Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on Senate Committee Budget Requests. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee at 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committee chairmen that paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each Senate committee to adopt rules to govern its procedures. Under this rule, committee rules may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the Senate and must be published in the Congressional Record not later than March 1, 2007.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Rules and Administration, adopted on January 31, 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support Judge Lawrence O'Neill's nomination to the Eastern District of California. His confirmation would help to alleviate a judicial emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Fresno Division, to which Judge O'Neill is nominated, is suffering from a particularly acute overload of cases. Judge Anthony Ishii and Senior Judge Oliver Wanger are currently the only judges on the Fresno Division of the Eastern District. Their average caseload is the highest in the Nation. The people of Fresno and the Eastern District truly need the help that Judge O'Neill will provide. Fortunately, Judge O'Neill is uniquely qualified to step in and offer immediate relief to the Eastern District because he has been a magistrate judge in the District since 1999. In addition, for the last 17 years, Judge O'Neill has been a judge in California, spending 10 years as a superior court judge in Fresno before becoming a magistrate. He is a homegrown Californian. He was born in Oakland, CA, and attended school in California. He received a bachelor's degree in criminology from the University of California, Berkeley, a master's degree in public education from Golden Gate University, and a law degree from Hastings College of Law. Before attending law school, he was a police officer for the city of San Leandro. I believe this additional perspective will prove an asset on the bench. I was pleased to learn that the American Bar Association unanimously declared Judge O'Neill to be ``well qualified,'' the ABA's highest rating. In California, we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system, a committee of lawyers, including Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President. The fact that Judge O'Neill's nomination was a product of this commission gives me confidence that he comes to the bench without an ideological agenda and is prepared to serve all the people of California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support Judge Lawrence O'Neill's nomination to the Eastern District of California. His confirmation would help to alleviate a judicial emergency in the Eastern District of California. The Fresno Division, to which Judge O'Neill is nominated, is suffering from a particularly acute overload of cases. Judge Anthony Ishii and Senior Judge Oliver Wanger are currently the only judges on the Fresno Division of the Eastern District. Their average caseload is the highest in the Nation. The people of Fresno and the Eastern District truly need the help that Judge O'Neill will provide. Fortunately, Judge O'Neill is uniquely qualified to step in and offer immediate relief to the Eastern District because he has been a magistrate judge in the District since 1999. In addition, for the last 17 years, Judge O'Neill has been a judge in California, spending 10 years as a superior court judge in Fresno before becoming a magistrate. He is a homegrown Californian. He was born in Oakland, CA, and attended school in California. He received a bachelor's degree in criminology from the University of California, Berkeley, a master's degree in public education from Golden Gate University, and a law degree from Hastings College of Law. Before attending law school, he was a police officer for the city of San Leandro. I believe this additional perspective will prove an asset on the bench. I was pleased to learn that the American Bar Association unanimously declared Judge O'Neill to be ``well qualified,'' the ABA's highest rating. In California, we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system, a committee of lawyers, including Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President. The fact that Judge O'Neill's nomination was a product of this commission gives me confidence that he comes to the bench without an ideological agenda and is prepared to serve all the people of California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and a bipartisan group of at least 15 original cosponsors in introducing comprehensive antiaging legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. This bill will provide a comprehensive approach to gang violence by: helping those on the front lines of enforcement, by adopting new criminal laws and tougher penalties against those who commit gang- related and other violent acts; authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars for gang-related investigations and prosecutions, and new funds for witness protection; and identifying successful community programs, and investing significant resources in schools and civic and religious organizations to prevent teenagers and other young people from joining gangs in the first place. On January 10 of this year, officials in Van Nuys, CA, reported that two teenage boys were shot in a reported gang-related shooting. A few weeks earlier, on December 29, Visalia, CA, law enforcement officials reported two separate shootings and the wounding of two minors. On December 24, San Diego officials noted how a 16 year old was shot in the leg in gang violence. On December 22, a 9-year-old girl in Los Angeles was just washing dishes with her mom inside her home--until gang members exchanged fire across the street, and a bullet tore through the front wall of her house and struck her in the head. And that came 5 days after Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old black girl who was talking to friends, was shot and killed by two Hispanic gang members. The New York Times just reported on the Cheryl Green shooting, but unfortunately, I see gang violence in the news almost every day in California, with gang-related shootings of children almost too numerous to count. Perhaps the worst occurred last September, when Los Angeles experienced a new low. Three-year-old Kaitlyn Avila was shot point-blank by a gang member who mistakenly thought her father was a member of a rival gang. The gang member shot and wounded her father, then intentionally fired into little Kaitlyn's chest. It is the first time ever that law enforcement officials remember a young child being ``targeted'' in a gang-related shooting. Unfortunately, this shooting is only a symptom of the disease that has taken hold of our cities--gang violence. The violence perpetrated by gang members affects not only those associated with gangs, but also police officers and innocent bystanders. It impacts not only individuals, but also our communities. It stops mothers from allowing their children to play outside. It prevents the elderly from taking walks in their neighborhoods. And it creates an environment of fear. It is past time for the Federal Government to provide a hand of assistance to state and local law enforcement. And it is past time to come to grips with our country's escalating levels of gang violence. Just last month the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for the first half of 2006. The news was disturbing. The report showed an alarming increase in homicides, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes across the U.S.