[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3507-3513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 536. A bill to promote transparency in the oversight of 
cybersecurity risks at publicly traded companies; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity 
Disclosure Act of 2017 along with two members of the Select Committee 
on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator 
Warner. In response to data breaches of various companies that exposed 
the personal information of millions of customers, our legislation asks 
each publicly traded company to include--in Securities and Exchange 
Commission, SEC, disclosures to investors--information on whether any 
member of the board of directors is a cybersecurity expert, and if why 
having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary 
because of other cyber security steps taken by the publicly traded 
company. To be clear, the legislation does not require companies to 
take any actions other than to provide this disclosure to its 
investors.
  Many investors may be surprised to learn that board directors who 
participated in the National Association of Corporate Directors, NACD, 
roundtable discussions on cyber security late in 2013 admitted that 
``the lack of adequate knowledge of information technology risk has 
made it challenging for them to `effectively oversee management's 
cybersecurity activities.''' More recently, in Deloitte's 10th Global 
Risk Management Survey of Financial Services Institutions, published 
this month, 42 percent of respondents considered their institution to 
be less effective in managing cybersecurity. And according to the 2016-
2017 NACD Public Company Governance Survey, ``fifty-nine percent of 
respondents reported that they find it challenging to oversee cyber 
risk, and only 19 percent of respondents said that their boards possess 
a high level of knowledge about cybersecurity.'' Indeed, Yahoo in its 
most recent annual report, which was filed with the SEC last week, 
disclosed that ``the Independent Committee found that failures in 
communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed 
to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security 
Incident. The Independent Committee also found that the Audit and 
Finance Committee and the full board were not adequately informed of 
the full severity, risks, and potential impacts of the 2014 Security 
Incident and related matters.'' The 2014 Security Incident here refers 
to the fact that ``a copy of certain user account information for 
approximately 500 million user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network 
in late 2014.'' This is particularly troubling given that data breaches 
are on the rise. Indeed, 2016 was a recordbreaking year for data 
breaches, which increased 40 percent from the prior year to 1,093 
breaches according to the Identity Theft Resource Center.
  Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether 
publicly traded companies are prioritizing cyber security and have the 
capacity to protect investors and customers from cyber-related attacks. 
Our legislation aims to provide a better understanding of these issues 
through improved SEC disclosure.
  While this legislation is a matter for consideration by the Banking 
Committee, of which I am a member, this bill is also informed by my 
service on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence. It is through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence 
perspective that I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of 
our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy 
becomes increasingly reliant on technology and the Internet.
  For example, when he was Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper, appeared before the Armed Services Committee in 2015 and 
testified that ``cyber threats to the U.S. national and economic 
security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and 
severity of impact.'' He further said that ``[b]ecause of our heavy 
dependence on the Internet, nearly all information communication 
technologies and I.T. networks and systems will be perpetually at 
risk.''

[[Page 3508]]

