www.USAspending
.gov. This Web site lists almost all Federal spending, but it doesn't 
include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually 
every other government program, including even some defense spending, 
is more transparent, or responds to the citizens' right to know, than 
spending by the Medicare Program. So that differential between defense 
spending and most other government programs and what we allow the 
public to know about the Medicare tax dollars being spent is too big of 
a gap and one we should not tolerate anymore because a taxpayer dollar 
spent on Medicare isn't any different from the public's right to know 
about a taxpayer dollar spent on defense programs. Let's say even for 
this Senator, with my background in farming and participating in a 
family farm operation, the public can read in the newspapers of Iowa, 
as they can for every State, the amount of money a certain Senator--or 
I shouldn't say Senator--a certain farmer gets from the farm program. 
It is all taxpayers' dollars.
  In addition, this bill also goes on to create a national 
clearinghouse of information so that we can better detect, prevent, and 
thereby deter medical identity theft. This is about the Federal 
Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the 
taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system.
  The bill would also change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay 
providers quickly regardless of the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. 
Under current law, the government is required to make payments for what 
is called a clean claim within 14 to 30 days before interest accrues on 
the claim. That is not enough time for the limited number of Medicare 
auditors to determine if a claim is legitimate before a payment has to 
be made. The result is that this what we call prompt-payment rule 
requires that Medicare pay bad actors first and ask questions later, 
which leads to that pay-and-chase system I previously mentioned.
  So this bill would add to the tools Congress provided to the 
executive branch last year to prevent fraudulent payment on the front 
end. It would extend the time payments must be made if the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services determines there is a likelihood of fraud, 
waste, and abuse.
  In addition, the bill would expand the Health and Human Services 
inspector general's authority to exclude an individual from 
participating in the Federal health care program. I wish to give an 
example. The inspector general would be able to exclude an individual 
if the individual had ownership or control interests in an entity at 
the time the entity engaged in misconduct such as health care fraud. 
Now, I know that is common sense to the taxpayers of America, but it is 
not something the inspector general can do today.
  I still have other areas my bill addresses, and one is in the area of 
illegal, unapproved drugs. Just last week, the Los Angeles Times 
reported that the Food and Drug Administration is struggling to keep 
unapproved drugs off the market. It reported that ``in many cases, the 
agency doesn't even know what the drugs are or where they are.'' This 
is another example of how the Federal reimbursement system creates an 
incentive for bad actors to get around the rules.
  In this case, those rules are the Food and Drug Administration 
requirements for putting a drug on the market.
  Medicaid pays until the Food and Drug Administration identifies a 
drug or class of drugs as not approved for marketing and then takes 
formal action.
  Under such circumstances, the Federal Government doesn't even have 
the option to chase after the previous payments.
  My bill would stop such payments, unless the State Medicaid Programs 
first verify with the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is 
being legally marketed.
  Again, that may sound like common sense, but it is something that 
can't be done without a change in the law.
  The changes I am proposing would go a long way to deter those who 
would defraud our health care system. It also would provide greater 
protections to the taxpayers.
  Fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is vital to 
the sustainability of each program. My bill will help add to the 
reforms we passed last year. It will fix some of the blatant problems 
that incentivize and reward waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 100 million 
Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance.
  Right now, these programs, as we all know--every Member of the Senate 
knows and most of the public knows--these programs are on an 
unsustainable path. My bill takes necessary steps to move these 
programs toward sustainability.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help me by 
cosponsoring it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 455. A bill to promote development and opportunity with regards to 
spectrum occupancy and use, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to 
re-introduce comprehensive spectrum reform legislation to modernize our 
nation's radio spectrum planning, management, and coordination 
activities. Taking this corrective action will allow us to meet the 
future telecommunications needs of all spectrum users. For consumers, 
these fixes will lead to additional choices, greater innovation, lower 
prices, and more reliable services.
  Over the past year, there has been growing concern about a looming 
radio spectrum crisis. It is not without reason--growth and innovation 
within spectrum-based services have exploded over the past decade. In 
particular, the cellular industry has been a prominent driver of this 
expansion. Currently, there are more than 290 million wireless 
subscribers in the U.S., and American consumers use more than 6.4 
billion minutes of air time per day.
  While the foundation for wireless services has been voice 
communication, more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband through 
the use of smartphones and netbooks--smartphones actually outsold 
personal computers in the last quarter of 2010. According to the Pew 
Research Center, 56 percent of adult Americans have accessed the 
Internet via a wireless device. ABI Research forecasts there will