--a surge of nearly 3.7 percent for the first 6 months of 2006. This, of course follows on the heels of the FBI's 2005 figures, which had showed a 2.5 percent jump in violent crime. At the time, those 2005 figures had represented the largest increase in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years. But this newly announced increase for the first half of 2006 is almost 50 percent higher. Of course, a big part of this increase is due to gang violence. Just as we heard when the 2005 figures were released, criminologists point to the spread of violent street gangs as a major cause of the 2006 increase in violent crime as well. The warnings we have received about the links between the increase in violent crime and gangs have been steady and consistent. When the FBI announced its 2005 figures last June, the Washington Post reported how criminal justice experts specifically identified ``an influx of gangs into medium-sized cities'' as a big reason for this increase. According to the Los Angeles Times, Houston police attributed their 2005 increase to gang members who evacuated New Orleans after Katrina. When the 2006 figures were announced, the Washington Post quoted criminologist James Alan Fox, who described how ``[w]e have many high- crime areas where gangs have made a comeback.'' The L.A. Times noted how ``[e]xperts said the crime upsurge reflected an increase in gang violence, particularly in midsized cities.'' Cities like Houston, which experienced a massive 28 percent increase in violent crime. The headline for the Sacramento Bee, reporting on the FBI's 31 percent reported increase in violent crime for that county, said it all: ``Gangs blamed for increase, which is part of [a] national hike in mayhem in '06.'' Even among the cities that experienced a 2006 reduction in violent crime--such as Los Angeles, which moved into the ranks of the safest cities in the U.S.--Mayor Villairaigosa described gang violence as the ``glaring exception.'' Gang crime was up by 14 percent in Los Angeles-- and up 40 percent in San Fernando Valley, and 57 percent of Los Angeles' 478 homicides for 2006 were attributed to gangs--up 50 percent from 2005. And 86 percent of those murder victims were African American or Latino. There can no longer be serious debate that gang violence is a big part of this problem. The problem of gang violence in America is daunting. According to the FBI, there are now at least 30,000 gangs nationwide, with 800,000 members. In California, the State attorney general now estimates that there are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California counties. From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides reported in California. In 2004, more than one-third of the 2,000 homicides in California-- 698--were gang-related. And it is worse among teens and young adults. In that same year, nearly 50 percent of the murders of 18 to 29 year olds were gang related. And nearly 60 percent of the murders of teens under 18 were gang related. The list of people murdered by gangs includes some of our finest law enforcement officers: Oceanside Police Officer, Dan Bessant, gunned down from behind just last month, in an incident described as eerily similar to a similar killing in 2003, when Oceanside Police Officer, Tony Zepetella, was shot and killed by a known gang member. Los Angeles Police Officer Ricardo Lizarraga, killed while responding to a domestic violence call, by a man who drew a gun and shot him twice in the back. The suspect was a known member of the Rollin20s Bloods. Merced Police Officer Stephan Gray, a member of his department's gang violence unit. Gray was shot and killed when a suspect--a gang member he had encountered before--fired two bullets into his chest. Los Angeles Sherriff's Deputy Jeffrey Ortiz: As a member of his department's anti-gang task force, Ortiz had been going door to door in a gang-plagued neighborhood of L.A. He had just knocked on a door and was checking IDs when he was shot in the head at point-blank range. The alleged gunman is a suspected gang member wanted on an outstanding warrant for attempted murder. Burbank Police Officer Matthew Pavelka: Two gunmen whom he had stopped for driving without license plates got out and showered him with gunfire. They were allegedly affiliated with the Vineland Boys gang. California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Steiner, killed after walking out of the Pomona courthouse after testifying in a series of traffic cases, by a 16-year-old intent on ``killing a cop'' to prove himself to the Pomona 12th street gang. San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza: The first San Francisco police officer slain on duty in more than a decade, killed when an apparent ``Westmob'' gang member fired 14 rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle. Gang killings also impact children and families. Unfortunately, 3- year-old Kaitlyn Avila is not alone: There is also 11-year-old Mynisha Crenshaw of San Bernardino, CA, a little girl shot and killed in November 2005; Seven-week-old infant Glenn ``Baby G'' Molex, shot and killed on September 28, 2003, by one of the ``Down Below'' Gang after 28 bullets penetrated his family's apartment in San Francisco's Bayview District; Joseph Swift, a 13-year-old boy shot outside a home after attending church in Los Angeles in 2003; and Eight-year-old Sunny Elijah Peralez, shot in East Los Angeles by the Ghetto Boyz in 1999. And this problem extends far beyond California--as evidenced by 8- year-old Kyron Butler, killed by a stray bullet during a Jersey Park Boys gang shootout in Smithfield, VA, in 2003, and 9-year-old Genesis Gonzalez, a little girl shot by a car of Crips gang members in Nevada in 2002. As gangs have continued to spread across our country, increasing in violence and power in every State, they are no longer just a big city problem. They have metastasized from Los Angeles and Chicago to the medium and smaller cities where they face less competition. The FBI now estimates that gangs are having an impact on at least 2,500 communities across the nation. In the latest FBI statistics, violent crime and murder grew fastest in the midsized and smaller cities--not in our largest urban areas. The average midsized city, in fact, had a surge in overall violent crime of more than 5 percent in a single year. It is clear that gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, prostitution, gun trafficking, and murder. They destroy neighborhoods, cripple families and kill innocent people. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly: There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't. Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going away. Our cities and States need help. The many law enforcement officers that have spoken to me and others in my office say one thing clearly--short-term infusions are great, but what they really need is a long-term Federal commitment to combat gang violence. A massive report just prepared for the City of Los Angeles even suggested that what is needed is a ``Marshal Plan'' initiative to combat gang violence. Senator Hatch and I have been introducing comprehensive Federal gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and refined over the years, most recently in legislation that we negotiated with the House for possible inclusion in the DOD Authorization bill last year. The bill that we introduce today essentially takes that bill, but removes all of its new death penalties. It has no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's passage. The bill that we offer today will provide a comprehensive solution to gang violence, combining enforcement and prevention efforts in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like Operation Ceasefire, and in Modesto, CA. This bill would establish new Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties. Today's Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a sentencing enhancement, rather than a crime unto itself. The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion-- in furtherance of the gang. And the penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase considerably. For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment. For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 30 years--which in the Federal system means without parole. And for other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could bring up to 20 years in prison. The bill would also create a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 years; Create new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection with drug trafficking, and increase existing penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering; Enact a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a loophole that had allowed carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms, and in a number of other respects cracking down harder on those who commit violent crimes; and Make a long-term Federal commitment to fight gangs, by authorizing over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years for enforcement, prevention, and witness protection. This would include $500 million for the development of High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas, or HIIGAAs. These HIIGAAs would mirror the successful HIDTA--High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area model--under which Federal, State and local agents coordinate investigations and prosecutions. And this $500 million would also be split 50/50, so that for every dollar spent on law enforcement, a dollar would be spent on prevention and intervention. This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus tough penalties--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has arrived. This bill will provide them with new opportunities, with schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences. I am pleased to report that this bill has already been endorsed by the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Police Officers. For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have gotten close. Unfortunately, while Congress has failed to act, violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered and entrenched in other States and communities. I believe this bill can pass the Senate and be enacted into law, especially after these changes that we have made and our previous negotiations conducted with members of the House and Senate. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and this bill is well-suited to help solve it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and a bipartisan group of at least 15 original cosponsors in introducing comprehensive antiaging legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. This bill will provide a comprehensive approach to gang violence by: helping those on the front lines of enforcement, by adopting new criminal laws and tougher penalties against those who commit gang- related and other violent acts; authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars for gang-related investigations and prosecutions, and new funds for witness protection; and identifying successful community programs, and investing significant resources in schools and civic and religious organizations to prevent teenagers and other young people from joining gangs in the first place. On January 10 of this year, officials in Van Nuys, CA, reported that two teenage boys were shot in a reported gang-related shooting. A few weeks earlier, on December 29, Visalia, CA, law enforcement officials reported two separate shootings and the wounding of two minors. On December 24, San Diego officials noted how a 16 year old was shot in the leg in gang violence. On December 22, a 9-year-old girl in Los Angeles was just washing dishes with her mom inside her home--until gang members exchanged fire across the street, and a bullet tore through the front wall of her house and struck her in the head. And that came 5 days after Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old black girl who was talking to friends, was shot and killed by two Hispanic gang members. The New York Times just reported on the Cheryl Green shooting, but unfortunately, I see gang violence in the news almost every day in California, with gang-related shootings of children almost too numerous to count. Perhaps the worst occurred last September, when Los Angeles experienced a new low. Three-year-old Kaitlyn Avila was shot point-blank by a gang member who mistakenly thought her father was a member of a rival gang. The gang member shot and wounded her father, then intentionally fired into little Kaitlyn's chest. It is the first time ever that law enforcement officials remember a young child being ``targeted'' in a gang-related shooting. Unfortunately, this shooting is only a symptom of the disease that has taken hold of our cities--gang violence. The violence perpetrated by gang members affects not only those associated with gangs, but also police officers and innocent bystanders. It impacts not only individuals, but also our communities. It stops mothers from allowing their children to play outside. It prevents the elderly from taking walks in their neighborhoods. And it creates an environment of fear. It is past time for the Federal Government to provide a hand of assistance to state and local law enforcement. And it is past time to come to grips with our country's escalating levels of gang violence. Just last month the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for the first half of 2006. The news was disturbing. The report showed an alarming increase in homicides, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes across the U.S.