  Indeed, retired Army GEN Keith Alexander, who is the former commander 
of the United States Cyber Command and former Director of the National 
Security Agency, appeared before the Armed Services Committee this 
month and stated that ``while the primary responsibility of government 
is to defend the nation, the private sector also shares responsibility 
in creating the partnership necessary to make the defense of our nation 
possible. Neither the government nor the private sector can capably 
protect their systems and networks without extensive and close 
cooperation.''
  With mounting cyber threats and concerns over the capabilities of 
corporate directors, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our 
Nation's cyber security before there are additional serious breaches. 
This legislation seeks to take one step toward that goal by encouraging 
publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and 
customers on whether and how their boards of directors are prioritizing 
cyber security.
  I thank Harvard Law School professor John Coates, MIT professor Simon 
Johnson, Columbia Law School professor John Coffee, and the Consumer 
Federation of America for their support, and I urge my colleagues to 
join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, and me in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mrs. Murray, 
        Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Heitkamp, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Brown, Mr. Booker, 
        and Mrs. Shaheen):
  S. 550. A bill to restore statutory rights to the people of the 
United States from forced arbitration; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I have reintroduced legislation to 
protect Americans from being stripped of their legal rights by little 
known clauses that are now hidden in an alarming number of contracts. 
When we enter into agreements to obtain cell phone service, rent an 
apartment, or accept a new job, most are not made aware of the forced 
arbitration clauses that are tucked away in the legal fine print. But 
these dangerous provision force us to abandon our constitutional right 
to protect ourselves in court and instead send hard-working Americans 
to face wealthy corporations behind closed doors in private 
arbitration. This must change.
  When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925, it was 
intended to help businesses resolve legal disputes with each other. But 
over the past two decades, private arbitration has been abused by large 
companies to push Americans out of court. In doing so, these companies 
have effectively opted out of critical labor, consumer, and civil 
rights laws that give Americans the ability to assert their claims 
before our independent judiciary.
  Forced arbitration clauses now appear in nearly every contract we 
sign. Unfortunately, examples of the injustice caused by these clauses 
are equally ubiquitous and can be found all across the country. They 
affect consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in Vermont 
and every other State, and the cases are heart-wrenching.
  Just last week, the Washington Post reported that hundreds of current 
and former employees of Sterling Jewelers--a company that earns $6 
billion in annual revenue--have for years alleged that the company is 
engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture 
that condones sexual harassment. The stories now being reported are 
shocking and date back to the early 1990s. Yet, despite the fact that 
women at the company have been alleging misconduct for decades, no one 
knew about it. That is because their claims were hidden behind closed 
doors because of private arbitration. To this day, we still do not know 
the full details.
  The press has helped to bring attention to other instances of forced 
arbitration in recent years. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times revealed 
that Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to deny customers whose names 
were used to open fraudulent accounts an opportunity to seek justice in 
court. In fact, Wells Fargo asked a Federal court in Utah to move a 
number of sham account allegations to arbitration. The New York Times 
dedicated a three-part investigative series to highlighting the impact 
on consumers and workers of forced arbitration clauses. And becoming 
the story herself, television journalist Gretchen Carlson was barred 
from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment 
against former FOX News chairman Roger Ailes.
  I have long raised concerns about the practice of forced arbitration, 
and as chairman led hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, 
2008, 2011, and 2013. This should not be a partisan issue. Both 
Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out 
against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty 
and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare 
of its citizens. In Vermont, lawmakers enacted commonsense legislation 
to limit the abuse of forced arbitration clauses and raise consumer 
awareness, but but this law was invalidated because it conflicted with 
Federal law. Companies have effectively created a ``get out of jail 
free'' card that guts our laws and shields bad actors from any type of 
public accountability. This is an unconscionable situation, and 
Congress must act.
  The Restoring Statutory Rights Act that I am reintroducing today/will 
protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. It will ensure 
that our Federal laws will actually be effective by ensuring that 
Americans cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights 
before our independent court system. This bill also ensures that when 
States act to address forced arbitration, as my home State of Vermont 
has, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal 
arbitration laws.
  This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and 
Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, and 
consumer groups such as National Association of Consumer Advocates, 
Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and 
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. For years, these groups and 
many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced 
arbitration and the full scope of the number of people it affects.
  All Senators should care about ensuring that corporations cannot 
unilaterally circumvent the statutes that this body writes, debates, 
and enacts into law. Senators should also care about the ability of the 
States to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts. I urge 
Members to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. 
        Warren, Mr. Reed, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. Hirono):
  S. 553. A bill to provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United 
States Code, relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, 
shall not apply to enrollment agreements made between students and 
certain institutions of higher education, and to prohibit limitations 
on the ability of students to pursue claims against certain 
institutions of higher education; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  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. 553

       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 ``Court Legal Access and 
     Student Support (CLASS) Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9, UNITED 
                   STATES CODE, TO ENROLLMENT AGREEMENTS MADE 
                   BETWEEN STUDENTS AND CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF 
                   HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States 
     Code (relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements) 
     shall not apply to an enrollment agreement made between a 
     student and an institution of higher education.

[[Page 3509]]

       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``institution of 
     higher education'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON ABILITY OF STUDENTS TO 
                   PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF 
                   HIGHER EDUCATION.

       Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(30) The institution will not require any student to 
     agree to, and will not enforce, any limitation or restriction 
     (including a limitation or restriction on any available 
     choice of applicable law, a jury trial, or venue) on the 
     ability of a student to pursue a claim, individually or with 
     others, against an institution in court.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 555. A bill for the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for 
the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina 
national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud mother of 20-year-old 
U.S. citizen twin boys, Joriene and Jashley, and the spouse of Jay 
Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.
  I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's special consideration for this 
extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States 
would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces 
deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her 
family and jeopardize her safety.
  Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she 
left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her 
cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. 
While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, 
he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled 
the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from 
jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 
1989.
  Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent 
counsel. She 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.
  Ms. Tan never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals 
granted her voluntary departure. Her attorney moved offices, did not 
receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a 
result, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States and the grant of 
voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned 
about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, 
when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into 
immigration custody.
  Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the 
opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She 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.
  On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Jay, a U.S. citizen, filed an 
approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the 
fact that she still had a final order of removal. Ms. Tan must go back 
to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case 
and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan is now again facing the 
threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an 
immigration court.
  In addition to the hardship that Ms. Tan would endure if she is 
deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two U.S. 
citizen children, Joriene and Jashley.
  Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, majoring in 
human biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in 
Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union.
  Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in business 
administration. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a 
homemaker.
  If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has 
expressed that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find 
a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean 
that Joriene and Jashley would have to leave behind their education and 
the only home they know in the United States.
  I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this 
family, with two U.S. citizen children, to make the choice between 
being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety 
concerns or other serious hardships.
  Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica 
and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic 
Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Teresa of Calcutta's 
Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of 
her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment 
to their community.
  Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan 
today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in 
California and make positive contributions to their community.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 556. 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 four U.S. citizen children in Camarillo, CA.
  Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country 
over 19 years ago after being targeted for their religious membership 
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 for raising her child in 
a non-Muslim faith.
  Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally on visitor visas 
in November 1998. Due to their fears of persecution in Egypt based on 
their religious beliefs, they filed for asylum in the United States in 
May 1999.
  However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty 
communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and 1 year later 
their asylum application was denied. Considering that Sharon's brother, 
who also applied for asylum for similar reasons, was granted asylum in 
the United States, Joseph and Sharon appealed the denial of their 
asylum applications, to no avail.
  While Sharon's brother, who is now a U.S. citizen, has filed a 
family-based immigrant petition on Sharon's behalf, it will be at least 
4 years until she will even be eligible for a visa number due to visa 
backlogs.
  If Sharon and Joseph are deported before then, they will not only be 
separated from their family but will be forced to return to a country 
where persecution of Coptic Christians continues.
  Due to their fear of returning to Egypt, Joseph and Sharon have 
therefore tried to build a life for themselves here in the United 
States, working hard while building their beautiful family. With the 
protection of past private bills I filed on their behalf, Joseph was 
able to get his certified public accountant license and opened his own 
accounting firm, where Sharon works by his side.

[[Page 3510]]

  Joseph and Sharon make sure that their four U.S. citizen children--
Jessica, age 18, Rebecca, age 17, Rafael, age 16, and Veronica, age 
11--all attend school in California and maintain good grades.
  Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, members of their 
local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character 
and community contributions.
  I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and 
unwarranted hardships if Joseph and Sharon were forced to return to 
Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they 
know is in the United States. Separation of this family would be 
devastating and the alternative--relocating the family to Egypt--could 
be dire, as it is quite possible that these four American children 
would face discrimination or worse 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 creating 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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 557. 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 over 20 years. I believe they 
merit Congress's 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, CA. 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 is a 
homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of 
whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, age 28, is 
undocumented. She currently works fulltime at a cinema and hopes to 
continue pursuing her studies in the future.
  The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, age 24, is a U.S. citizen. 
She graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at 
California State University, San Francisco. Jazmin has been diagnosed 
with asthma, which requires constant treatment. According to her 
doctor, if Jazmin were to return to Mexico with her family, the high 
altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to her. The 
Martinez's other U.S. citizen daughter, Karla, is 19 years old and 
attends San Francisco City College.
  The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through 
several channels.
  In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to 
get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings 
from Mexico is very 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.
  Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio 
D'Asti, petitioned for an employment-based green card for Jose based 
upon his unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, before he will be 
eligible for a green card, he must apply for a hardship waiver, which 
cannot be guaranteed.
  The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in 
California. They are active in their faith community. 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 exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked 
his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an 
indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, 
Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing 
their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their 
goals.
  I believe the Martinez family's continued presence in the United 
States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to 
their community in California.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 558. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria 
Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I offer private immigration 
relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to 
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola 
Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals 
living in the Fresno area of California.
  Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 
years. Two of their five children--Nayely, age 30, and Cindy, age 28--
also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other three Arreola 
children--Robert, age 25, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 20--are U.S. 
citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling, and I believe 
they merit Congress's 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 to the Executive Office of 
Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in 
his clients' 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, SWA, 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 immigration issues.
  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, the poor legal representation they received 
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. America is the only country the Arreola children 
have ever known.
  Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high 
school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her 
Masters in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific University, a 
regionally ranked university, and now works in the admissions office. 
Nayely is married and has a young son named Elijah Ace Carlos.