[[Page 3032]]

be 150 million mobile broadband subscribers by 2014--a 2,900 percent 
increase from 2007. Spectrum is so important that both the Federal 
Communications Commission and the President have made it a priority to 
find additional spectrum for wireless broadband so providers have the 
necessary capacity to meet the growing demand of consumers and 
businesses alike.
  There are constraints however, spectrum is a finite resource, and we 
cannot manufacture new spectrum. Making matters worse, the government's 
current spectrum management framework is inefficient and has not kept 
up with technological advancements. As evidence, the Government 
Accountability Office, in a series of reports, concluded ``the current 
structure and management of spectrum use in the U.S. does not encourage 
the development and use of some spectrum efficient technologies.''
  The legislation we are re-introducing today fixes the fundamental 
deficiencies that exist in spectrum management and promotes efforts to 
improve spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Reforming Airwaves by 
Developing Incentives and Opportunistic Sharing, RADIOS, Act tasks the 
FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
NTIA, to conduct the fundamental first step of a comprehensive 
inventory of radio spectrum and to perform much-needed spectrum 
measurements to determine actual usage and occupancy rates. This data 
would provide decision makers at the FCC, NTIA, and Congress a clearer, 
more detailed, and up-to-date understanding of how spectrum is 
currently being used and by whom--data essential to sound policy 
decisions and spectrum management.
  The bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis of spectrum relocation 
opportunities to move certain incumbent users and services to more 
efficient spectrum bands. Many legacy wireless services could employ 
newer technologies to provide more efficient use of spectrum. The 
legislation would also establish Wi-Fi hot-spots and allow the 
installation of wireless antenna systems and base stations, such as 
femtocells, in all publicly accessible Federal buildings as well as 
streamline Federal rights-of-way and wireless tower sitings on Federal 
buildings. Such efforts would improve wireless and broadband coverage 
for Americans and also result in lower costs to taxpayers since 
spectrum would be utilized more effectively by Federal agencies.
  In addition, my bill requires greater collaboration between the FCC 
and NTIA on spectrum policy and management related issues, 
implementation of spectrum sharing and reuse programs, as well as more 
market-based incentives to promote efficient spectrum use. It also sets 
a deadline for the creation of the National Strategic Spectrum Plan, 
which will provide a long-term vision for domestic spectrum use and 
strategies to meet those needs. While the National Broadband Plan 
touches on several of these areas, this legislation will provide 
greater assistance in developing the 21st Century comprehensive 
spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all 
users.
  It should be noted the RADIOS Act is intended to complement the 
National Broadband Plan and the recently announced Presidential 
Wireless Initiative in promoting more efficient use of spectrum and 
ensuring that the proper framework is in place to meet America's future 
telecommunications needs. But it also encourages greater focus on other 
areas outside the Plan and the Initiative by promoting technological 
innovation and more robust spectrum management.
  Senator Kerry and I envision this legislation to be a supplement to 
other legislative efforts related to spectrum. And we look forward to 
working with our colleagues in the Senate and with all stakeholders to 
advance comprehensive 21st Century spectrum policy necessary to meet 
the future spectrum needs of all users.
  Our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security demand 
that we allocate the necessary attention to this policy shortcoming--it 
is the only way we will be able to avert a looming spectrum crisis and 
continue to realize the boundless benefits of spectrum-based services. 
That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Kerry 
and me in supporting this critical legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Lee, and 
        Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin):
  S. 460. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Education from 
promulgating or enforcing regulations or guidance regarding gainful 
employment; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, 
Senators Coburn, DeMint, Johnson and Lee, in introducing the Education 
for All Act. This important piece of legislation would preserve 
educational and economic opportunities for all Americans.
  The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new ``gainful 
employment'' rules that would deny federal financial aid to students 
who attend proprietary colleges and vocational certificate programs. 
These rules would disqualify students from receiving federal education 
loans if their chosen programs do not meet a complex formula comparing 
student debt to future earning potential. Why should students be 
discouraged from attending a school they want or a profession they 
chose because of Washington bureaucrats?
  The bill I am introducing today would prohibit these regulations from 
going into effect.
  The ``gainful employment'' rules could deny hundreds of thousands of 
students access to the training and skills development they need to 
secure a job in today's troubled economy. There is high demand in some 
sectors for highly skilled workers and propriety schools are uniquely 
qualified to meet the training needs of these employers. It is simply 
irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of 
students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should 
be the administration's number one priority.
  Further, the ``gainful employment'' rules will disproportionately 
harm low-income and minority students. These students often depend more 
heavily on education loans regardless of the type of institution they 
attend and take longer to repay.
  The rules would also significantly impact health care programs. 
Nearly half of all health care workers are trained at proprietary 
schools. With an aging baby boom population, demand for trained health 
care providers is already critical and will only get worse. President 
Obama's health care law adds to this burden as well. We ought to be 
expanding educational capacity for health care workers, not enacting 
regulations that threaten access.
  In short, this legislation will preserve educational and economic 
opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 460