--a surge of nearly 3.7 percent for the first 6 months of 2006. This, of course follows on the heels of the FBI's 2005 figures, which had showed a 2.5 percent jump in violent crime. At the time, those 2005 figures had represented the largest increase in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years. But this newly announced increase for the first half of 2006 is almost 50 percent higher. Of course, a big part of this increase is due to gang violence. Just as we heard when the 2005 figures were released, criminologists point to the spread of violent street gangs as a major cause of the 2006 increase in violent crime as well. The warnings we have received about the links between the increase in violent crime and gangs have been steady and consistent. When the FBI announced its 2005 figures last June, the Washington Post reported how criminal justice experts specifically identified ``an influx of gangs into medium-sized cities'' as a big reason for this increase. According to the Los Angeles Times, Houston police attributed their 2005 increase to gang members who evacuated New Orleans after Katrina. When the 2006 figures were announced, the Washington Post quoted criminologist James Alan Fox, who described how ``[w]e have many high- crime areas where gangs have made a comeback.'' The L.A. Times noted how ``[e]xperts said the crime upsurge reflected an increase in gang violence, particularly in midsized cities.'' Cities like Houston, which experienced a massive 28 percent increase in violent crime. The headline for the Sacramento Bee, reporting on the FBI's 31 percent reported increase in violent crime for that county, said it all: ``Gangs blamed for increase, which is part of [a] national hike in mayhem in '06.'' Even among the cities that experienced a 2006 reduction in violent crime--such as Los Angeles, which moved into the ranks of the safest cities in the U.S.--Mayor Villairaigosa described gang violence as the ``glaring exception.'' Gang crime was up by 14 percent in Los Angeles-- and up 40 percent in San Fernando Valley, and 57 percent of Los Angeles' 478 homicides for 2006 were attributed to gangs--up 50 percent from 2005. And 86 percent of those murder victims were African American or Latino. There can no longer be serious debate that gang violence is a big part of this problem. The problem of gang violence in America is daunting. According to the FBI, there are now at least 30,000 gangs nationwide, with 800,000 members. In California, the State attorney general now estimates that there are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California counties. From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides reported in California. In 2004, more than one-third of the 2,000 homicides in California-- 698--were gang-related. And it is worse among teens and young adults. In that same year, nearly 50 percent of the murders of 18 to 29 year olds were gang related. And nearly 60 percent of the murders of teens under 18 were gang related. The list of people murdered by gangs includes some of our finest law enforcement officers: Oceanside Police Officer, Dan Bessant, gunned down from behind just last month, in an incident described as eerily similar to a similar killing in 2003, when Oceanside Police Officer, Tony Zepetella, was shot and killed by a known gang member. Los Angeles Police Officer Ricardo Lizarraga, killed while responding to a domestic violence call, by a man who drew a gun and shot him twice in the back. The suspect was a known member of the Rollin20s Bloods. Merced Police Officer Stephan Gray, a member of his department's gang violence unit. Gray was shot and killed when a suspect--a gang member he had encountered before--fired two bullets into his chest. Los Angeles Sherriff's Deputy Jeffrey Ortiz: As a member of his department's anti-gang task force, Ortiz had been going door to door in a gang-plagued neighborhood of L.A. He had just knocked on a door and was checking IDs when he was shot in the head at point-blank range. The alleged gunman is a suspected gang member wanted on an outstanding warrant for attempted murder. Burbank Police Officer Matthew Pavelka: Two gunmen whom he had stopped for driving without license plates got out and showered him with gunfire. They were allegedly affiliated with the Vineland Boys gang. California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Steiner, killed after walking out of the Pomona courthouse after testifying in a series of traffic cases, by a 16-year-old intent on ``killing a cop'' to prove himself to the Pomona 12th street gang. San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza: The first San Francisco police officer slain on duty in more than a decade, killed when an apparent ``Westmob'' gang member fired 14 rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle. Gang killings also impact children and families. Unfortunately, 3- year-old Kaitlyn Avila is not alone: There is also 11-year-old Mynisha Crenshaw of San Bernardino, CA, a little girl shot and killed in November 2005; Seven-week-old infant Glenn ``Baby G'' Molex, shot and killed on September 28, 2003, by one of the ``Down Below'' Gang after 28 bullets penetrated his family's apartment in San Francisco's Bayview District; Joseph Swift, a 13-year-old boy shot outside a home after attending church in Los Angeles in 2003; and Eight-year-old Sunny Elijah Peralez, shot in East Los Angeles by the Ghetto Boyz in 1999. And this problem extends far beyond California--as evidenced by 8- year-old Kyron Butler, killed by a stray bullet during a Jersey Park Boys gang shootout in Smithfield, VA, in 2003, and 9-year-old Genesis Gonzalez, a little girl shot by a car of Crips gang members in Nevada in 2002. As gangs have continued to spread across our country, increasing in violence and power in every State, they are no longer just a big city problem. They have metastasized from Los Angeles and Chicago to the medium and smaller cities where they face less competition. The FBI now estimates that gangs are having an impact on at least 2,500 communities across the nation. In the latest FBI statistics, violent crime and murder grew fastest in the midsized and smaller cities--not in our largest urban areas. The average midsized city, in fact, had a surge in overall violent crime of more than 5 percent in a single year. It is clear that gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, prostitution, gun trafficking, and murder. They destroy neighborhoods, cripple families and kill innocent people. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly: There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't. Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going away. Our cities and States need help. The many law enforcement officers that have spoken to me and others in my office say one thing clearly--short-term infusions are great, but what they really need is a long-term Federal commitment to combat gang violence. A massive report just prepared for the City of Los Angeles even suggested that what is needed is a ``Marshal Plan'' initiative to combat gang violence. Senator Hatch and I have been introducing comprehensive Federal gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and refined over the years, most recently in legislation that we negotiated with the House for possible inclusion in the DOD Authorization bill last year. The bill that we introduce today essentially takes that bill, but removes all of its new death penalties. It has no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's passage. The bill that we offer today will provide a comprehensive solution to gang violence, combining enforcement and prevention efforts in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like Operation Ceasefire, and in Modesto, CA. This bill would establish new Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties. Today's Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a sentencing enhancement, rather than a crime unto itself. The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion-- in furtherance of the gang. And the penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase considerably. For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment. For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 30 years--which in the Federal system means without parole. And for other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could bring up to 20 years in prison. The bill would also create a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 years; Create new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection with drug trafficking, and increase existing penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering; Enact a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a loophole that had allowed carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms, and in a number of other respects cracking down harder on those who commit violent crimes; and Make a long-term Federal commitment to fight gangs, by authorizing over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years for enforcement, prevention, and witness protection. This would include $500 million for the development of High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas, or HIIGAAs. These HIIGAAs would mirror the successful HIDTA--High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area model--under which Federal, State and local agents coordinate investigations and prosecutions. And this $500 million would also be split 50/50, so that for every dollar spent on law enforcement, a dollar would be spent on prevention and intervention. This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus tough penalties--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has arrived. This bill will provide them with new opportunities, with schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences. I am pleased to report that this bill has already been endorsed by the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Police Officers. For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have gotten close. Unfortunately, while Congress has failed to act, violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered and entrenched in other States and communities. I believe this bill can pass the Senate and be enacted into law, especially after these changes that we have made and our previous negotiations conducted with members of the House and Senate. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and this bill is well-suited to help solve it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, one of these judges, Philip Gutierrez, is for the central district of California. Vice Judge Terry Hatter, who at one point was the chief judge, a very good chief judge, has retired. Mr. Gutierrez is one of two judicial emergencies we need to fill. His nomination went through the special commission that we have, which is Republicans and Democrats who screen these judicial nominations. He has served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He also served on the municipal court. He is a Los Angeles native. He graduated from Notre Dame and UCLA Law School. I strongly support his nomination. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Madam President, I would make a statement and then ask the Senator from Idaho a question. This morning I was visited by a delegation from Tulare County, which is an agricultural county in the central valley of California. These were city and county officials who pointed out the enormous loss from the frost and the fact that it looks as though the citrus loss is going to be at least $800 million and the total loss will be over $1 billion. Nobody knows the tree loss yet, let alone the avocado or nursery plant loss or the row crop loss of strawberries and lettuce and other crops. But this will also have an impact on the ability to find agricultural labor, and I think the Senator agrees, I know I agree, that we must pass the AgJOBS bill. Madam President, an estimated 90 percent of agricultural labor in this country--the picker part of it, not necessarily the processing and canning part of it, but the picking part, the field work--an estimated 90 percent is by undocumented people. What we have tried to do is develop a plan, which actually passed the Senate once before as part of the comprehensive immigration bill, called AgJOBS. This also reformed the H-2A program. We have been trying to get that bill up before this body for a vote. This next year is going to be a singularly difficult year for agriculture, and with the inability to get a consistent workforce, farmers don't know if they can plant, they don't know if they can prune, they don't know if they can pick, because they don't know if they will have enough labor. My question to the Senator from Idaho through the Chair is, Do you agree with the statement I made?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Massachusetts, and I very much agree with his remarks. I also thank the Senator from Georgia for withdrawing this amendment. This amendment muddies churning waters even more. I think it would be very difficult if put in at this time. The way to go about this is through something called the AgJOBS bill. I have seen the Senator from Idaho on the floor. The Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Massachusetts, and myself have all played a role in the AgJOBS bill. If I understand what the Senator from Georgia was trying to do, it was to substantially change the H-2A program, which is the temporary agricultural worker program. That is a visa program, codified under section 218 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Under current law, employers of H-2A guest workers must pay the State minimum wage, the Federal minimum wage, the State's adverse effect wage rate--which is the market rate or the local prevailing wage, whichever is highest. The Chambliss amendment would have required that H-2A employers pay the greater of either the Federal minimum wage or a newly defined prevailing wage. My staff called both departments mentioned on line 6 at page 2 of his amendment--that is the Occupational Employment Statistics Program and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--neither of which had a prevailing rate they could certify. This amendment, if promulgated, would have presented serious problems for our agricultural workers. For example, in my home State, the adverse effect wage rate is $9. This rate is higher than the Federal minimum wage. Because we do not know what the prevailing wage would mean in the Chambliss amendment, it would most likely result in a major cut of wages for agricultural workers. Now, in AgJOBS, we have negotiated a 3 year freeze of the adverse wage rate so that a study could take place. It would give us a period of time to work this issue out. I think to do this as an amendment, without negotiation, without a real hearing, is a tremendous mistake. So I am very pleased the Senator chose to withdraw his amendment. I would have spoken as strongly as I possibly could against it had he not withdrawn