[[Page 3511]]

  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 the Advancement Via Individual 
Determination (AVID) college preparatory program in which students 
commit to determining their own futures through attaining a college 
degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service 
organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen 
husband and child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her 
lost opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her 
community and to this country.
  Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has a 7-year-old daughter 
and a 5-year-old son. Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to 
automatically adjust their status based on their marriages because of 
their initial unlawful entry.
  The Arreolas also have other family who are U.S. 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. They have no immediate family in Mexico.
  According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any 
problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their 
taxes every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard 
to support themselves.
  As I 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.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 559. A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez; 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, 
a Mexican national who lives in the San Bruno area of California.
  I offer legislation on his behalf because I believe that, without it, 
this hard-working man, wife who is a lawful permanent resident, and 
children would face extreme hardship. His children would either face 
separation from their father or be forced to leave the only country 
they know and give up the education they are pursuing in the United 
States.
  Alfredo and his wife Maria 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. Because of the poor representation they 
received, Alfredo only became aware that they had been ordered to leave 
the United States 15 days prior to his scheduled deportation.
  Alfredo was shocked to learn of his attorney's malfeasance, but he 
acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and filed the appropriate 
paperwork to delay his deportation and determine if any other legal 
action could be taken.
  Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes, 
with the assistance of private bills, to realize many of the goals 
dreamed of by all Americans. They have worked hard and saved up to buy 
their home.
  They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving 
for retirement. They are sending their children Christina, Erika, and 
Danny, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to 
college, as well.
  Their oldest child, Christina, is 26 years old, and takes classes at 
Heald College to become a paralegal. Erika, age 22, graduated from high 
school and is currently taking classes at Skyline College. Her teachers 
have praised her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright 
spot'' in the classroom. Danny, age 20, currently attends the 
University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter 
in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 15, and Juan Pablo, age 10, are in 
school and plan on attending college.
  Allowing Alfredo to remain in the United States is necessary to 
enable his family to continue thriving in the United States. His 
children are dedicated to pursuing their education and being productive 
members of their community.
  I do not believe that Alfredo should be separated from his family. I 
am reintroducing this legislation to protect the best interest of 
Alfredo's U.S. citizen children and his wife, who is a lawful permanent 
resident. I believe that Alfredo will continue to make positive 
contributions to his community in California and this country. I 
respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 560. A bill for the relief of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez and Oliva 
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 and his wife, Oliva 
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's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  Jorge and 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 reentered the United States on 
visitors' visas.
  The family has grown to include three U.S. citizen children: Alexis, 
now 24 years old, Tanya, 22 years old, and Matias, now 7 years old. 
Jorge and Oliva are also the grandparents of Meena Rojas.
  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, the family did not realize at the time that they 
lacked a valid basis for asylum. Their 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 
BrightView Landscaping Services, formerly known as Valley Crest 
Landscape Maintenance, in San Jose, CA, for the past 20 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, through which he worked with his neighbors to open a 
library and community center in their community.
  Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very 
active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in 
Community Together, PACT, organization, where