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.

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

[[Page 3033]]

       (4) promulgate or enforce any new regulation or rule with 
     respect to the definition or application of the term 
     ``gainful employment'' under the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Brown 
        of Ohio):
  S. 462. A bill to better protect, serve, and advance the rights of 
victims of elder abuse and exploitation by establishing a program to 
encourage States and other qualified entities to create jobs designed 
to hold offenders accountable, enhance the capacity of the justice 
system to investigate, pursue, and prosecute elder abuse cases, 
identify existing resources to leverage to the extent possible, and 
assure data collection, research, and evaluation to promote the 
efficacy and efficiency of the activities described in this Act; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Blumenthal, 
Sherrod Brown, Casey, Gillibrand, Mikulski and Bill Nelson to introduce 
the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2011. This legislation creates in the 
Department of Justice an Office of Elder Justice, OEJ, that will 
protect America's seniors by strengthening law enforcement's response 
to elder abuse. The OEJ will provide leadership, training materials and 
other needed information to prosecutors, law enforcement, adult 
protective services and others, in order to build a robust 
infrastructure to effectively address elder abuse. Additionally, the 
bill will encourage states to set up multidisciplinary teams where 
information and resources are shared in order to better serve the 
victims of elder abuse.
  The plight of vulnerable seniors is a subject of great concern. Elder 
abuse is often hidden from sight by the victims themselves. Even so, 
experts conservatively estimate that as many as two million Americans 
age 65 and older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated 
by someone on whom they depend for care or protection.
  As Federal policymakers, it is time that we step forward and tackle 
this challenge with dedicated efforts and more vigorous programs that 
will make fighting elder abuse as important a priority as ongoing 
efforts to counter child abuse.
  We need to provide assistance to our courts, which would benefit from 
having access to designated staff that has particular knowledge and 
expertise in elder abuse. Specialized protocols may be required where 
victims are unable to testify on their own behalf, due to cognitive 
impairments or poor physical health. And there is a great need for 
specialized knowledge that will support successful prosecutions and 
enhance the development of case law. Today, many state elder abuse 
statutes lack adequate provisions to encourage wide reporting of abuse 
and exploitation, more thorough investigations, and greater prosecution 
of abuse cases.
  For the victims of elder abuse, many of whom are physically frail and 
very frightened, we must do much more. First and foremost, we must be 
more responsive. Not too long ago, it was difficult to even get an 
abuse case investigated. While that is starting to change, we have much 
more work to do. Sometimes, for example, emergency interventions may be 
needed, particularly if the older person is being harmed at the hands 
of family members or trusted ``friends.'' It may be necessary to remove 
the older adult from his or her home to a temporary safe haven. To do 
this, we must build a much more robust infrastructure.
  This legislation, strongly supported by the Elder Justice Coalition, 
will go a long way toward improving the ability of law enforcement, 
prosecutors and other government agencies to respond to abuse of older 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 462

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 3. OFFICE OF ELDER JUSTICE.