it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. My plea, and I know the Senator joins with me, is that the people of America will weigh in and say: Get this bill passed; that agricultural labor will weigh in, corn and citrus, potatoes, apples, wherever it is in the United States, wherever they need a consistent, legal workforce, will please weigh in and say to this body: Get that bill up and get it passed, and will say to the other body: Get that bill up and get it passed. Senator Craig and I have been coming to the floor from time to time to plead to give us time. I believe the majority leader will give us time--I am uncertain as to when, but I believe it is going to happen. My hope is that it happens sooner rather than later because the predictability is so important. Here we are, we are at the end of January, we are going into February. People are getting their loans to plant and that kind of thing, and they need to know they can deliver a crop. They need to know they can get the workforce to deliver that crop. So this is a huge issue economically for America and for the agricultural industry. So I wish to say to the Senator from Idaho and to the Senator from Massachusetts, I thank them so much for their work on this issue. I wish that the Senator from Georgia would be with us on AgJOBS, because I believe it is the right way to go, and I believe his State--Georgia-- will also be benefited by the H-2A reforms in the bill. For California, the H-2A reforms mean that this program, which hasn't been used by agriculture because it was so cumbersome, will now be used by agriculture. It, in effect, is the guest worker program. So passing AgJOBS secures a legal guest worker program for agriculture and also a path to legalization for those who have engaged in agricultural labor who will pay a fine, who will pay their taxes, who will commit to work in agricultural labor for another 3 years, thereby providing that consistent workforce. So I very much hope that the day will not be far distant when the Senator from Idaho and I will be on the floor and will, hopefully, be able to mount a substantial vote for this important bill. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, January 31, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meeting for the 110th Congress. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee at 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Hazards of Electronic Voting-- Focus on the Machinery of Democracy. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee at 224-6352.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA. I have decided to re-introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties. Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother. The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage. Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation. For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan. First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an Outstanding English Student his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable. His role as the Vice- President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the Most Inspirational Player of the Year in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous. Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for four years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of integrity who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a team player. His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was two hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team. Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be lost if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language. As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an upstanding All-American young man. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance. Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own individual fortitude, he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life. With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada. I also ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 20, and Cindy, age 18, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 15, Daniel, age 11, and Saray, age 9, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola 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 in this uncertain situation 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 his disbarment for the disservice he caused his immigration clients. Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, had he known about it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. 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, is a junior at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office. She is majoring in international business. At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, 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), a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also president of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. 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. It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family. The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. 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. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that eight letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA. Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know. Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road. The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children. Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status. I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred. I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer. Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card. Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now? It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Claudia Rico.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA. I have decided to re-introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties. Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother. The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage. Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation. For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan. First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an Outstanding English Student his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable. His role as the Vice- President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the Most Inspirational Player of the Year in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous. Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for four years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of integrity who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a team player. His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was two hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team. Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be lost if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language. As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an upstanding All-American young man. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance. Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own individual fortitude, he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life. With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada. I also ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California. Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 20, and Cindy, age 18, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 15, Daniel, age 11, and Saray, age 9, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola 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 in this uncertain situation 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 his disbarment for the disservice he caused his immigration clients. Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, had he known about it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney. Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. 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, is a junior at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office. She is majoring in international business. At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, 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), a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also president of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. 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. It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family. The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico. According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. 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. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that eight letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year old widow currently living in San Francisco. Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her. Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning. The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband. Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported. Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.'' Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and sisters explains, ``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.'' The San Francisco and Bay Area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right to remain in the country. Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years. I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.'' I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death. For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats. I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei ``Alice'' Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, CA. I have decided to offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996. Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 24 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States. After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 15 years old, Bruce, 12 years old, and Eva, 9 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety. The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them. I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 9 more years. The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are homeowners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream. Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed. According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage. I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of post traumatic stress disorder. According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native country of Laos during the Vietnam war. Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan. The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens. Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year old widow currently living in San Francisco. Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her. Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning. The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband. Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported. Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.'' Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and sisters explains, ``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.'' The San Francisco and Bay Area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right to remain in the country. Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years. I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.'' I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death. For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats. I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei ``Alice'' Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, CA. I have decided to offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer. The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996. Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 24 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States. After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 15 years old, Bruce, 12 years old, and Eva, 9 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety. The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them. I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 9 more years. The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are homeowners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream. Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed. According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage. I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of post traumatic stress disorder. According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native country of Laos during the Vietnam war. Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan. The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens. Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. Today, they face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system. The Fulop's story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief. The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of 2000, when the Fulops eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15 year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family. That same year their six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but. requires medical supervision to ensure her good health. The Fulop's youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians. Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulop's application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor. The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home. The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the owner and president of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for 12 years and currently has three full-time employees. The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.'' This is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist. The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from three years old to 19 years of age. Their eldest, Dennis, is a 4.0 honor student at Palomar Community College. His sister, Linda, has a 3.8 grade point average, is an honor student in high school, and is also taking one class at Palomar Community College. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children. I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.