[[Page 3512]]

she works to prevent crime, gangs, and drug dealing in San Jose 
neighborhoods and schools.
  Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his 
parents, is now the father of 6-year-old Meena. He is 28 years old and 
working at a job that allows him to support his daughter. Jorge 
graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. He has obtained temporary 
protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program.
  Alexis, age 24, graduated from West Valley College in Saratoga, CA, 
and is interested in continuing his linguistics studies at San Jose 
State University. Tanya, age 22, is now in her second semester at San 
Jose State University. Their teachers have described them as 
``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students.
  Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas 
family to remain in the United States is the impact that their 
deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas 
children--Alexis, Tanya, and Matias--American citizens. Additionally, 
Jorge Rojas, Jr., has lived in the United States since he was a 
toddler. America is the only country these children have called home. 
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 
promote 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 keep this 
great family together and enable each of them to continue making 
significant contributions to their community as well as the United 
States.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 561. A bill for the relief of Alicia Aranda De Buendia; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of Alicia Buendia, a woman who has lived in the Fresno 
area of California for more than 20 years. I believe her situation 
merits Congress's special consideration.
  She is married to Jose Buendia, and together they have raised two 
outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 28, and Alex, age 26, a U.S. 
citizen. Both children have excelled in school. Ana Laura graduated 
from University of California, Irvine, and Alex is currently attending 
the University of California, Merced.
  I previously introduced bills for Alicia, her husband, and Ana Laura. 
Thankfully, Jose has successfully secured lawful permanent residency 
for himself through cancellation of removal. This followed 7 
unfortunate years of delay in the immigration courts to determine his 
eligibility under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for 
permanent residence. Ana Laura has obtained temporary protection from 
deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 
DACA, Program.
  However, Alicia, who is eligible to adjust status, is still awaiting 
a determination on a family-based immigration petition filed by her 
U.S. citizen son. Additionally, she would be required to file a waiver 
application, which could result in separation from her family
  Alicia warrants private relief and a chance to start fresh in 
America. She goes to work season after season in California's labor-
intensive agriculture industry in Reedley, CA, where she currently 
works for a fruit packing company.
  In the more than 20 years of living in California, Alicia has 
dedicated herself to her family and community. She and Jose have worked 
hard to honestly feed their family and have raised two exceptional 
children who have both pursued and excelled in higher education.
  Alicia has a strong connection to her local community, serving as an 
active member of her church. She and Jose pay their taxes every year, 
have successfully paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. 
They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health 
insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Without this 
private bill, Alicia would be separated from her lawful permanent 
resident husband, two children who rely on her for love, support, and 
guidance.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 562. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and 
Arthur Mkoian; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am reintroducing private relief 
legislation in the 115th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik 
Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoian. The Mkoian family has been 
living in Fresno, CA, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this 
family deserves Congress's 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 harassment, 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 coworker had registered the vehicles at the request of 
the same chief.
  After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles 
and said he would call the police, his family store was vandalized and 
he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. A bottle 
of gasoline was thrown into his family's 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 son Arthur, who was 3 years old at the time, 
left Armenia and entered the United States on visitor visas. They 
applied for political asylum that same year 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, with the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals denying their asylum case in January 2008.
  At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to 
obtain immigration relief in the United States. While Ruben and Asmik's 
other son, Arsen, is a U.S. citizen, he is too young to file a green 
card petition on their behalf.
  It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United 
States and to separate them from Arsen, who is 20 years old and a U.S. 
citizen. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family 
in California and are an integral part of their community.
  The family attends St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They 
do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia.
  Ruben works as a driver for Uber. He previously worked as a manager 
at a car wash in Fresno and as a truckdriver for a California trucking 
company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and 
an asset to the company. Asmik has worked as a medical assistant the 
past 6 years at the Fresno Shields Medical Center.
  Arthur has proven to be a hard-working, smart young man who applies 
himself. He was recognized nationally for his scholastic achievement, 
having maintained a 4.0 grade point average in high school and serving 
as his class valedictorian. After graduating on the Dean's Merit List 
from the University of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry, he 
is now a full-time analyst at a water testing company. He also teaches 
Armenian School on Saturdays at the church.
  Arthur's brother, Arsen currently attends Fresno State University, is 
majoring in Computer Science, and maintains a 3.8 GPA. These two young 
men have already accomplished so much and clearly aspire to do great 
things here in the United States.

[[Page 3513]]

  Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives 
George Radanovich and Jim Costa strongly supported this family's 
ability to remain in the United States. When I first introduced a 
private bill for the Mkoian family, I 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. I respectfully ask 
my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the 
Mkoian family.

                          ____________________