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

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

       (C) a review of State definitions of the terms ``abuse'', 
     ``neglect'', and ``exploitation'' in the context of elder 
     abuse cases;
       (D) a review of State laws that mandate reporting of elder 
     abuse, including adult protective services laws, laws that 
     require the reporting of nursing home deaths or suspicious 
     deaths of elders to coroners or medical examiners, and other 
     pertinent reporting laws, that analyzes--
       (i) the impact and efficacy of the State laws;
       (ii) whether the State laws are enforced;
       (iii) the levels of compliance with the State laws; and
       (iv) the response to, and actions taken as a result of, 
     reports made under the State laws;
       (E) a review of State evidentiary, procedural, sentencing, 
     choice of remedies, and

[[Page 3034]]

     data retention issues relating to elder abuse, neglect, and 
     exploitation;
       (F) a review of State fiduciary laws, including law 
     relating to guardianship, conservatorship, and power of 
     attorney;
       (G) a review of State laws that permit or encourage 
     employees of depository institutions (as defined in section 
     3(c)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1813(c)(1)) and State credit unions (as defined in section 
     101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)) to 
     prevent and report suspected elder abuse, neglect, and 
     exploitation;
       (H) a review of State laws used in civil court proceedings 
     to prevent and address elder abuse;
       (I) a review of State laws relating to fraud and related 
     activities in connection with mail, telemarketing, the 
     Internet, or health care;
       (J) a review of State laws that create programs, offices, 
     entities, or other programs that address or respond to elder 
     abuse; and
       (K) an analysis of any other State laws relating to elder 
     abuse; and
       (6) carry out such other duties as the Attorney General 
     determines necessary in connection with enhancing the 
     understanding, prevention, detection, and response to elder 
     abuse.

     SEC. 4. DATA COLLECTION.

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

     SEC. 5. ELDER VICTIMS GRANT PROGRAM.

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

       (I) reduces the additional trauma to the elder victim; and
       (II) ensures procedural fairness to the individual accused 
     of elder abuse; and

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

     SEC. 6. ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL.

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

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2014.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. 
        Brown of Ohio):
  S. 464. A bill to establish a grant program to enhance training and 
services to prevent abuse in later life; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Blumenthal, 
Sherrod Brown, and Casey to introduce the End Abuse in Later Life Act 
of 2011. This legislation improves the provisions in the existing 
Violence Against Women Act dealing with abuse in later life by 
enhancing direct services for victims and increasing the kinds of 
experts who participate in multidisciplinary training programs.
  Abuse in later life is a sad and growing problem in our society. 
Experts conservatively estimate that 14.1 percent of older Americans 
have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on 
whom they depend for care or protection each year. This type of abuse 
is especially disturbing because the victims are often physically 
frail, defenseless, and very frightened.
  It is time that we take action on the Federal level to protect older 
Americans who fall victim to physical, financial, sexual and emotional 
abuse. We can do this by training law enforcement, prosecutors, 
governmental agencies, victim advocates, and relevant court officers to 
recognize and address instances of abuse in later life. This

[[Page 3035]]

legislation also encourages cross-training of these groups and 
multidisciplinary collaborative community efforts in order to better 
serve victims.
  By passing this legislation, we will ensure that abuse later in life 
is given the serious consideration it deserves and make great strides 
to protect one of the most vulnerable populations in America. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 464

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       ``(1) provide training, consultation, and information on 
     abuse in later life, including domestic violence, dating 
     violence, sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and 
     neglect;
       ``(2) create or enhance direct services to victims of abuse 
     in later life, including domestic violence, dating violence, 
     sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect; and
       ``(3) create or support coordinated community response to 
     abuse in later life, including domestic violence, dating 
     violence, sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and 
     neglect.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `exploitation' has the meaning given the 
     term in the section 2011 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397j);
       ``(2) the term `later life', relating to an individual, 
     means the individual is 50 years of age or older; and
       ``(3) the term `neglect' means the failure of a caregiver 
     or fiduciary to provide the goods or services that are 
     necessary to maintain the health or safety of an individual 
     in later life.
       ``(c) Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--The Attorney General, through the 
     Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, may make 
     grants to eligible entities to carry out the activities 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Mandatory and permissible activities.--
       ``(A) Mandatory activities.--An eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall use the funds received under 
     the grant to--
       ``(i) provide training programs to assist law enforcement 
     agencies, prosecutors, agencies of States or units of local 
     government, population-specific organizations, victims 
     service providers, victim advocates, and relevant officers in 
     Federal, Tribal, State, Territorial, and local courts in 
     recognizing and addressing instances of abuse in later life, 
     including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
     stalking, exploitation, and neglect;
       ``(ii) provide or enhance services for victims of abuse in 
     later life, including domestic violence, dating violence, 
     sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect;
       ``(iii) establish or support multidisciplinary 
     collaborative community responses to victims of abuse in 
     later life, including domestic violence, dating violence, 
     sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect; and
       ``(iv) conduct cross-training for law enforcement agencies, 
     prosecutors, agencies of States or units of local government, 
     attorneys, health care providers, population-specific 
     organizations, faith-based advocates, victims service 
     providers, and courts to better serve victims of abuse in 
     later life, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
     assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect.
       ``(B) Permissible activities.--An eligible entity receiving 
     a grant under this section may use the funds received under 
     the grant to--
       ``(i) provide training programs to assist attorneys, health 
     care providers, faith-based leaders, or other community-based 
     organizations in recognizing and addressing instances of 
     abuse in later life, including domestic violence, dating 
     violence, sexual assault, stalking, exploitation, and 
     neglect; and
       ``(ii) conducting outreach activities and public awareness 
     campaigns to ensure that victims of abuse in later life 
     (including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
     assault, stalking, exploitation, and neglect) receive 
     appropriate assistance.
       ``(C) Limitation.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section may use not more than 10 percent of the 
     total funds received under the grant for an activity 
     described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
       ``(3) Eligible entities.--An entity shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this section if--
       ``(A) the entity is--
       ``(i) a State;
       ``(ii) a unit of local government;
       ``(iii) an Indian Tribal government or Tribal organization;
       ``(iv) a population-specific organization with demonstrated 
     experience in assisting individuals over 50 years of age;
       ``(v) a victim service provider with demonstrated 
     experience in addressing domestic violence, dating violence, 
     sexual assault, and stalking; or
       ``(vi) a State, Tribal, or Territorial domestic violence or 
     sexual assault coalition; and
       ``(B) the entity demonstrates that the entity is a part of 
     a multidisciplinary partnership that includes, at a minimum--
       ``(i) a law enforcement agency;
       ``(ii) a prosecutor's office;
       ``(iii) a victim service provider; and
       ``(iv) a nonprofit program or government agency with 
     demonstrated experience in assisting individuals in later 
     life.
       ``(4) Underserved populations.--In making grants under this 
     section, the Attorney General shall give priority to 
     proposals providing population-specific services to racial 
     and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2012 through 2016.
       ``(B) Requirement.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended and 
     may only be used for the activities described in this 
     subsection.
       ``(C) Allocation of funds.--
       ``(i) Administrative costs.--Of the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) in each fiscal year, the 
     Attorney General may use not more than 2.5 percent for 
     administration and monitoring of grants made under this 
     subsection.
       ``(ii) Evaluation.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) in each fiscal year the Attorney General may 
     use not more than 5 percent for contracts or cooperative 
     agreements with entities with demonstrated expertise in 
     program evaluation, to evaluate programs under this 
     subsection.
       ``(d) Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall 
     conduct research to promote understanding of, prevention of, 
     and response to abuse in later life, including domestic 
     violence, sexual abuse, dating violence, stalking, 
     exploitation, and neglect.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1) 
     $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016.''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 40002(a) of the Violence Against 
     Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (9);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(1) Abuse in later life.--The term `abuse in later life' 
     means any action against a person who is 50 years of age or 
     older that constitutes the willful--
       ``(A) infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, 
     intimidation, or cruel punishment with resulting physical 
     harm, pain, or mental anguish; or
       ``(B) deprivation by a person, including a caregiver, of 
     goods or services with intent to cause physical harm, mental 
     anguish, or mental illness.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Correction.--The table of 
     contents in section 2 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1796) 
     is amended in the table of contents by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 40703 the following:

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

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

                          ____________________